1957-03-29

Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the unwarranted interference by the Prime Minister of Canada in the affairs of the C.B.C.-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Silly.


Mr. Lesage:: How silly can you be?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -as revealed to the House of Commons on Thursday, March 28, 1957, and the need for a clear understanding that there should be no interference by the government, or any member thereof, in the programming of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. Campney:: How childish can you get?


Mr. Mclvor:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, before I deal with this motion and give my opinion as to whether there is sufficient urgency of debate regarding this matter, I would appreciate some expression of views from each party in the house.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious what objection I would take on a point of order to this motion, and it is this. Having said last evening that we would ask for supply today, which gives an opportunity to debate any subject that is in the nature of a want of confidence motion-I admit in this case that there is no possibility of amending the motion -as I say, we will be asking for one month's supply in connection with all the items in the estimates for this year and the supplementary estimates which have been tabled. While I am sorry to invite debate on this subject at this time because I shall not be able to be 82715-178
here this afternoon, it is a fact that in accordance with past practice hon. members could debate this subject on the supply bill. For that reason I must point out that the previous rulings have always been that under these circumstances it would not be in order to move adjournment under rule 26.
As I say, I would regret to have a protracted debate in this particular manner because supply is desired, although it rests with the house as to whether it will be granted some time in the course of the next three or four days. At the same time I must point out that you, sir, and previous Speakers, have always ruled that under these circumstances a motion of this kind would not be entertained.


Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that if this motion is not allowed there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter later in the day on his motion in committee for interim supply. It was our view, and that is the reason we have presented this motion, that the matter referred to is of such importance in the life of this country that it should take precedence over anything else, including a general debate on any subject which may be entered into on the motion for interim supply.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will have an opportunity in a few moments to discuss on interim supply this matter as well as any other matter which hon. members may have in mind. I do not think I should allow the motion.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF TALKS BY PROFESSOR JOHN CONWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister secure and table in the house copies of the two talks made over the C.B.C. in October last by Professor John Conway of Winnipeg?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the matter to the attention of the C.B.C. and if they are available they will be tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister ascertain, if he does not already know, whether Professor Conway has made any talks over the C.B.C. since last October?


James Joseph McCann: I am not aware of any.

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



SUEZ CANAL-IMPOSITION OF TOLLS BY EGYPT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I understand the minister has recently been attending meetings of the advisory committee to the United Nations emergency force in New York. Has there been any change in Nasser's stand that all tolls must be paid to Egypt by shipping passing through the Suez canal?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, I do not know of any change in the position of the Egyptian government from that laid out in their memorandum of arrangements for the canal which was made public by them last week.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question supplementary to the one I asked him earlier this morning. Press dispatches indicate that Washington has issued a cautionary notice for United States ships to avoid using the Suez canal. Can the minister give the house any information concerning this move and let us know whether Canada is taking a similar course, or contemplating any such course with regard to Canadian ships?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no information to substantiate the statement made by my hon. friend, but we have been in touch in the last few days with the United States and with certain other governments with regard to a declaration made by the Egyptian government, and circulated to one or two of the main users of the canal, covering the arrangements which the government of Egypt proposes for the use of the canal when it is open to shipping. As I say, we are discussing that memorandum with the United States government. In so far as any precautionary actions relating to Canadian ships are concerned, that matter will be considered when we have concluded our discussions with the United States and other governments. But, as I understand it, there were only two or three Canadian ships which used the canal last year. So it is not a matter of immediate urgency so far as Canadian shipping is concerned.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister get further information concerning this United States move and advise the house, perhaps tomorrow?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I will be glad to find out. As a matter of fact, as I have said, Mr. Speaker, we are in touch with the United

States government to ascertain, if possible, what action it proposes to take in the light of this Egyptian document.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: A further question: Has Nasser notified the United Nations whether or not he will permit Israeli ships to use the Suez canal? Has he agreed to that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our position, as one member of the United Nations, in regard to the use of the Suez canal by the ships of all states without discrimination, has been made abundantly clear to the United Nations on more than one occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked whether or not Nasser had now agreed to permit the use of the Suez canal to Israeli ships, and I deserve a better answer than the evasive one just given. I am asking for an answer to that question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Egyptian government in respect of the use of the Suez canal has been outlined in a memorandum which was made public by the Egyptian government last week. Perhaps my hon. friend has read that memorandum. If he has, it answers his question.


Howard Charles Green: It does not say anything about Israel.


John George Diefenbaker: You are very evasive.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: On a question of privilege, I think we should thank the official opposition for the reduction of honest questions.


Mr. Ellis:: Question.


Mr. Rowe:: That is a great contribution.


Howard Charles Green: Following up the question of the Leader of the Opposition, is it not a fact that the statement by Egypt, to which the minister refers, did not deal with the question whether Israel would be permitted to use the canal? The question of Israel's right to use the canal is something else again. Can the minister tell us what position Nasser is taking with regard to the use of the canal by Israeli shipping?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the document to which I have referred the Egyptian government indicated the arrangements which, in their view, should be instituted for the use of the canal. No reference was made in that document one way or the other to Israeli ships but merely to ships using the canal. We have no information as to what action the Egyptian government will take in regard to Israeli ships using the canal.



UNITED STATES-ALLEGATIONS OF COMMUNIST LEANINGS BY CANADIAN DIPLOMAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the government plan to make a further protest to the United States government regarding the latest smear on Mr. Norman by a Senate committee of the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, we have already made our protest in emphatic terms. We can let the matter stand there.



UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been called to a report which appeared in last night's Journal to the effect that United States pressure had caused a reduction in the amount of uranium which Canada was prepared to supply to the United Kingdom? Would the minister care to comment upon that suggestion?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the report in question was quite inaccurate. The amount of uranium which was first negotiated for delivery over a period of five years was less than the amount finally decided upon, but every request from the United Kingdom government has been met in full in the agreement which has been reached for the shipment of uranium to Great Britain over the next five years.



REPORTED EFFECT ON CANADA OF PROPOSED EUROPEAN TRADE AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct
a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a news report in the latest issue of the Financial Post to the effect that "more than one-half of Canada's export trade with the United Kingdom and Europe is at stake on decisions to be made by a committee of European experts now meeting in Paris to plan the European free trade area." It is pointed out that Canadian firms exporting either raw materials or semi-processed goods may find themselves in the position within that free trade area where 82715-178J
Inquiries of the Ministry the amount of imported component parts may be reduced in order to qualify for participation within that area. Would the minister say whether or not this matter was discussed with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and what are the hopes that in the achievement of this free trade area Canada's exports, to the degree I have mentioned, will not be in danger of being diminished, if not altogether obliterated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have not
seen the article in question but from the description of it given by my hon. friend I would say that the writer has been having nightmares. About 90 per cent of the trade with the United Kingdom and with the free trade area is in the form of metals, foodstuffs and other raw materials. Whatever happens within the area, the demand for these products is not going to be diminished and in my opinion our market for them is not going to be diminished. If there is any barrier put up it will be a barrier against the world and not solely against Canada.
With respect to the 10 per cent of manufactured goods that we sell in that area, we are watching the situation closely. I believe that on balance we do not stand to lose a great deal of trade, whatever happens. The matter was discussed at Bermuda. The United Kingdom shares our apprehensions even though we both realize the benefits that might accrue from the establishment of a free trade area of that kind. We are both watching the situation closely. It will be some months before any country decides to join the agreement. In the meantime discussions will be held, and we hope that the ultimate result will not be damaging to Canada's trade.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA-INQUIRY AS TO ROUTING THROUGH ROGERS PASS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In the report which was issued yesterday dealing with the proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act, we are told in schedule A, with regard to the route to be followed, that the route in British Columbia is from the west boundary of Yoho national park along British Columbia highway No. 1 around the big bend of the Columbia river from Golden to Revelstoke, and thence westward through Kamloops.
I was under the impression that an agreement had been reached last year under which the trans-Canada highway would now be
2816	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry routed through Rogers pass. Would the minister say whether there has been any change- whether the situation as described in this pamphlet is correctly or incorrectly described?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: The latter understanding ot the hon. member is the correct one, that is, that the route will be by way of Rogers pass. The report which the hon. member has before him is for the year ending March 31, 1956, and at that time the route was as described in that report.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Will the study on urban dispersal recently made by the defence research board be made available to the House of Commons, and in view of the urgency of the matter will the minister say whether any action is contemplated on these recommendations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the defence research board reports to my colleague the Minister of National Defence. I have not seen the report and I had no knowledge, as a matter of fact, that one was in preparation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of National Defence inform the house if this study will be made available?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minisier of Nalional Health and Welfare):: Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to say that, as this matter concerns civil defence, my colleague and I have agreed that I should reply. This matter is being seriously considered and studied.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does that reply indicate that the report will be made available to members of the House of Commons?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1 understand that the group from McGill University who prepared the report made it public last fall.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance or, if he


prefers, possibly the Minister of Public Works may wish to answer. Is the government contemplating any moves at the present time to make additional mortgage money available for home construction besides the $160 million recently announced by the banks?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker, but I am able to inform hon. members that the banks have taken the necessary steps to have the additional amount of mortgage money made available. I have been in communication with the president of the Canadian Bankers Association and he, in turn, has been in communication with the chartered banks. Several of them have spoken to me. It seems clear that the necessary steps have been taken to inform the branch banks across the country of the arrangements, with the request that they make mortgage loans available on the understanding, of course, that good banking practice will always be followed.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister not aware that this amount announced by the banks is hardly sufficient for one little area in the lower mainland of British Columbia, and would mean the exclusion of the whole of the rest of Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member is probably under the impression that this is the total sum of mortgage money available. That is far from being the case.


George Harris Hees: May I
ask a supplementary question. Does the minister believe this latest action by the banks will counteract the damage which the government credit restrictions have done so far; and can he forecast the number of housing starts this year?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made certain assumptions with which I do not agree. I do not believe there has been any damaging effect to the over-all economy of Canada because of any policy of the government. Quite the contrary, I am satisfied that the economy of Canada has benefited by the action of the Canadian government.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is he prepared now to answer the question I asked the other day?


Jean Lesage: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The reply is as follows. For some time a committee of Banff citizens has been studying the question of a proposed civic centre in Banff. On December 19, Dr. P. G. Costigan, chairman of the committee, forwarded to me draft plans and other details of the proposed centre for consideration. These plans and the broad question of possible federal participation in the project were considered most carefully. On February 12 I replied to Dr. Costigan giving him my views, and this morning I received another letter from Dr. Costigan in which he says in part:
The reason for the delay (in answering your letter) has been that our committee have now turned the project over to the local chamber of commerce and the new committee that has been formed will consist of four members of the original civic centre committee plus an additional four or five members to be appointed by the executive of the chamber of commerce.


Charles Edward Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand

correct me if I am wrong-the minister suggested in his letter he was prepared to make this recommendation to the cabinet on the basis that the government would participate 50 per cent and the Banff citizens 50 per cent.


Jean Lesage: There is no short reply to this question, so I could not give it on the orders of the day. I will send a copy of the correspondence to the hon. member.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What is the present situation with respect to the work on the northern Ontario pipe line? Is Trans-Canada Pipe Lines now doing any work for Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and if so, is it under any formal contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is finishing the surveys of the northern Ontario section and is preparing specifications which will lead to the call for tenders for the laying of the pipe. Certain contracts for the clearing of the area of the pipe line have been let by Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, and these contracts are being supervised by Defence Construction Limited, a crown company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister got the import of my question as to whether
Interim Supply
there are any contractual relations between Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited with respect to this matter, supplementary to the information that he gave the house on March 13?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am quite sure no contract has been signed with Northern Ontario Pipe Line-at least, I have not signed it. I am reasonably sure it has not been signed but I will investigate. The work has been carried out under a letter of intent, and at some stage a contract will be signed but I do not think it has been signed prior to this time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Walter Edward Harris: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $275,279,008.34, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto, a sum not exceeding $1,605,946.59, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958.
He said: The amounts provided by this bill are intended to provide for necessary requirements of the public service during April. The form of the bill is the same as that of similar bills passed in previous years. The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply, and the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I want to raise on this supply motion what I do consider to be a genuine grievance, a grievance shared not only by myself but by this parliament and I think the people of Canada. I refer, of course, to the recent incident in which the Prime Minister has admitted he wrote a letter or letters to Mr. Dunton protesting the use by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of a certain gentleman as commentator on the C.B.C. The Prime Minister says he had taken this action as a private citizen and he claimed that that was his right. I have just received a copy of yesterday's Hansard which shows the Prime Minister's remarks

Interim, Supply
and I find where the Prime Minister said that he did have correspondence with Mr. Dunton in October. I omit a line or two at page 2769 and then read where he says:
. . . but as a Canadian citizen, about the tone of a broadcast I had heard.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked:
Would the Prime Minister be willing to table that letter?
The Prime Minister replied:
No, I would not, sir. I would have no objection to showing my hon. friend the correspondence but I would not like to set a precedent that correspondence between a member of the government and someone who happens to be in any one of these crown agencies should be tabled.
I take it, sir, that the leopard has changed his spots and the Prime Minister is now a member of the government writing to one of these crown agencies and has ceased to be the private citizen in which capacity he had protested to the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C.
When I attempted to move the motion for the adjournment of the house this morning I did it with a knowledge that at least I was being consistent. During my years in this house and in the C.B.C. committee I think my colleagues can bear witness to the fact that I have always maintained there should be the greatest amount of freedom in the expression of opinion. That freedom of expression should not be denied to the system of communication which is controlled under the jurisdiction of this parliament, and that it is so controlled is the greater reason in fact why that expression should be free provided all sides of the opinion be given an opportunity of presentation.
My holding these opinions in regard to intellectual freedom has sometimes earned the ire of some hon. members in this house and I think perhaps particularly of some of my friends to my left, the members of the Social Credit party, who have attempted by every perfectly legitimate means at their disposal both in the house and in the committee to keep certain people off the air. Their actions in that regard have always been violently opposed by myself for reasons which I have stated from time to time when the occasion arose.
The fact that the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister is one of the reasons and the greatest reason why he should not have made that attempt. He claims as his right as a private citizen to be critical of the C.B.C. and I admit he is in a very difficult position, but I suggest there are other means he could have taken than to sign a letter. After all, he cannot avoid the fact and

he would not want to that he is the Prime Minister of Canada, but surely he is not sufficiently naive to believe that he can write a letter to the chairman of a crown agency and not add to the opinion that he expresses in such a letter the weight, prestige and influence of the first minister of Canada.
I do not even know the name of this person whom the Prime Minister does not like to hear on the air and thinks it is a waste of public money to have on the air, and I am glad I do not because then I cannot be accused of any ulterior motive in stating this grievance. I do not know the opinion this gentleman put forward nor do I know for what reason the Prime Minister objected to it and I submit that my knowledge of those things would not be relevant to the motion which I attempted to move this morning; but that I do not know these things is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, and the fact that hon. members of this house do not know them is his responsibility since he has refused to table the letters.
As I said a moment ago his reason for that refusal was that he would be creating a precedent. I would say that if the Prime Minister were to go unchallenged for his recent action it would create a precedent which the present Prime Minister and no future prime minister can be allowed to follow. I have asserted vehemently and I assert again that speech must be free and by the same token listening must be free. If we are to restrict freedom of listening we are indulging in the very same practices which we criticize as totalitarian as practised in certain other lands by other peoples.
Certainly there are the rules defined by decency, there are rules in regard to sedition and there is also the protection of the Criminal Code; but the ultimate responsibility for the choice of programs lies with the board of governors of the C.B.C. set up by and responsible to this parliament. To come to an end of the matter quite briefly, sir, because I think I have made my point, it is for parliament to see to it that that body under its jurisdiction must be free to make its own decisions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon in protesting most strongly against the action of the Prime Minister last October in writing as he did to the chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I must say at the outset that I was taken by surprise when the Prime Minister made the statement which he gave to the house yesterday. As hon. members will know, I raised this question in the house last Monday

by making reference to Arthur Blakely's column in Monday morning's Montreal Gazette. Hon. members will recall the brevity of the question which I put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It was brief because I did not think Arthur Blakely's charge was correct. I thought it was a serious charge but I thought the government would surely be in a position to give the lie to it. Accordingly when the Prime Minister stood up yesterday and admitted that as a Canadian citizen or as a member of the government-whichever he wants to choose-he wrote a letter complaining about certain talks that had been given over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I was dumbfounded.
My sense of surprise is all the greater because I recall an exchange that took place in this house a little over a year ago. I refer to an exchange between my friends to my right, my Progressive Conservative friends, and the Minister of National Revenue and the Prime Minister on March 14, 1956.
On that occasion there had been reference to a certain telecast which some hon. members thought not in the best of taste. The hon. member for Eglinton had asked the opinion of the government on this telecast. The Minister of National Revenue-quite rightly I thought at the time and I still think it-refused to state his own opinion on that telecast. Instead he gave an answer which he obtained from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
This was done prior to March 14 and accordingly on that date last year the hon. member for Eglinton rose on a question of privilege and complained that the answer given to his question was an answer supplied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and that the Minister of National Revenue had not answered my hon. friend's question as to what he himself thought of the particular program.
I remember the incident very well. In fact, I am surprised at my Tory friends getting into this question now as they did yesterday because a year ago they wanted expressions on C.B.C. programming to be given by members of the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Characteristically inconsistent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of National Health and Welfare says it is characteristic of the Tories.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said characteristically inconsistent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister's words are on the record. My contention is that the government is being equally inconsistent, in that it
Interim Supply
has departed from the sound position that was taken a year ago by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). On that occasion the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) did not get very far when he sought to raise the matter as one of privilege at the opening of the house on March 14, 1956. He was invited by the Speaker to leave the matter to be dealt with on orders of the day. Accordingly on the orders of the day the hon. member for Eglinton pressed his point and urged the Minister of National Revenue to give his opinion. The minister replied in part as follows, as reported on page 2127 of Hansard:
Now, I am not in charge of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I have never interfered in its operations or in its policies. The Department of National Revenue has nothing to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The order in council, by which I was appointed, appointed me as the one who would report to parliament for the C.B.C. That I have attempted to do. I purposely have seen that the answers are put as they are, that the C.B.C. replies to the questions that are asked, and they take the full responsibility.
When the hon. member for Eglinton was not satisfied with the refusal of that particular minister, a proper refusal in my view, to state his own opinion on that particular case, he put a question to the Prime Minister in these words:


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the Prime Minister
whether he approves of this type of television broadcast of an actual marriage solemnized, a film being made of it and broadcast on television, at some expense, which he will find set forth on page 2115 of Hansard, including performers' fees?
Here is the reply of the Prime Minister:


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The hon. gentleman has obtained the facts now. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is responsible to parliament. It is a body that has been set up by legislation of parliament, with powers that are provided in that legislation.
I have seen several things on the C.B.C. that I did not think were in good taste. I did not see the telecast to which this question refers, but I have never attempted to exercise any censorship over the activities of the C.B.C. I do not think my personal opinion about the matter in which they select their programs is a matter about which there should be any debate in parliament.
There is no indication in the record as to what happened at that point, but I remember there was applause from this corner of the house at the stand taken by the Prime Minister, that it was not his business any more than it was the business of the Minister of National Revenue to exercise any control or censorship with respect to the programming of the C.B.C.
It is in the light of that proper position which the government took a year ago, even when two ministers were taunted and urged by my friends of the Progressive Conservative party to take an improper position, that it is so strange that only a few months later

Interim Supply
the Prime Minister did what he said he had never done, namely exercise censorship over the activities of the C.B.C.


An hon. Member:: What censorship?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What censorship? He wrote a letter to the chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation expressing his view that it was not a wise expenditure of public money to put on the air certain talks which he had heard by a certain young professor, who apparently was Professor John Conway of the University of Manitoba at Winnipeg.


An hon. Member:: Where is the censorship?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is the censorship? Apparently there have been no talks since by that same Professor Conway. That is the answer. We do not know yet what that professor said on that occasion. Some reports have reached us as to the nature of the talks, but I hope we will have them in full when they are tabled tomorrow or on Monday by the Minister of National Revenue. Such information as some of us have been able to get would indicate that the talks were not extreme one way or the other. But as the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) has said, that does not matter. Surely what is at stake here is the principle of freedom of speech, the principle of the independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in its programming from interference by the Canadian government or any member of that government, including the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister tried to say that he has a dual personality, that on the one hand he is a private Canadian citizen who happens to live at 24 Sussex street, Ottawa, and on the other hand he is the Prime Minister of Canada, as he says, through no fault of his own. I think we all know that the Prime Minister cannot have it that way. He knows that he cannot make any utterance that does not carry with it the weight of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Not so very long ago I was endeavouring to have certain papers tabled in the House of Commons which were not tabled and in the course of the discussion the Speaker said that this was a matter which would have to be determined by the government. At that point these words appear on page 2153 of Hansard of March 13, 1957.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have stated my position on the subject, and I take it that I have stated the position of the government.
That is what the minister said at that particular time. The government did not have to hold a cabinet meeting; the minister did not have to consult with his colleagues. The minister's statement, in view of the

principle of the solidarity of the cabinet, constituted a statement of the position of the government.
A few days ago, on March 26, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) asked a question of one minister of the cabinet. He did not get what to him was a satisfactory reply so he asked another minister. The Speaker interrupted as follows, and I quote from page 2687 of Hansard of that day:
I listened to all questions asked and answers given and when one minister gives government policy, because of government solidarity, that is the answer of the whole cabinet.
I suggest that, when a member of the government, to use the Prime Minister's own words yesterday, writes a letter to the chairman of the board of governors of an emanation of the crown, that is a clear case of government interference with a corporation which should have independence in its programming, that is a clear case of violating the excellent principle which was stated a year ago by both the Minister of National Revenue and the Prime Minister.
On Monday when I put the initial question on this matter to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity that day as acting Prime Minister I had assumed that the charge was inflated, that there really was nothing to it. But now that we have had this admission from the Prime Minister that Arthur Blakely was right in the charges he made in his column last Monday, I submit it is time we found out how many such letters have been written to Mr. Dunton by other members of the cabinet. If others have not written letters, I think it is time we knew whether or not there have been phone calls or conversations or suggestions by members of the government that certain people should not be kept on the air.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) might tell us whether he has had any experiences with this sort of thing in days gone by. He might tell us whether there was ever an occassion when his broadcasting was limited. He might tell us whether or not in those days when he was not in the party to which he now belongs any complaint was made that his broadcasting was a little too far to the left, was a little too radical. He could be very helpful in telling us what his experience was at that time. Since he is now in the party perhaps he could find out who it was that complained.


Mr. Hansell:: I complained, for one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) would like to know whether the complaint of my hon. friend from Macleod was sufficient to

get him off the air, or whether there were complaints from Liberals and, particularly, from members of the cabinet.
Mr. Chairman, everyone in the house knows that we in this party have supported the C.B.C. across the years, and that we have supported the government in its defence of public control of radio, and in its policy toward the C.B.C. In fact there were times when we have given stronger support to the government in these matters than have the back benches of the government party, and that is now being acknowledged. We still take that position, and our concern now is not that the C.B.C. has done anything that weakens our faith in that corporation and in the policy of public control of radio. Our concern is with what the Prime Minister has done by writing a letter which because he wrote it was written by the Prime Minister of Canada.
I think a special tribute should go to those who direct the C.B.C. Apparently-and this is one of the reasons we would like to see that correspondence-there was a reply to the Prime Minister by Mr. Dunton in which he set out the position of the C.B.C. and its right to carry on its own programming. It seems to us that if we have freedom of discussion on the C.B.C. in this country it is due to belief in that principle by Mr. Dunton and those around him rather than to sufficient belief in that principle on the part of the government, and Mr. Dunton and his colleagues deserve the tribute of parliament for being sensitive to their responsibility to parliament as a whole rather than any alleged responsibility to the Prime Minister or to the government.
Mr. Chairman, I waited for a moment after my colleague from Saskatoon had sat down, to see whether the Prime Minister had something to say. I hope he will not let this debate go much further without having some statement to make on this matter. If he has any defence, let us hear it. As far as we can see there is no excuse for the Prime Minister interfering in the programming of the C.B.C. in the way he has done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I, too, am waiting to hear from the Prime Minister what he has to say in this matter. He has not indicated that he is rising at this time, so I will take this opportunity to express a few opinions.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the house experienced a severe shock yesterday when the Prime Minister made the disclosure he did as to the letter he had written to the chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and that it was disturbed also by the terms in 82715-179
Interim Supply
which the Prime Minister made that disclosure. The house is aware of the fact that the Prime Minister was not taken by surprise by a question on this matter. The disclosure was not made as the result of any slip of the tongue on the part of the Prime Minister. On the contrary, he had several days' notice, the question having been raised in this house on Monday. So, we may approach the Prime Minister's statement as one made by him deliberately.
Now, sir, the nature of the Prime Minister's statement was, I think, a shock to the house because of the professions that the government has made in times past on the subject of its relations with the C.B.C. and, particularly, because of things which the Prime Minister himself has said on that subject. We have heard, not once but many times, not only the profession but the boast on the part of the government that there is no attempt whatever by it to interfere in any way with the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and never has the government attempted to make any exception in that regard with reference to the programming activities of the corporation.
The attitude which the government has professed in this house has been that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is responsible to parliament, and to parliament alone-not to the government.
The Minister of National Revenue has declared in this house many a time, and has declared in the committee on radio broadcasting many a time, that he is not the minister to whom the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is in any sense responsible, but that he is simply a sort of mouthpiece in the house, or an avenue of communication between the corporation on the one hand and the House of Commons on' the other.
Now, sir, it is well to bear in mind after the tabling yesterday of the report of the Fowler royal commission on the operation of the corporation that the study made by that commission and also the study made by the previous commission, the so-called Massey commission which also considered the operation and set-up of the corporation, alike proceeded on the basis that the corporation is responsible to parliament and to parliament alone. Many of the recommendations of both those royal commissions proceeded on the assumption that there would be a direct responsibility on the part of the corporation to parliament and to parliament alone, and that there would be no relationship between the government and the corporation.
The Prime Minister referred in his statement yesterday to certain broadcasts, but he did not identify them. I do not know

Interim Supply
what those broadcasts were. I certainly have concluded that I did not hear them. It might well be that if I had heard those broadcasts I would have disagreed with the opinions expressed by the broadcasters just as strongly as, evidently, the Prime Minister did. I can only conjecture as to that. It is the right of anyone to disagree with any opinion expressed over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, just as it is the right of any citizen in a free country to disagree with an opinion expressed in any other form.
Had I heard that broadcast, I might have concluded that according to my ideas it was not the kind of use I should like to see made of public funds and that opinions of that nature should not be put over the air at public expense-for public expense is certainly involved. But as to that I can express no certainty. I must simply accept the fact that the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, declared before the committee on broadcasting times without number, is that it seeks to give to the listeners over the years a variety of opinions and, somehow, to achieve what it calls balance in opinion broadcasts.


Mr. Byrne:: Canadian opinion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not just Canadian opinion. That is a very ill-considered interruption by the hon. member for Kootenay East. A great many of the opinion broadcasts which have been put over the air at public expense are on the part of people who are not in any way Canadians. That is a silly interjection. Evidently the hon. member is not aware of the kind of opinion broadcast which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has sometimes paid substantial amounts of money to give to the Canadian people.
The next striking and shocking thing about the Prime Minister's statement yesterday in this regard is that he stripped away the pretence that the government has maintained, now, for many a year. I am sure I do not need, Mr. Chairman, to expand on the subject of the danger of government interference in the matter of broadcasting of opinions by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Please note, sir, that I said "government interference". I have chosen that expression deliberately.
The danger of government interference is a hundred-fold more serious in a country such as ours in which broadcasting is controlled in all its forms by one government-appointed corporation, and where all the national broadcasting is carried on by that corporation. It is the only medium through which opinion can be broadcast all across Canada. It is a crown corporation, and if that

crown corporation in its programming activities is subject to government interference at any time, then, sir, we shall have created here a weapon in the hands of government which could be used for the purpose not only of throttling expressions of contrary public opinion but for exercising such an' unfair and improper influence on the people as to make government in this country a dangerous leviathan.
Now, sir, so far as we in the official opposition are concerned we will always in this regard stand firmly for two principles of unchallengeable validity. The first is that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shall be responsible to parliament alone and not to the government and, second, that there shall be on the part of the government no interference whatever with the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in particular with its programming activities and above all its programming activities in relation to opinion broadcasts.
It is quite evident that what the Prime Minister did last fall was in fact to attempt to influence the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with regard to the broadcasting of opinion. No person in this chamber is going to be so naive as to construe what the Prime Minister did, in the light of what he said yesterday, as anything but an attempt to influence the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with reference to opinion broadcasting.


Mr. Tucker:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am going to be pressed a little for time, but if my hon. friend will wait until I have finished my remarks I will be glad to deal with his question if there is time.


Walter Adam Tucker: Do you think it is wrong-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Interim Supply
a communication was written or would be understood by the receiver as having been written by the right hon. gentleman as a private citizen? How can the Prime Minister of Canada ever be a private citizen as long as he holds that office and is expressing opinions to a crown corporation in relation to a matter of public interest and concerning the expenditure of public money? It was an amazing fiction and I am sure we will never hear anything to equal it in this house as long as any one of us is here.
I wish to say a word in conclusion concerning the attitude of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, particularly of its senior officials and naturally in particular of Mr. Dunton, the chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I have had occasion in the committee on radio broadcasting frequently to bring up questions of C.B.C. policy, C.B.C. administration and C.B.C. broadcasting activities, which have been at variance with the views of Mr. Dunton. We have oftentimes differed quite strongly in the opinions which have been expressed, but I will say this: I have always, in this house and in the committee, defended the right, the untrammelled right, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to state its position and to take its responsibility. Mr. Dunton has said repeatedly in that committee, "I take responsibility for this; the corporation takes responsibility for it." Not infrequently Mr. Dunton, when these questions have been raised, has admitted that the broadcasting corporation has made a mistake, and that the kind of mistake that was made on occasions referred to would not be repeated on other occasions. On other occasions he has stoutly defended, as is his undoubted right, the programs of the corporation in the face of criticisms expressed by members of the committee.
As long as I am a member of parliament I certainly intend to defend Mr. Dunton's right to support the policies and defend the programming activities of the corporation even when I disagree with them. But when there is disagreement, sir, let it be in the proper place, let it be in the houses of parliament. Parliament is supreme; parliament is the body to which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is responsible. And in this particular if, as appears from the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, Mr. Dunton resisted the attempt of the Prime Minister to influence the programming activities of the C.B.C., then I say this parliament owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Dunton for having stood firmly for a principle that the Prime Minister ought to have been the first to uphold and which at that time he evidently was discarding and repudiating.

Therefore, sir, there is here a clear-cut issue at stake, an issue that does not concern what was said in the broadcast, for I still do not know what was said. I might disagree with the opinions expressed in that broadcast just as strongly as the Prime Minister evidently did. But I do say, sir, that it is a dangerous step that the Prime Minister has taken here. It is a step so dangerous that if this sort of thing should ever set an example either for the Prime Minister himself on future occasions or for any of his ministers, or any ministers in any future government, then, sir, the result of this tampering could have the greatest dangers for public freedom and for the right of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to function without a form of interference which, if it is repeated or pressed, could trammel and could endanger freedom of expression and freedom of thought in Canada.


Walter Adam Tucker: What I wanted to ask the hon. member for Eglinton was to deal with the questions that he raised in my mind in his speech. He indicated that he, as a leading member of the Progressive Conservative party, and one who I presume would be a member of the government in the future if they were to be elected-


An hon. Member:: 


Walter Adam Tucker: -takes the attitude that he has the right to criticize the C.B.C. in this house because it is responsible to parliament. If he has the full right to do that, I was wondering whether he felt that right did not extend to every other member of parliament, and whether he would say that any member on the government side including a member of the government did not have the same right at least to criticize. Where does he draw the line?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member's question is interesting because it presages events to come. It is quite evident he has exposed what is in his mind in the shape of things to come, and we trust will come very soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "A plague on both your houses."


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, so far as what the next government will do is concerned, I suggest the hon. member address his question to the man who will be the head of the next government, the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as he wishes my opinion as to the relationship between the next government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation let me say this. Any

Conservative administration would stand firm for the maintenance and the full respect of those two principles I stated today: first, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, created by parliament, shall be responsible to parliament and parliament shall be free. It shall be free to discuss these matters, as it ought. The other principle that would be observed would be that there should be no interference by the government with the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There would be no attempt at that kind of influence which was exerted by this kind of letter, or attempted to be exerted by this kind of letter, and there certainly would not be, in the face of what has been done here, any attempt to turn around and pretend, in the face of the inescapable facts, that a Prime Minister, in relation to a public matter and the expenditure of public moneys by a public crown corporation, can act or speak as a private citizen and not as the head of the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My question is this. I hope the hon. member will think carefully before he answers it. Did my hon. friend ever write a letter to the chairman of the C.B.C. about a program?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have often written letters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I should not say "often". I have written some letters from time to time to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation where people who have heard broadcasts have drawn them to my attention and criticized them and, as my duty to the corporation,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -I have passed such letters on to the corporation frequently. Whenever they have come in I have passed them on, and I have often asked-I should not say "often"-I have asked the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on several occasions whether I could see the text of a particular broadcast, and I have used information of that kind, the text of broadcasts, to bring such matters before the committee on radio broadcasting for discussion, as any member ought to do, as any member on such a committee has the right to do.


Walter Edward Harris: Only members of the committee?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, any member of this house has the right.
Interim Supply


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Any member of this house has the right that I was speaking of to bring these matters before the committee. Of course he has. And if any member of the house wants to do that, if he is not a member of the committee, then certainly he should come before the committee, or he could bring his complaints before the committee through a member of the committee. But, sir, that is a very different thing, a private member of the house doing that, from the Prime Minister of Canada as head of the government doing that very same thing.
Now, we had an example in this house last summer when apparently members of the government, or at least members of the Liberal party, stung by the way in which the public had reacted to their shocking behaviour in the pipeline debate, then sought to make complaints in this house that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in its news broadcasts, was in fact reporting the events of this house in a manner that a Liberal member here argued was reflecting unfavourably upon the government. Well, certainly the facts did reflect very unfavourably upon the government, and upon its policy in this house. That, in fact, was a tribute to the fair way in which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation carried on its news broadcasts during that pipeline debate.
Now, I do not question the right of a member of this house to raise such questions in the house, but that, sir, is a very different thing altogether from the Prime Minister, the head of this government, attempting to, exercise an influence over the head of this crown corporation in its activities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman,
all I can say is that the reply of the hon. member has demonstrated the hypocrisy of the speech he made prior to the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The comment that has come from the minister is about what one would expect from one who has frequently sought to ride roughshod over parliament. Any statement in this house of a principle that a crown corporation is responsible to parliament of course would be unacceptable to the minister because he has never had any idea yet of any crown corporation being responsible to anybody but himself. It is for that reason that even though in this way he invades the normal spheres of other departments in the government, he sees to it that half of all the crown corporations are responsible to him. We know just about how difficult it is in those cases for parliament to exercise any attempt at a serious review of the activities of those corporations,

Interim Supply
so it is very difficult for this minister to understand that the relationship between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and parliament is supposed, according to the statements made by the government and according to the statutes, to be a very different kind of relationship from that which exists between parliament on the one hand and any other crown corporation on the other.
This principle has been laid down time and again, and it has been repeated in this house time and again by government spokesmen that this corporation is responsible to parliament alone and not to the government. Therefore, sir, we are going to continue to stand firm for the principle that the corporation is responsible to parliament and that parliament shall be free, according to parliamentary procedures, to exercise its responsibility in the freest sense with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We shall continue to resist, as Liberal members who have any appreciation of what the word "liberal" once meant in this country ought to resist, any attempt on the part of the government to exercise governmental interference over the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and in particular the broadcasts of opinion in relation to public matters.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member has not
answered the question I put to him, so I shall repeat it. I believe he takes the attitude that it is all right for him to write Mr. Dunton criticizing programs although he is a leading member of the Progressive Conservative party and one who, I am sure, considers himself as a possible minister in a government if that party were to be elected. -Nobody expects that but themselves-but if they do is there any real difference between writing letters to Mr. Dunton criticizing programming actions as a potential member of the government and any other member of parliament on this side of the house even one who is a member of the government writing letters protesting the programming? If the hon. member believes it is right for him to do it does he say it is wrong for anybody on the Liberal side to do it? They are also members of parliament. This board is not sacrosanct; it is responsible to parliament and so to members of parliament. If he believes it is right to write letters like that, then why does he become so exercised when a member on this side of the house, who is a member of parliament and who happens to hold office, does so? Have we not the same rights as members of the opposition?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member answers-
IMr. Fleming.]


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was asked a question.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member
for Eglinton endeavours to answer that question, I wonder if I might put a question jointly to the member for Rosthern and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Do they not recognize that there is a distinction between the member for Rosthern expressing opinions on loans to farmers, cash advances and what have you, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce doing the same thing? The minister cannot make the kind of comments the member for Rosthern can make because he is a member of the government and what he says is government policy. What my hon. friend from Rosthern says is his opinion as a private member, but when the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaks on any matter he is stating government policy. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for Rosthern not admit that there is a difference between them? Is that not the answer to the question that has been put to the hon. member for Eglinton?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member for Rosthern, at the conclusion of a speech by the hon. member for Eglinton, asked a question and received an answer. Subsequently to that, the hon. member for Winnipeg North rose and I intended to recognize him. I would not think that the second remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern were too much in the nature of a question, and I thought rather that he had taken his part in the debate. Since the hon. member for Eglinton has been recognized, I think I should now recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rosthern sought to leave the impression that he had asked me a question which has not been answered and if I may, with the acquiescence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I should like to answer so that there may be no suggestion that the question has not been fully answered. I did answer the question once, but apparently the hon. member was not too clear in his thinking and the answer has not sunk in.
Let me say at the outset because he prefaced his observation with remarks which might be mistaken as a statement of fact and which were not intended to put me in the best light, that far from considering myself in the light of which he accused me, I consider myself as a working, ordinary member

of the Conservative party with no pretensions except to try to do my duty here-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -as a member of the party in loyalty to the leader of this party. Now, let us put that quite clearly at the beginning.
With regard to the portion of his extended remarks which had to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, let me say it is the right of any private member of this house to communicate with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think it is not only his right but in some cases it is his duty if he gets complaints to pass them on. But that is a very different thing from the Prime Minister of Canada doing what he did. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre certainly puts the view in his remarks that I hold in this respect. There is all the difference in the world in fact, as well as in the impression created upon the mind of the recipient of that letter, when he gets a letter from a private member of this house passing on a communication or expressing an opinion or asking to see a particular script about which he has had some complaint and wanting to bring the matter before the proper parliamentary forum, that is a very different matter from the Prime Minister of Canada doing it. He is not a private member of the house. If you say that in this regard the Prime Minister of Canada is in precisely the same position as every other member of the house, then you have destroyed the very thing that the members of this government and the Minister of National Revenue times without number have said in this house, that they do not pretend there is any suggestion of responsibility on the part of the corporation to the government; that this crown corporation in that respect is different from any other crown corporation. This is the thing we must emphasize, that the government here has no right to stand over the corporation, and nobody can pretend that when the Prime Minister writes a letter, having regard to the historic principle of cabinet solidarity, that is not an attempt by the government to influence the crown corporation. The hon. member has not grasped this significant principle which is absolutely axiomatic. If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is to function in a manner free of government interference, then there must not be attempts on the part of the Prime Minister or other members of the government to influence the programming activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and above all opinion broadcasts on public issues.
Interim Supply


Mr. Siewarl (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that in the heat there has also been generated a little light and there is a lesson to be learned by all members of parliament. We cannot completely dissociate ourselves from our private lives. That is one of the prices which we pay as members of parliament and I would therefore deplore a member of parliament, even as a private individual, trying to bring some pressure to bear on any emanation of the crown because, as I say, he could not dissociate himself completely from his position in the community.
But the position of a member of parliament surely is vastly different from that of the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister has been guilty at best of an error of judgment and at worst of a gross attempt to suppress ideas on the C.B.C.
When the Prime Minister gets up in this house and tells us that he wrote the letter as a private citizen I accept his word. I disagree with the hon. gentleman intensely on many things but there is none in this house who would doubt the integrity of the Prime Minister even if we doubt his political wisdom at times. And so when he tells me that he wrote this letter as a private citizen I believe him, but I remind him that he cannot dissociate himself at any time from the position which he holds as the first minister in this country and that therefore he is responsible for an error in judgment.
He has left behind him some confusion, for the Prime Minister said yesterday as reported at page 2769 of Hansard that the letter he wrote to Mr. Dunton he wrote as a Canadian citizen and then just a little later on when he was asked to table the letter he said:
... I would not like to set a precedent that correspondence between a member of the government and someone who happens to be in any one of these crown agencies should be tabled.
There is a complete and utter contradiction and the Prime Minister owes it to the house and to the country to clear up that contradiction. I think he would be well advised to admit that perhaps he made an error in judgment in writing this letter. One could easily pursue this matter at great length and follow what would perhaps be nothing other than a sort of intellectual hare.
Was the Prime Minister attempting to suppress freedom of speech on the air? A case could be made out for it and that is why the hon. gentleman has put himself in such a vulnerable position, but I happen to believe him on this particular occasion. However, there is something else which rather worries me.
Mr. Davidson Dunton, the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C., on more than one occasion has stood up to ministers of

Interim Supply
the crown and he has incurred a decided amount of unpopularity. Now, I have no illusions about the ruthlessness of the Liberal government. The hon. member for Vancouver South, if he wanted to tell the tale, could tell a very interesting story. The editor of the Montreal Star, if he wanted to tell the tale, could tell a very interesting story about interference from high places in a broadcast he was connected with.
What assurance can this house have as long as the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. can be removed at the whim of the government that Mr. Dunton will be here when parliament meets again in the fall? Suppose there are those in the government who decide that this man will not listen to them and that he is not amenable to reason and therefore he must be removed. What safeguard or security is there?
I am going to suggest to the Prime Minister that, if he is still the Prime Minister of Canada when another parliament has been voted into power, he ought to give something more than careful consideration, if any legislation is brought down affecting the C.B.C., to having the chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation put in the same position as the Auditor General of Canada. It is not right that a man in a position as vulnerable as Mr. Dunton's should be left at the mercy of a government. If he is going to be removed then let him be removed by joint address of both houses of parliament. Then, if the government does try anything, the matter will be brought out into the open and we will know that the situation is not that he has suddenly become ill and has to go away for a rest cure. We will be able to fight the government on that issue. It is vitally important that the position of the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. who has to fight this political pressure all the time should be safeguarded.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, this broadcast has come in for a great deal of discussion in the last couple of days and there has been much publicity about it right across the country. I think it is a great shame that the Prime Minister has refused to table his correspondence with Mr. Dunton because the people have a right to know the answers to two important questions.
The first of these is what was there in this broadcast that caused the Prime Minister to think he had the right to write to the head of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and object to someone like this young professor being allowed to use the airwaves to express his opinions which were obviously not flattering to this government? Secondly,

the people of Canada want to know-and this is becoming a most interesting question to them-what is the difference between a letter written by the Prime Minister as a private citizen and one written by him as prime minister of Canada.
If that letter were tabled we could see the difference, if any exists. People want to know if the Prime Minister in writing as a private citizen writes on plain notepaper from 24 Sussex Street heading the letter with the words, "This is a private letter,"-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What do you do? How do your letters go out?


George Harris Hees: -and does it start off, "Dear Dave," and end up with, "Yours sincerely, Louis St. Laurent"; or is it written from the Prime Minister's office in the East Block as Prime Minister on official letterhead beginning with the words, "Dear Mr. Dunton" and signed "L. S. St. Laurent, Prime Minister".
The people want to know what is the difference between these two types of letters. The Prime Minister seems to believe there can be two different types and the people want to know. I personally do not think there can be.


An hon. Member:: It is not important.


George Harris Hees: I want to ask the Prime Minister a couple of questions. Does he really believe that he can divide himself into these two roles as prime minister and private citizen when he is writing important letters to heads of state like President Eisenhower when he said that he wrote as a private citizen-incidentally, we would like to see that letter-and as he wrote this letter to the head of a crown corporation, Mr. Dunton?
I would like to ask just one more question and this is of personal interest. Has the Prime Minister been successful in ferreting out the identity of the cabinet minister who leaked out the information that he had written this letter? I understand that he has been striving very hard to try and find out the offending cabinet minister and as a matter of personal interest I would like to know if he has learned the identity of the culprit.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, you would, eh?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the Prime Minister
nothing to say on this issue?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the last remark of the hon. member for Broadview is a figment of his imagination. It never crossed my mind to inquire from anyone how it leaked out-if it did leak out-that

I had written a letter to Mr. Dunton. Perhaps I did discuss it with one or two of my colleagues-


George Harris Hees: Well, somebody did it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -but it
was not the kind of leak that inspired the article which was published in the Gazette because that referred to an entirely different set of circumstances.


George Harris Hees: That is how the information got out.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The information got out because I was asked if I had written any letter to Mr. Dunton and I replied that I had because in fact I was not going to deny something that I had done.


George Harris Hees: That is how the original information came out.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The original information was not information to the effect that I had written a letter about that incident, the so-called information about complaints that had been made concerning the attitude of the C.B.C. toward the Liberal party. That is something which was in no way connected with the letter I wrote; but it is a coincidence that I did write about something else. I wrote a letter and when asked if I had written any letter I answered that I had written one.
I made no attempt to keep this young man off the air. I did suggest that it might not be too bad if he were introduced and described as the person he is but that I felt it was a misuse of the funds that had to be appropriated by parliament and that we have to recommend to parliament to be appropriated to have that kind of persiflage tone used in a so-called historical description of what had been the policy of Canada as a nation. I did suggest that if I were a member of the opposition I would severely criticize the appropriation of funds for that kind of broadcast.
I felt sure that this was not something that had been chosen by Mr. Dunton and I suggested that there should be someone who had a sense of real responsibility to see to it that matters of that kind were not provided at public expense. There is a difference between interfering with freedom of speech and using funds appropriated by parliament for presumably educational purposes if they are not really considered by those who have responsibility in the corporation as being of educational value to the listeners.
I was told that there were only two of these broadcasts. I heard the second broadcast and I had a copy of the first. I think I had a copy of the first one before I wrote
Interim Supply
to Mr. Dunton. I felt that these were not the kind of broadcasts which were of real educational value and that it was not the proper use of funds to retain people to make these broadcasts, especially to put them forward merely as Canadian university professors. If they had to be made it should be stated just what they were, who was the person who made them and what his situation really was.
I had been informed that this young man had delivered a number of lectures the preceding year as assistant to, I think, a professor of social sciences and at the time these broadcasts were made he was a professor of history at a divinity college affiliated with the university.


John George Diefenbaker: What was said that so disturbed the Prime Minister? What did this young man say?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: One of the
things that I found rather shocking was that whenever any question arose the first consideration was to avoid burning Canada's little toes. I do not think that that was the way to discuss the position of Canada as a nation or the position Canada was taking in international affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: Was there any reference to any particular policy?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The reference was to the constant timidity of Canadian policy.


Mr. Brooks:: That is a fair criticism.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It would be a fair criticism of the hon. gentleman if being introduced as what he is known to be to the Canadian public he made that kind of broadcast. I would be sorry he held those views, but I would not object at all. But it seemed to me that when university professors are chosen in their capacity as university professors it is a recognition given by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that here is something of educational value for the Canadian public. I called attention to the fact that I did not believe that the supercilious tone used by a young man who had been only a few months in Canada was of educational value to the Canadian public, at least without informing the Canadian public that he was a young man who had been in Canada for a very short time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How long?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I was told that he had been in Canada a few months, that he had come out at the beginning of the previous scholastic year and had been acting for a few months as assistant, I believe, to

Interim Supply
a professor of social sciences. I was told he was a young man in his early twenties and I did not think it was a fair presentation of professors in Canadian universities in the discussion of the historical summary of Canadian attitudes in international affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does not the Prime Minister feel that the C.B.C. should be free to choose what talks are to be made on the basis of their merit and substance rather than on the basis of whether a man has been in the country two months or two years?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would have a rather poor opinion of their judgment if I were told that they had chosen that because of the value of the content of the broadcast.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether the phrase about burning our little toes to which the Prime Minister referred was the whole broadcast or was that a descriptive way of referring to the Canadian government's concern about keeping in with both the United Kingdom and the United States?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was a discussion of Canada's attempt to maintain what the broadcast called the historical triangle, and then there were reproaches that we had not seemed to seize the opportunity of assuming some of the United Kingdom's responsibilities with regard to former colonies. There were two broadcasts criticizing the timidity of the Canadian public by-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Canadian public or the Canadian government?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: The
Canadian nation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As represented by the
government.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec Easi: Possibly as represented by the government, but represented by a government supported by a majority of the elected representatives of the Canadian people. A very supercilious tone was used by someone who was talking down to the Canadian public. I pointed out to Mr. Dunton that if the young gentleman was paid to talk in that way to the Canadian public out of moneys recommended to parliament by the government and appropriated by parliament, he was quite entitled to feel that we were the kind of people that it was appropriate to talk down to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, it was the tone, not what he said, that the Prime Minister complained about?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the explanation by the Prime Minister does not clarify the situation at all. It places the Prime

Minister in the position of being a censor for the protection of Canadians from puerile propaganda. That is a most unusual position for the Prime Minister to take. After all, if he believes in freedom of expression an institution of mass propaganda such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should have available to it all degrees of expression. Are we to believe that the Prime Minister has the right to say to the chairman of a board who has a responsibility to parliament that he should not operate according to his ideas of the best interests, but should interfere so that those who take their places as broadcasters and commentators should be introduced by showing the degree of their intelligence, their age, their period in Canada, and their qualifications. This seems to me an example of supercilious censoriousness that is not in keeping with the maintenance of freedom of speech within this country.
After all, what the Prime Minister objects too apparently, is that the foreign policy of this country was represented as being careful about any action of a positive nature. Have we come to the point when commentators must always praise the foreign policy of this government? Are commentators to be chosen on the basis of the degree to which they will praise the government? Surely not. Freedom of speech demands the right of the other person to express his viewpoint, and that is particularly necessary in the preservation of the inviolability of an institution such as the C.B.C.-the right of each individual to express his viewpoint, limited and circumscribed only by the laws of libel and slander, blasphemy and decency. To say that the Prime Minister has the right, or, indeed, that he can defend the right to communicate with the chairman of the C.B.C., with all the vast authority and prestige which the position of Prime Minister carries is one of the most outrageous propositions that have ever been advanced in this house.
It denies freedom of speech. It denies that the C.B.C. may broadcast programs which are not agreeable to the susceptibilities of the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister write the letter? Was it not to prevent such commentators being employed on the C.B.C. in the future? Was not that the purpose? If it was, it was an interference that cannot be justified. It has every appearance of being just that, for the explanation given by the Prime Minister, far from explaining the situation, adds force to the criticism offered here this morning by the hon. member for Eglinton, namely, that this is, indeed, interference with the C.B.C. to a degree that cannot be condoned and which cannot pass unchallenged.

This is not the first time there has been strong suspicion that ministers of the crown have interfered as far as they were able with the C.B.C. and its policies with regard to broadcasting. We remember the case of Bernard Ostry whose offence was that he did not idealize the former prime minister when he wrote a book on that subject, and whether I agree with all the contents of that book or not, Ostry was denied the right to broadcast over the C.B.C. after the programs had been arranged. Why? There can be only one answer-that some member of the government persuaded the C.B.C. that it would not be in the interest of the government of this country that those broadcasts should be made. There could be no other reason. There was no question of blasphemy. There was no question of libel. There was no question of indecency. But there was a very strong possibility that what this man might say would be regarded politically as detrimental to this government.
I say to the Prime Minister, and I do not wish to carry the matter any further, that I hope this will be a lesson to the members of this government that interference, indirectly or directly, direct or subtle, will not be condoned. Interference of this kind can only destroy the independence of the C.B.C. and dry up the wells of information to which the Canadian people are entitled.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that out of this rather sorry business there is only one thing in which we can take comfort, and that is that the Prime Minister has revealed himself as an honest man. I imagine that at this moment some of his colleagues may be feeling he has been embarrassingly honest, in that he has not attempted to hide either what he said on this occasion or the underlying motives that caused him to say what he did.
I was particularly interested in his comment that had it been the Leader of the Opposition who expressed these very decided criticisms of government policy-I think we must accept that that is what it was-I did not hear the broadcasts, but judging from the Prime Minister's description of them they appear to have contained criticism of the government-the Prime Minister told us that had the Leader of the Opposition expressed these views-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Just for the sake of accuracy, I was answering the hon. member for Royal at that moment.


Colin Cameron: I beg your pardon. The Prime Minister indicated that if the hon. member for Royal had expressed those views, while he would have regretted it, he would not have considered it was
Interim Supply
something to be objected to. But the Prime Minister objected to those same views being expressed by a young man who was introduced as a university professor. This suggests to me, Mr. Chairman, that in the Prime Minister's view only those who are, shall we say, politically licensed to criticize the government may do so on the public broadcasting system.
Shall I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, before we rose for lunch I was pointing out what struck me as a rather extraordinary position the Prime Minister had taken with regard to the propriety of different individuals making the sort of criticism of government policy about which he complained. He indicated that, had it been a member of the House of Commons who had made these criticisms, while he would have regretted it he would not have felt that it was a matter about which he must protest but that because they had been made by a young man, a university professor who had not been long in this country, he considered it highly improper. That appears to me, Mr. Chairman, to reveal a rather curious concept of the freedom of speech in this country, the suggestion that only those whom I described earlier as being politically licensed can come out with statements of this kind.
Since I spoke before lunch I have had the opportunity of reading the scripts of the two addresses and they reveal quite plainly that throughout the addresses criticism was directed not at the Canadian people but at the Canadian government and specifically at the two secretaries of state for external affairs who have had charge of Canada's external relations since 1946. There is only one place where it might be suggested that there was a criticism of the Canadian people, and that is in the final sentence of the second broadcast, the sentence to which the Prime Minister has already referred, the sentence which contained the phrase about Canada not getting its little toes burned. Even that sentence need not necessarily be taken as a criticism of the Canadian people because the question is asked whether the Canadian government will be prepared to ask the Canadian people for support in a less timid policy and it is open to question whether the question is supposed to be asked of the

Interim Supply
Canadian government or to be asked by the Canadian government of the Canadian people.
However, I was struck very much throughout the reading of the whole of these scripts with the fact that the criticisms contained in them were criticisms that have been voiced in this chamber many times during the four years I have been here, and I cannot for the life of me see on what grounds the Prime Minister objects to criticism of his government's policy, criticism of the manner in which Canada has played her part in the world, because surely that is a part of the democratic process.
Nor can I attach very much importance to his suggestion that because this young man has only been in Canada a comparatively short time his opinions therefore should not be listened to. In fact, I rather gathered that the Prime Minister felt it would have been all right if when this young man was introduced he had been introduced as a young man very newly arrived in Canada with no valid views on Canadian policy and not to be taken too seriously, whereas, of course, if the Leader of the Opposition were to voice these views then everyone would know that he was a native son of Canada and an expert on Canada's external relations. Perhaps that should not be taken too seriously too, as one of my colleagues mentions. However, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that very often the outsider has a clearer view of what is taking place than those who are in the midst of the situation.
The Prime Minister's position is, I think, quite peculiar, and it does raise some fundamental questions. During the luncheon recess the question was asked me if the position I was taking implied that there are 19 people in Canada who must not express criticism of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the officials of that corporation. I think the answer to that must really be yes, that they cannot, and the reason that they cannot is very simple because in their hands lies the power to do something about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I would take the same position with regard to a private member of the house who wrote to the chairman of the board of governors of the C.B.C. and suggested to him that unless he altered his programming to suit the member's wishes he would rise in the House of Commons and criticize the corporation. I do so because again he would be using his very much smaller power of attack on the C.B.C.
I suggest to you, sir, that the proper action for the members of the government of Canada in this regard is to bring the matter to parliament and tell us of their objections to the conduct of the C.B.C. and of their plans

for correcting the situation. The Prime Minister did tell us this morning that he thought he had consulted some of his colleagues. I suggest to you that admission means that what the Prime Minister was doing when he wrote his private letter to Mr. Dunton was in effect to tell Mr. Dunton the views of the government, not the views of Mr. St. Laurent, private Canadian citizen. There had been some discussion.
The Prime Minister objected this morning to what he called the historical description of Canada. When I read the script I thought that was perhaps a rather generous and sweeping description of this young man's broadcast. It was hardly a historical description of Canada. It was a recital of the actions of Canadian governments during the last decade, actions which this young man in many instances criticized. With some of his criticisms I agree, with some I do not agree, but the point is that he was exercising what surely must be a right of Canadian citizens.
I would refer the Prime Minister to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada when two of the justices stressed again and again in the course of their judgment the necessity for complete freedom of discussion in Canada both in parliament and out of parliament if the parliamentary democratic institution is to survive and function properly. In this instance I suggest that it was perfectly legitimate discussion of Canada's governments in the past and perfectly legitimate criticism of those actions, whether or not one agrees with all the points. I wondered when I read the scripts whether perhaps the key to the Prime Minister's rather extraordinary action might be found in the words he used-he will correct me if I am wrong-when he referred to the supercilious tone of the young man in making his remarks on the air.
That may very well be true. I wonder whether the Prime Minister listened to another C.B.C. broadcast not long ago when a very distinguished British author and former diplomat discussed on the radio the difficulties encountered by those like himself who are afflicted with an English accent, the difficulty of being able to convey to his hearers anything but the effect of superciliousness and condescension. That I can readily understand, since I to some extent suffer from the same affliction myself. I can readily understand it may be quite irritating and annoying, but I do not think it is a basis for criticizing the content of a broadcast. In fact, sir, I wonder whether there is not something more profound revealed in this, something more profound in the way of showing us what is the Prime Minister's

conscious or unconscious concept of society. I refer to the distinction he drew between members of this house and other people criticizing government policy. It occurred to me that perhaps unconsciously the Prime Minister has certain traces of authoritarian concept of society; that there are certain people who have privileges of discussion that cannot be accorded to the common herd, and, in particular, cannot be accorded to those who just recently arrived in our midst.
I want to emphasize again, Mr. Chairman, the necessity of our being quite sure, and of the people of Canada being quite sure, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is supported by the people of Canada, is completely free of any domination by the government of the day, or indeed, by the opposition of the day, or, indeed, subject to pressures from private members of this house; because I do not think it can perform its function unless the people are fully convinced of that fact.
I suggest again, sir, that the place for the criticism that the Prime Minister voiced in his letter to Mr. Dunton was the floor of this House of Commons. There are many of us here who deal with the C.B.C. when it comes before the house; there are many who criticize C.B.C. programs. I would say again I think that is part of our right, and part of our duty, but it is not the part of our duty and right to write ahead of time to Mr. Dunton and to warn him and say, "Because I do not like this program I am going to attack you on the floor of the house if you do not change it in the meantime." That effect would really be the effect of the Prime Minister's letter.
I am not going to deal with the Prime Minister's suggestion that he wrote as a private citizen. I really do not think he expected us to take that very seriously, because there are certain things that people forfeit when they achieve certain positions. I suggest to you, sir, that the person who occupies the position of Prime Minister of Canada does, to a very large extent, forfeit his rights and privileges as an ordinary Canadian citizen. He cannot divest himself of his office as easily as all that.
Finally, sir, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that really he is far too fearful of the effects of broadcasting of this sort. I say quite frankly I do not think they were very good broadcasting techniques; I think they were rather poor. I would draw his attention to a distinguished Canadian who occupies the opposite position in London. I imagine that most of us have heard Mr. Robert McKenzie, a distinguished British Columbian, on the British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts. Mr. McKenzie on
Interim Supply
many occasions criticizes not merely the government of Great Britain but the attitude and actions of the British people themselves, and I have heard of no suggestion that the Prime Minister of Great Britain, or any member of the British House of Commons, has sought to bring pressure to bear on the British Broadcasting Corporation to put a stop to Mr. McKenzie's frank talks about the state of affairs in Great Britain.
I want to conclude, sir, by saying what I said at the beginning. I am sure there is one thing that has come out of this. The Prime Minister is an honest man. He told us quite frankly that he had done this. I submit, sir, that he was disastrously mistaken in his judgment and I hope we can be assured that in the future, if he or his colleagues have reason to feel that the C.B.C. in its programs is not behaving in the interests of the Canadian people, they will frankly bring the matter before parliament and tell us what they propose to do to correct the situation, rather than to subject public servants, who have no means whatever of publicly protecting themselves, to pressures of the sort that were exerted by the Prime Minister in this case.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister has had several lectures now on this matter, and it is not my intention to read him another one, but I do want him to think that on a matter as important as this I should say something and express at least an opinion.
There are principles involved which I believe ought to be most carefully scrutinized, and perhaps by saying something I might be able to help to crystallize the views of the house on this important matter. I do not know a thing about what the Prime Minister wrote in his letter except what he has said here. I did not even know a letter was written by him until he admitted it in answer to a question yesterday. I did not hear the broadcast in question; I do not know Professor Conway, and I do not know what his purpose was on the air at all, or who asked him to speak, or what he was supposed to be speaking about. But I do know these important things in connection with the principle.
When the hon. member for Saskatoon was speaking this morning he appeared to imply, if not to say, that some of his colleagues to the left, meaning us, had attempted on occasion to keep someone off the air. If I have misstated his implication I would like to have it set straight.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I said, Mr. Chairman, when they did it on a previous occasion it was in a good, legal and proper manner, and that was on the floor of this house.

Interim Supply


Solon Earl Low: Thank you very much.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: And in the committee.


Solon Earl Low: Having that position made clear, I do want to say that the position that my colleagues and I have always taken with regard to freedom of expression-and that matter is involved in this whole discussion- is this. We believe that the fullest measure of freedom of expression-as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning when he spoke-and that all sides of shades of opinion ought to be heard. I think that is quite correct. I think I can speak for all of my colleagues-I know I can for myself-when I say that we have never at any time attempted to keep anyone from saying what he wanted to say. We have never at any time tried to keep anyone off the air, nor have we attempted at any time to deny anyone the right of the freedom to express himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Macleod admitted this morning he had objected to the hon. member for Vancouver South speaking over the C.B.C.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not keep him off the air; I was objecting to what he was saying.


Solon Earl Low: I think, Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that we have never at any time done that. There have been objections made here in this house; there have been objections raised in committee concerning certain programs and certain types of programs; but at no time has any one of us ever attempted to keep anyone off the air.
I would like to impress on people's memories the fact that I was on a panel of discussion just a few years ago on the C.B.C. Trans-Canada network and the question that was under discussion then was whether the communists in this country should have the right to express their views over the C.B.C. network. I took the position then that they should, and I take that position now. They should not be denied the right of freedom of expression. Not at any time have we ever attempted to keep anyone off the air, and I just wanted to make that clear.
While we practise freedom of expression, we advocate the fullest possible measure of it, we are concerned about the ensurance that all sides of the question be given an opportunity for expression. We have criticized in this house and in the committee of parliament quite strongly what has appeared to us to be the neglect of a point of view or points of view or what has appeared to us to be suppression of points of view on very important questions which the people of Canada, we believe, had every right to hear. I do not believe that any one of my colleagues

has ever written to the chairman of the board of the C.B.C. protesting against a speaker. I think every protest that has ever been made by us has been made here or in the committee. If I am wrong, I would be happy to have anyone set me right. I know that I have never written the C.B.C. at any time, strongly as I have criticized some of their programs.
We feel that the C.B.C. is subject to the will of parliament, that is to the representatives of the people in this parliament, and quite rightly so because after all it is the people who pay the bills for the operation of the C.B.C. We feel that the members of parliament have every right to complain in parliament or in public, if they feel that there have been faults in C.B.C. programming or neglect or suppression; that is their right. The question arises, then, what about the Prime Minister? Has he the right to complain? I would say the Prime Minister, in every way, would have the same rights of ordinary individuals, the right to complain in this parliament or out of it if he feels that there has been some fault in C.B.C. programming. I would not attempt at all to deny him that right. I do not believe, however, that the Prime Minister or any of his government colleagues or indeed any group of members of the house, would have any right to interfere or attempt to interfere with C.B.C. programs.
If the C.B.C. is making some mistakes in programming, there is a way to get at them to have the matter corrected, even if we have to go so far as to remove from office certain people who have been at fault. I would certainly say, in spite of the fact we have no right to interfere and certainly that can be said of the government more than it could be of ordinary individuals, we do have a right to complain. I do not know what we shall have to call this particular incident, but I think I can understand something of what the Prime Minister was trying to get over to us this morning. I think he did indicate that one of his criticisms of the program under discussion was that here was a person appearing under one title and attempting to do something altogether different. I have seen that happen a good many times. To put it in specific terms, what happened appears to me to be an attempt at political interpretation when, as a matter of fact, the young man appeared on what was supposed to be an educational program. I have seen that happen time and time again. A person appears under one guise and then goes on and does something totally different.
I believe, as the Prime Minister expressed himself this morning, when anyone goes on the air to give any one of the commentaries

or for the purpose of expressing his opinions it should be definitely understood who is sponsoring him, what his background is and so on, so that the people will understand. I object strongly to having programs on the air that are not what they appear to be or what they have been advertised to be. I do not know whether or not that is what the Prime Minister had in his mind, but I would certainly think if a person is appearing on what is supposed to be an educational talk and then he turns it into a political interpretation, he is at fault and the people who put him there are at fault for not having made it abundantly clear that is what he was supposed to do. Now, that kind of thing is quite often done, as I say, but I should like to point out this important thing. The position in which Mr. Dunton finds himself today is an example of the kind of thing or at least an example of one of the prices we shall have to pay for having crown corporations. This is especially true of crown corporations that could be turned to propaganda purposes as it very often has.
I am not attempting here to place the blame on the C.C.F. for having brought this matter up, but I am going to say this as an example, that the C.C.F. has been very loud in its demands for crown corporations of all kinds. They have been the greatest defenders of the C.B.C., even when the C.B.C. has been at fault. They do not complain against the C.B.C., and there is good reason for it. They have no reason for complaining because the C.B.C. has favoured the leftist point of view right down the line, and that is one of the complaints we have had. They have undue emphasis toward the leftist point of view and have not balanced it with an opportunity for the right point of view to be presented.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is nonsense, but you have the right to say it.


Solon Earl Low: My hon. friend would be the very first one to complain against the C.B.C., perhaps the first one to write to the C.B.C., if he thought for one moment the C.C.F. was not getting a little more than its share.


Alfred Claude Ellis: How foolish can you get?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which I have never done, favourably or unfavourably.


Solon Earl Low: As I said, you have not had any call to do so, because you have been favoured. Just let them have any cause, and I will guarantee they will be the first ones to do it.
The point I was trying to make is this. We are paying a price, and we have to be prepared to pay a price, if we are going to have crown corporations. We have to be doubly sure there is no inclination to use the crown corporation as an instrument of propaganda
Interim Supply
for the party that happens to be in power at the moment. This will have to be very carefully watched and safeguarded. It is a thing we have always pointed out as a weakness of the crown corporation in the field of propaganda, such as the C.B.C. Here we are running into trouble as a consequence of the fact we do have this crown corporation.
There is just one further thing I want to say. I have criticized, Mr. Prime Minister, the C.B.C. right here in this house for having used the taxpayers' money for a purpose which I thought at the time, and I think I proved conclusively-while it may not have been the avowed purpose of the C.B.C.-did have the result of undermining our way of life at a time when we were gathering from the Canadian people huge amounts of taxation to fight communism; we were then spending the taxpayers' money to the tune of several thousands of dollars to give the communists comfort that could come to them from having a particular line emphasized over the whole C.B.C. network. I complained about that a year ago in connection with the play, "We Shall Not Be Moved". I mentioned then that the great objection we had was not that the play was put over the air but that the play was presented under a guise. That should have been made perfectly clear.
The Minister of National Revenue admitted in this house that the selection of that play was in poor taste. I am not attempting to revive this question but I am just endeavouring to show the Prime Minister there are various complaints we have. It may be a complaint against the C.B.C. for having allowed criticism of a political party. I do not think that is nearly as serious as allowing the C.B.C. to put on programs that have the effect of undermining our free way of life and making available the facilities of the entire C.B.C. network for the purpose of airing these views and putting over the communist line.
I am just trying to impress on the minister the fact that I too have been criticized for having dared to bring up a question of that importance right on the floor of this house where it should be brought up and so I can quite understand how he might feel today.
I am not excusing him for one moment if indeed his actions can be interpreted as an attempt to interfere with the C.B.C. I do not think it was. It may have been a mistake; I do not know. Certainly we should be careful to attempt to interfere at no time with the programming of the C.B.C. Let us stand on the floor of this house or in the committee on radio broadcasting and criticize and complain about it all we like. Let us make certain that we follow a policy that

Interim Supply
will make it possible for freedom of speech and freedom of expression to exist in this country, a genuine freedom in which all shades of opinion are given a chance to be aired.
We have listened to a lot of talk about freedom of speech and expression but very often the very people who complain the loudest about it are the ones who attempt to deny others the right of freedom of speech.
I am in a political organization that today is denied equality of right of expression over the C.B.C. and it has been largely because of the action of certain political parties who have cried out against it and said, "No, you have no right to equality of freedom of expression. We will have to give you half of what we give someone else."
I am just pointing that out because it is done so often. That is about all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Peace River, the leader of the Social Credit party, I think, has taken the discussion in the last few minutes some distance from the point at which we started this morning. He is perfectly entitled to the views that he holds but I feel I also am entitled to my views on this matter.
The hon. gentleman recalled to the attention of the house a discussion which took place in the dying days of the last session of parliament. He again made reference to a program that was carried by the C.B.C. entitled "We Shall Not Be Moved," which told something of the events leading up to the death by shooting of one Joe Hill.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Peace River in the interval that has elapsed since that discussion has taken the opportunity of listening to that program but I have and as far as I am concerned the suggestion which he made last year and which he has again put before the house that the C.B.C. is being used as an advocate of the communist propaganda line based upon the fact that they presented that program is nothing more or less than an attempt to smear the organized trade union movement of Canada with a communist label.


Solon Earl Low: That is utterly stupid.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If the hon. member wants to take a deliberate anti-labour position that is his right, but I think the working people of Canada should be entitled to know that that is what he is doing.


Mr. Patterson:: Are you on the husting,
Tom?


Mr. Blackmore:: Are you telling the truth now?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am one who has grown up since some of the events that were described in that play took place, but I happen to have had some connection with the present day labour movement in Canada and those of us who have had contact with that movement have learned to cherish some of the traditions on which the present labour movement in Canada is founded. We have learned to have some appreciation of the bitter struggle experienced by some of the founders of the modern trade union movement, and Joe Hill happens to be one who lost his life in the cause of labour in the United States of America, our neighbour to the south.
As I have said, I have listened to this program very carefully since last year. It is a dramatic portrayal of the events which led up to the execution of Joe Hill. It is based almost in its entirety upon the documentary evidence that surrounded that case and excerpts from the actual evidence of the trial.
To suggest that a program essentially documentary in character but so written as to have powerful dramatic qualities is an endeavour on the part of the C.B.C. to present the communist propaganda line, when the hon. member knows as well as I do that the events portrayed took place before the communist party was ever heard of on this continent, is a gross distortion of the facts surrounding the presentation of that particular program and as I said at the outset indicates very clearly that the hon. member is displaying a strong bias against the organized trade union movement in this country.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, could I have just one moment in which to reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni? The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has deliberately distorted the things I said last year.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My so-called distortion is not as distorted as your version.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, it was an absolute distortion.


Alfred Claude Ellis: We are listening to the distortion now.


William Earl Rowe: Deliberate distortion.


Solon Earl Low: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that I scarcely mentioned Joe Hill at all in connection with what I said last year but I did mention Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. I said then that the whole of the dramatic element of that play surrounded Elizabeth Gurley Flynn who had been charged and jailed in the United States recently under the Smith act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was there any reference to that in the play as it was-


Solon Earl Low: Just let me say what I want to say. I said that the whole impact of the play was that both Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and- what was his name?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Joe Hill.


Solon Earl Low: You see, I do not even remember his name.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Don't try and imitate the Prime Minister.


Solon Earl Low: The impact of the play was that both had been victims of a frame-up and therefore you could not trust the courts of justice of either of these democratic countries to deal with matters in a fair way.


John Horne Blackmore: That is the communist line.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, that is the communist line and that is what the communists wanted to use it for. That is exactly the reason the communist papers all over America burst out in adulation of what the C.B.C. had done and gave it tremendous publicity not only in this country but also all over the United States and Europe. That is something which my hon. friend, the member for Comox-Alberni, attempts to suppress.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Notre Dame de Grace.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has not told us yet whether he has listened to the program since the discussion last year or whether he has any further information than he had last year-


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -when he quoted certain other things which he read in the Canadian Tribune, and I would like him to answer that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: If he wants to read a communist paper that is his privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, certain things which have arisen in the course of this debate leave me slightly confused as to the relationship between the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the civil
Interim Supply
service generally. I am wondering if the Prime Minister would be kind enough to help me by offering some explanation.
What I am primarily interested in establishing is, how does the minister in writing to someone on the government staff differentiate in his correspondence when he is writing as a private individual and when he is writing as the Prime Minister of Canada or as a member of the government? Was there some indication in his correspondence, perhaps by an inscription under his name, that he was writing in his official capacity? I would be grateful if the Prime Minister would explain that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are very few letters that have any inscription under my name. I would not think that there would be one-tenth of one per cent of the letters I sign that have any inscription under my name.


William McLean Hamilton: Since the Prime Minister is not designating himself as Prime Minister, are we to understand that the great majority of his correspondence with government departments and officials is in his private capacity?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No I do not
think there is any description required to indicate to the recipients of my letters in what capacity they are written.


William McLean Hamilton: Since presumably the majority of the Prime Minister's correspondence would have to do with official business and would be written in his official capacity as the Prime Minister, anyone getting a letter from him, such as he wrote to Mr. Dunton of the C.B.C., would naturally infer-perhaps the Prime Minister can explain this to me-that he was writing in his capacity as Prime Minister. In other words, the Prime Minister might write to the deputy minister of a department on government business without identifying himself in any way as the Prime Minister, and he now writes to Mr. Dunton of the C.B.C. on business which affects the government without identifying himself in any way. I ask the Prime Minister if it is not a natural assumption that Mr. Dunton would conclude immediately that the Prime Minister was writing in his official capacity?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman will have to draw his own conclusions as to what Mr. Dunton's impressions may have been.


William McLean Hamilton: Why
was the Prime Minister so definite yesterday in his inference that Mr. Dunton would conclude he was writing as a private citizen?

Interim Supply


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not as
Prime Minister that I listen to radio broadcasts. It so happened that this one came on after the news and before turning off the radio I became somewhat interested in the tone in which the broadcast was being made.


William McLean Hamilton: Are
we to conclude that Mr. Dunton would know the circumstances under which the Prime Minister listened to a radio broadcast and assume that he was listening in his private capacity?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not
going to help the hon. gentleman in drawing the kind of conclusions he wishes to draw.


William McLean Hamilton: would not think the Prime Minister would as the conclusions are obvious on the face of it. I should like to point out to the Prime Minister another fact, and this refers to his schizophrenic personality which he displayed yesterday and when he bifurcated himself, one-half being the Prime Minister and the other half being a private citizen. When the Prime Minister entered the government he realized it was impossible for him to conduct himself as a private citizen in dealing with things affecting the government and so he divested himself of all his company directorships. He has explained to this house on various occasions that he did that in order that no one might suggest that he was engaged in any improper activities through being a company director. Do we not have here a situation exactly comparable and in connection with which he cannot divest himself of his public responsibility when dealing with a government corporation. This morning the Prime Minister mentioned having discussed this with certain of his ministers. It would be helpful to know with whom he discussed it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I said that afterward I had informed two or three of my colleagues that I had written to Mr. Dunton.


William McLean Hamilton: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to indicate what colleagues he is referring to?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; I do not
think that is a matter of public importance.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: When the Prime Minister discussed it with the Minister of Trade and Commerce would he be in a position to tell us what the comments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce were on the matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
think I ever discussed it with the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
[Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace).)


William McLean Hamilton: May
I draw to the attention of the Prime Minister a certain piece of advice which was given in the British House of Commons on February 25, 1952? It was given by someone who I think even the Prime Minister will admit is a paramount figure in parliamentary government, both in his appreciation of it and in his understanding of what constitutes integrity in parliamentary government-I refer to the Right Honourable Winston Churchill. A statement which he had circulated among the ministers of the crown regarding their responsibilities contained the following as its first principle:
It is a principle of public life that ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interest and their public duties.
I conclude with the observation that it is the public duty of the Prime Minister to keep away from intervention in the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Having said that, may I say I was quite impressed this morning with the statement which seemed to have remained in the Prime Minister's memory when used by the young professor in his program, that Canadians were afraid of burning their little toes. If this debate does nothing else I hope it will persuade the Prime Minister not to burn his little fingers by dabbling in the C.B.C. again.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, it seems to be very clear to me that members of the opposition think the Prime Minister did not act as a private citizen. We on this side think he did. The definition given is not very clear as to when the Prime Minister is not a private citizen.
Another thing is clear to me, that notwithstanding what has been said there is no free speech on the radio. Speeches must be given to the officials of the radio corporation before they are delivered. If they are not written they cannot be delivered. Therefore, it is not free speech. I can remember a case in Fort William when a distinguished citizen stepped out a little beyond where he should have and he was not allowed to finish his speech. Therefore, speech on the radio is not really free speech, it is a written statement which has first been examined by the officials. I would say that the radio official who examined this speech must have been in agreement with the criticism that was handed out to the minister of external affairs.
You can talk all day, but I do not think you will convince very many on this side of the house that the Prime Minister is not a free citizen sometimes, and surely when he is in his own home listening to the radio he is a free citizen. You can talk all day about it, but even the hon. member who

is going to get up and tell me I am wrong is not going to change my opinion. I know I am right.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, when the Prime Minister was speaking this morning he said part of the reason he found fault with this radio broadcast was because the speaker was a young man who had been in this country a relatively short time. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us how old he feels a man should be before he is entitled to express opinions on the C.B.C. and how long he should be in this country before he is entitled to express his views on Canadian affairs in such a way. I wonder if the Prime Minister would answer those two questions.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to answer questions of that kind.


George Harris Hees: Why?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because they are quite ridiculous questions and because they are not put for the purpose of obtaining information but merely for the purpose of aiming a gibe. I do not think they require an answer.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the Prime
Minister is completely wrong. I am trying to get some guidance-


An hon. Member:: You need it.


George Harris Hees: So that people in future may know when they are old enough to be, in the view of the Prime Minister, allowed to speak on the C.B.C. on important public matters; and how long a man or woman should feel they must be in this country before they are allowed by the Prime Minister and the government to express their opinions on important public matters.
Now I would like to ask the Prime Minister another question, because there is a great deal of doubt about when he is speaking or thinking as a private citizen and when he is speaking or thinking as Prime Minister. He wrote a letter some time ago to President Eisenhower, he said, as a private citizen, and, again, he wrote to Mr. Dunton as a private citizen. Mr. Dun-ton had no way of knowing that the Prime Minister listened to this broadcast after the news was over and that it could therefore be considered an "unofficial period".
The Prime Minister wrote Mr. Dunton a letter, and I would like to ask the Prime Minister specifically-I am sure he remembers the circumstances-whether he wrote it on plain paper or on his official paper, and whether he wrote it from his own
Interim Supply
office or from his private residence. How did he indicate to Mr. Dunton, in such a way as Mr. Dunton could clearly understand, that he was writing as a private citizen and not as the Prime Minister of Canada? Would the Prime Minister please let me know the answer to those questions?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Harris Hees: I take it the Prime Minister refuses to answer those questions.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows as well as I do that the Prime Minister as such has no control over the C.B.C., but that the Prime Minister can, as the hon. member for Broadview can, listen sometimes to a radio broadcast, and that he can sometimes have an opinion of his own about the value of that broadcast. And, having done that, I ventured to express my views to Mr. Dunton, who is a friend of mine and who, I think, is doing his best to perform his duties in a manner that will be satisfactory to the whole Canadian public. And I wrote to him to point out that I thought the tone of that broadcast was one that was disagreeable.


George Harris Hees: I am not disagreeing with the Prime Minister listening to the broadcast at all-


An hon. Member:: Very nice of you.


George Harris Hees: All I am asking him to do is to tell the house how he indicated to Mr. Dunton that he was writing as a private citizen and not in his official capacity as Prime Minister of Canada. That is a very simple, straightforward question and much of this discussion revolves around that point.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have already stated two or three times that I made no attempt to disclose-otherwise than by the contents of the letter-that I was not attempting to interfere or dictate, but I was calling his attention to the fact that I thought if I were a member of the opposition I would criticize the use of public funds for that kind of broadcast.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Again?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would like to say something further to the Prime Minister, but before I do, I think statements made by the hon. member for Fort William, which are on the record, should not be there without certain corrections which ought to be made.


Walter Edward Harris: You would be a busy man if you chose to correct everything that was said in this house.

Interim Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: The C.B.C. is under discussion today, and I do not think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fort William that there is no freedom of speech, but that people who speak on the C.B.C. have to submit their scripts in advance for approval, should be left unanswered. There are too many of us in this house who have had experience of broadcasting over the C.B.C., and who know that that is not correct. The C.B.C. asks for copies of scripts so that they can be put away in their files as a record of what was said, but many of us have had the experience of speaking over the C.B.C. without the corporation knowing in advance what we were going to say. I think the fact that there is freedom of speech on the C.B.C. is established, and we should not be carried away by the erroneous remarks of the hon. member for Fort William.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: That is not my experience.


Mrs. Shipley:: Official favours for you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the hon. lady has also appeared on the radio without having to submit a script in advance.


Marie Ann Shipley: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any special favours from the C.B.C. in the way the hon. member appears to have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is apparent, Mr. Chairman, that members opposite do not know what goes on in the C.B.C. They do not know what freedoms are extended to them as well as to all those who speak over the national television and radio network.
Mr. Chairman, there were one or two points which the Prime Minister made the last time he was on his feet that I would like to mention. I do wish to commend him on having taken a position today which is a little different from the position he adopted yesterday. Yesterday, when he first started answering these questions, he tried to make something out of the fact that he wrote his now famous letter as a private citizen rather than as Prime Minister. He has referred to that again today, but in the main most of his arguments have been based not so much on the fact that he was writing as a private citizen but, rather, on the substance of Professor Conway's broadcasts.
The Prime Minister has contended that in his view this was not the kind of broadcast that should be aired at public expense. As I say, I congratulate the Prime Minister for not trying to hide behind the argument that he is a private citizen. I trust he has recognized the force of the argument which has been made from this side of the house to the effect that any letter he would write to an

official of an emanation of the crown would certainly carry all the official weight of the office of Prime Minister.
As a matter of fact, yesterday when I asked the Prime Minister what specific steps he took, if any, to make it clear to Mr. Dunton that this protest came from him personally and not in his capacity as Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's reply was: "I took no special steps in that regard."
I think it is quite clear that though the Prime Minister may have heard this broadcast in the leisure of sitting around in his own home in the evening after the news was over, nevertheless when the letter was written it was a letter on the stationery of the Prime Minister which would be recognized by Mr. Dunton as a letter from the Prime Minister of Canada. I believe that phase of the argument, however, has been passed and we are now at the point where the issue is the fact that a spokesman for the government did make this protest concerning C.B.C. programming. It may be that we have not reached agreement as to what is proper in this matter. I suppose that is in the nature of things so far as debates in the House of Commons are concerned. Each side takes a position and even though one side may be convinced during the course of the argument that the other side has something, neither side gives in. But I hope that the Prime Minister will realize from the nature of this debate, from the things that have been said, from the lack of very much support for his position from the other side of the house-


Walter Edward Harris: That is one statement that had better be corrected. Just because we do not get up and take the time of the house-


George Harris Hees: You have got nothing to say, Walter.


Mr. Weir:: The same to you, but you do.


George Harris Hees: You are staying quiet for a very good reason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be delighted to hear from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the hon. member for Vancouver South, for that matter. I hope the Prime Minister will give serious consideration to the proposition we have been trying to make, that he made a mistake in seeking to interfere with C.B.C. control of its programs. I hope he will join with those of us on this side of the house in recognizing that it is the job of parliament as a whole, including the Prime Minister, the cabinet and private members on both sides of the house, to do our best to defend and protect the independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in its programming generally and

particularly in its programs that deal with the discussion of public affairs. If as a result of this discussion there can be a greater awareness of the responsibility of parliament not to interfere but to protect the independence of the C.B.C. this debate will not have been in vain.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, is the position taken by the Prime Minister to this effect, that it was perfectly proper for him as a private citizen to write to Mr. Dunton complaining about this program but that it would not have been proper for him to write in his capacity as Prime Minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I do
not think it would have been proper, and I certainly would not have ventured to write on behalf of the government without consulting my colleagues because then I would have felt I was engaging them all while I did this as a Canadian who had heard this broadcast, who knew Mr. Dunton, who knew what he was trying to do and who suspected that he was not able to check all these details himself. I suggested to him that it would be desirable to have someone who had a realization of his responsibilities to exercise some check over that kind of broadcast.


Howard Charles Green: Now that this situation has been raised and discussed in the house, would the Prime Minister not agree that actually it is impossible to divide himself into two categories, first as a private citizen and then as Prime Minister? A person receiving a letter such as Mr. Dunton received could not take it otherwise than that he had received a letter from the head of the government of Canada and that, of course, must necessarily mean that the Prime Minister in effect was exercising a right of censorship over C.B.C. programs.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I do
not think it could be taken that the Prime Minister was exercising a right of censorship. He has no right of censorship over C.B.C. programs but I think that he has, as anybody else has, a right to call attention to what he considers is not the best way to carry out the duties which I know the officials are trying to carry out in the manner they consider to be the best way. In this country it is fortunate that the Prime Minister does not have to be surrounded with the guards and other paraphernalia that accompany like positions in other countries. It is fortunate that the temper of the Canadian public is such that in Canada the Prime Minister can go about just as any other Canadian citizen.
Interim Supply


Howard Charles Green: Are we to take it that the Prime Minister would feel free to write a similar letter to Mr. Dunton again?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to do anything that would be the occasion of the kind of field day we have had today and had I anticipated that it would bring about this kind of field day I would have-


William Earl Rowe: Called him on the telephone.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -concealed the irritation I felt at the supercilious tone of this broadcast.


William Earl Rowe: Better call him on the telephone next time.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, the Prime
Minister has had his lesson.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I do not know if it is a lesson but there has been a demonstration of what use can be made of rather insignificant incidents.


Mr. Hahn:: Before the resolution carries, I have another grievance I should like to raise at this time unless someone wishes to carry on the debate that has been under way.


John George Diefenbaker: Before my hon. friend leaves this subject, if he is changing the subject-


Frederick George Hahn: My grievance has to do-
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that he be permitted to follow the subject that has been under discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one question on which we have not had any enlightenment. Apparently there was a suggestion by the Prime Minister that these commentators should be subject to a form of licence, that at least what they were going to say should be examined and their pedigrees considered to ensure that only the most authentic, dependable and authoritative observations might be made by those persons who would have the opportunity of speaking over this mass propaganda agency. We have not heard, however, the reaction of Mr. Dunton to all of this. How did he react? Did he give an undertaking that from now on the intonation of the voices of those who are to broadcast will receive a kind of preliminary run-off or that very close examination will be made from now on of those who are permitted to be commentators? Those are things we should know because I feel that a direction of that kind would certainly directly destroy the effectiveness of any person who acted the part of a commentator.

Interim Supply
I have disagreed with commentators on what they have said. I have certainly had strong views with regard to statements made, but if the C.B.C. is to remain an instrument for the independent propagation of thought my views are of no consequence any more than the views of the Prime Minister as a private citizen. I ask the Prime Minister this question. What did Mr. Dunton say in effect? Did he agree that the Prime Minister had the right to so direct? Did he raise any objection to what had been done? What was the nature of his reaction?
These are things that seem to remain in doubt. After all, one would naturally expect that Mr. Dunton would express some surprise that the Prime Minister should be endeavouring, either directly or by subtle suggestion, to determine the type of commentators who should be permitted to speak over the national broadcasting system.
What was his reaction? I am sure it would be most interesting to know his attitude, and whether or not he did not take a very strong stand against anything in the nature of interference with the thoughts, the identity or the pedigree of those who were going to speak to Canadians as commentators.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I do not have just exactly what he said. I know he said that this gentleman had been chosen because they had been informed that he had given a lecture that had created a lot of comment in Winnipeg. For that reason he had been selected for this broadcast. In my reply I think I pointed out, that this comment was not known to the audience that was being spoken to, and that I thought it was unfortunate that there had not been some explanatory note to indicate that this was one point of view that the C.B.C. felt might be interesting to have heard, but that it was not an educational broadcast promoted by the C.B.C. as a part of its educational program.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I would like the Prime Minister to tell us this. If this gentleman, instead of having referred to the timidity and uncertainty of our government's foreign policy, had said that our government's foreign policy was bold, brave and courageous and stood in close co-operation with the United Kingdom at the time of the Suez canal incident, would he have called Mr. Dunton up?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This was before the Suez canal incident, Mir. Chairman, and therefore it was not so much the meaning of the broadcast that rather irritated me; it was the fact that a young man on a pedestal was looking down on these poor Canadians
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
and in a very condescending way was trying to teach them better manners and better ways of carrying out their responsibility. I felt it would have been desirable to have the teacher described to the Canadian public as he was in reality rather than just being announced as a professor in a Canadian university.


William Earl Rowe: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is not afraid that, in view of his statements here and his calling Mr. Dunton up, this will not prevent young men during the next few weeks from saying anything over the radio against the present government?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I hope it will not, because from my knowledge and experience of young men, I expect whatever they say, whether it be over the radio or elsewhere, will be quite agreeable to my ears.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask the Prime Minister whether from his reply to the Leader of the Opposition we are to understand that two letters were written by him to Mr. Dunton?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec East: Yes. I said that yesterday, and I think I repeated it this morning. I wrote one letter; I received an answer from Mr. Dunton and I replied to his answer.


George Harris Hees: In his reply to the Prime Minister did Mir. Dunton address the letter to the Prime Minister at his private residence as a private citizen or did he send it to him as Prime Minister at the east block?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, that I really could not say, because on everything that is addressed to me at 24 Sussex street, the "24 Sussex street" has a lead pencil bar put through it and "east block" is written in, and it goes to the east block.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Before the hon. member changes the subject I wish to make this observation. I am not going to ask a question. I think this has been a rather healthy discussion and it will probably hinder anyone in the future from indicating not only on the radio and on television, but it might go farther than that and reach out to the press that certain people do not like certain things that might appear in the press. If that were done we would get censorship of all the articles that might appear in the press. I think this is a very healthy discussion and probably some warnings can be taken from it when we see what happens in European countries and other places.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, I have a matter that I wish to bring before the committee. It has to do with the payment of subvention for coastal services on western local services to the Union Steamship Line, which is in direct competition with other lines which are not receiving the same consideration.
Unfortunately the information I have to present to the committee was not available to me when we were discussing the supplementary estimates for 1956-57, but I did get certain information which is relative to what the Minister of Finance discussed at page 2511 of Hansard when we had a similar item before us on March 20 of this year. I must, for purposes of clarifying the position I take, read from Hansard of that day. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the Minister of Finance had an exchange on the supplementary subvention of some $237,000. I note that in this year's estimates there is a similar item amounting to $325,000. At page 2511 the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked this question:
Have there been any applications from any other shipping firms for subventions for this route or part of it?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not sure. When they came
before the treasury board they had to satisfy the chairman that this was the only steamship company that could provide the service for which we are paying a subvention and that it was necessary having in mind the costs of the particular transportation system.
I have taken the time to discover whether or not there were any other steamship lines going into the region covered, and I find that the Union Steamship Lines have withdrawn their services from the Howe sound, Georgia straits and Johnstone straits area. On April 9 of this year they will withdraw their services from the west coast of Vancouver island. There are competing lines in the same area. Canadian Steamships carry both freight and passengers to one district, Ocean Falls, Kitimat, Prince Rupert, and Ketchikan, Alaska, in lower west coast ports of Vancouver island, and they also operate a daily service to the lower east coast of Vancouver island. Canadian National Steamship Lines has a service in the summer to Ocean Falls, Kitimat, Prince Rupert and the Canadian Pacific Steamship Lines jointly with the Canadian National during the rest of the year.
The island tug and barge will, from April 9, 1957, provide service to the north end of the west coast of Vancouver island. The Northland Navigation Company Limited has four freight vessels a week to Alert bay and
Interim Supply
points north to Prince Rupert, and it now operates a freight vessel for all points to Haines, including Stewart.
The Packers Steamship Company provides service to the Queen Charlotte islands and other northern points.
Those are the companies, Mr. Chairman, which carry the bulk of the service and the passengers without a subsidy, that is other than Union Steamship Lines. We find that Union Steamship Lines is reducing its freight rate and is going into these same ports. This is a fact that must be kept in mind. I believe that the reason, in part at least, for the subsidy is the fact that Union Steamship carries passengers into the Stewart area once every two weeks, Graham island once every two weeks and Bella Coola once every week.
I find on investigation that Union Steamship Lines is not offering an alternate service. The ports of call for Union Steamship Lines are the same as the ports of call for some of these other companies with the exception of those three additional points. I have here a map on which I have outlined the routes of these companies and the ports at which Union Steamship Lines calls. For instance, in the general area of Ocean Falls and Bella Coola, we have the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and Union Steamships going into Ocean Falls. Not too far away at Bella Coola, although some distance by sea, is the Union Steamships weekly service. We find at another point, at Stewart, the Union Steamship Lines carries on by itself.
As I indicated earlier, I find that Union Steamship Lines is in competition with Northland Navigation and the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific at Kitimat. Still another point is Prince Rupert where we find the Canadian Pacific, Northland and the C.P.R. as well as the Union Steamship Lines in competition.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, and I think it has become apparent, in the past year we have given a subsidy of $562,000 to Union Steamship Lines to carry passengers into three ports and their service is merely an extension of the service from some of these other points. I find on further investigation that this same Union Steamship Lines borrowed $2 million on December 29, 1955, at a secured rate of interest of 5 per cent, to enable certain of its directors to purchase the controlling shares of the company formerly held by the Canadian Pacific and certain small shareholders.
Now I contend, sir, that if this company were in a position to borrow money to distribute to shareholders in order to purchase shares from the Canadian Pacific and other small shareholders, then they did not need to come to the government of Canada for a subsidy in order to carry on operations and

Interim Supply
at the same time reduce freight rates while they are competing with other lines which are interested in doing this business. The fact is that there are some 158,521 shares, the bulk of which numbering 147,855 are owned by Senator S. S. McKeen and Mr. F. B. Brown and associates.
In my opinion it does seem a very serious state of affairs when the parliament of this country is proposing to subsidize a company which, as I said earlier, provides such a limited service on routes that are practically all covered by other competing lines which are not asking for a subsidy. Under those circumstances, before we pass any item of the estimates in this connection, I would suggest that the minister set up a public hearing to be held on the west coast and have all authorities make representations before we decide to pass another such subvention. If that were not done, then I would hope there would be a call for tenders to see whether or not we could get the service at a figure lower than $562,000 from one of these other firms which are in the legitimate business of carrying passengers in that general area and who would be prepared to do that for us.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I have a matter which I feel to be of considerable importance to many of my constituents. Hon. members might recall that on February 19 I directed questions to the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance dealing with the matter. It had also been brought to the attention of the house by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I refer, of course, to bulletin 10 of the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue, dated July 10, 1956.


Walter Edward Harris: May I interrupt on a point of order. In this debate I think it is permissible for hon. members to discuss quite a wide variety of subjects. However, there is before the house a resolution having to do with income tax, and my hon. friend could discuss this particular point on that but not on this. I would not want to say, if the resolution were not before the house, he would not be in order at the moment. But when a resolution is there dealing with income tax, a debate of this kind I suggest should not take place. On this debate he should not refer to other matters that can be debated, for the reason I have given.


Alfred Claude Ellis: While I appreciate the position taken by the minister, it was not my intention to go into a detailed examination of this particular matter. This can be done at a later time. I do feel there is urgency here in that a number of constituents have communicated with me with reference to the matter.


Walter Edward Harris: They have also communicated with me and every other member of the house has received similar representations- at least, I assume so. Urgency is not a reason for breaking the rules when a debate can properly take place on some other matter.


The Deputy Chairman:: I wonder if perhaps I could be of some slight help to the committee by pointing out that when one hon. member referred to the fact he had a grievance to bring up at the time the last one was exhausted, we were not on the open motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair at which time grievances are brought up. Those matters can cover any subject of federal jurisdiction.
However, we are now in committee of supply discussing a resolution which includes every item in the estimates, but it does not include any item of taxation. We are not in ways and means; we are not raising the money, we are spending it. I could not rule out of order any discussion such as the last member brought up because it dealt with a subsidy included in the estimates and at this time we are voting one-twelfth of it. But if the hon. member is proposing to discuss something other than the expenditure of public funds under the estimates in this resolution, he would not be in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question of you, sir, and of the minister. Does it not turn on whether or not this bulletin No. 10 is a matter of legislation that is covered in the minister's resolutions or whether it is a matter of administration paid for out of the administration item of the Department of National Revenue. It seems to me it is the latter which is in order now. On the other hand, if it is covered by one of the resolutions of the Minister of Finance there is validity to his point. Can he tell me which it is?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is no question at all that direotive 10 is an administrative directive, as far as that goes, but in supply as I understand it we are discussing the expenditure of moneys. This is not a case of being able to discuss any matter which is on the order paper. If it were we would have two debates about the same subject.
Now, I know my hon. friend is not going to give me an engagement when he completes this speech that neither he nor any other hon. member will speak on directive 10 when we get to the Income Tax Act, because obviously he could not do that. What I am saying is that my hon. friend will discuss it now and will discuss it again on the resolution on income tax, and for that reason he cannot have it twice. He must have it once, and that in its proper place.


Alfred Claude Ellis: My interpretation was as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that this is a question of administration. Someone in the department directed that a bulletin go out to the various offices across the country. It was not a question of legislation or an amendment to the Income Tax Act. It is simply a matter of internal administration within the department itself.
In view of the urgency of the matter I felt that I would like to urge swifter action on the part of the government, because there have been answers given to hon. members in this house regarding consideration being given to this matter but to date we have not seen any results. There are many people in my constituency who are eagerly awaiting a decision on this important matter.
Having said that I will leave this matter in abeyance until a later date, but I will want to explain the reason I thought it proper to bring up this matter at the present time.


Walter Edward Harris: Thank you very much.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there is a matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Department of National Revenue, and that is the need of action being taken to keep open the port of West Poplar, Saskatchewan, from 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. This is not a local matter but one that concerns the extent of tourist traffic from the United States that ordinarily would be available to parts of northern Saskatchewan, including Waskesiu park and the Lac la Ronge area and north. In recent years United States tourists have been entering the province of Saskatchewan in increasing numbers bringing a source of wealth that is vitally necessary to the economy.
This port is the entry for travellers using highway No. 2, which is the main south-north route in Saskatchewan, going right up the centre of the province for a total distance of 475 miles, and serving the province's main tourist areas. The highway itself serves as the main tourist highway. The Americans who enter Saskatchewan do so on that new highway north of Glasgow, Montana, from Opheim to the border, which is a direct route leading to No. 2 highway in the province of Saskatchewan. The international No. 2 highway association through the president of its Canadian section, Mr. E. J. Goos, has petitioned the department on previous occasions to keep the facilities of this port open in order to encourage increased use by tourists of the facilities that are available in Saskatchewan. The hours during which the port is kept open constitute a discrimination 82715-180
Interim Supply
against the province of Saskatchewan as compared to the ports east of this port, in the province of Manitoba, and west of it in the province of Alberta.
Between the Manitoba border and Regway, a distance of 140 miles, there are seven ports of entry each of which is open until 10 p.m. or later, but between Regway and the Alberta border, a distance of some 235 miles, not one of the six ports of entry is open beyond 6 p.m. In other words, the eastern one-third of the international line in Saskatchewan has seven entry ports open after 6 p.m., whereas the other two-thirds have not a single one open after 6 p.m.
It may be argued that the number of tourists who enter through this port does not warrant the additional hours, but the fact is that the reason adjacent ports show a larger tourist entry is simply that after 6 p.m. it is impossible for tourists to use the West Poplar port of entry, and therefore they enter through ports east or west of it.
None of the other ports has available the same highways that cross at this particular port. Highway No. 2 is the main highway into Saskatchewan.
I simply rise for the purpose of supporting the application that has been made by the international No. 2 highway association, that between June 1 and September 15 this port be kept open as are the ports to the east and west of it after 6 p.m. and until 10 p.m. I do not want to say anything further in this regard. It is not in any way a personal matter but something which concerns the entire province of Saskatchewan. The province has provided tremendous facilities for tourists, and should not be discriminated against because entry is denied to prospective United States tourists by reason of the closing hour at this port being four hours earlier than the closing hour of adjacent ports.
In northern Saskatchewan we have some of the finest fishing facilities available anywhere in Canada. Each year many tourists from the United States go to the Lac la Ronge district and those areas north of it, and many go to the national park at Waskesiu. I ask the minister, in order to encourage the expansion and continued development in that direction, that representations be made by him to the Minister of National Revenue to assure that this port will be kept open in order to encourage to the greatest possible degree the entry of additional tourists into Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall draw the attention of the Minister of National Revenue to the remarks made by my hon. friend, Mr. Chairman.

Interim Supply


Mr. Shaw:: One finds oneself in a rather difficult position on an occasion like this, having only the Minister of Finance and three other ministers present.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to say the Minister of Finance appreciates that as anything more than a good joke, because looking back on the eight or nine years during which I have been paying attention to these matters, (a) I have never seen a debate of this length, and (b) I have never seen ministers of the crown being cross-examined. There may have been instances when this was done but I do not recall them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And (c), the Prime Minister never wrote a letter to Mr. Dunton before.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be misunderstood. I was not taking exception to the fact that when we have interim supply it is usual for the Minister of Finance to pilot these things through, if that is the proper term to use. My comment was not intended in any way as a reflection upon the fact that other ministers might not be here at this particular moment.


Jean Lesage: Look around you; you have no one. Look at the number of members present on that side.


Alexander Bell Patterson: What is the percentage?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, I did not propose to occupy very much time. I did not say what I said with the idea of casting any reflection. To make my intention perfectly clear I want to say that I have some questions to ask the Minister of National Defence, and I can certainly ask the questions now if I decide to do so. I was merely indicating that it would have been much better all the way around if I had the opportunity of directing my questions to the Minister of National Defence. That is all I was getting at.


Walter Edward Harris: I only interrupted for this purpose, and I am sure I do not take my hon. friend's remarks in ill part at all. I only say that I do not recall an occasion since I have been paying attention to these things, either during my time or in my predecessor's time when it was the custom to ask questions of a minister during interim supply. There may be general argument that at the particular moment there should be some discussion on a public matter for the purpose of putting it on the record at a time which suits the convenience of hon. members opposite, but I have never known the motion for interim supply to be considered the occasion for something in the nature of an inquiry about the estimates as such, and I think that is what my hon. friend has in mind.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I point this out to keep the record straight. We are faced with quite a different situation than has been the case on previous occasions when we were asked to vote interim supply. During the past number of years it has been customary, even commonplace, for us to reach this particular time in the fiscal year when it became obvious that in order to carry on, let us say for the month of April, the minister would have to come before us and ask for one-twelfth of the estimates. On those occasions the minister has given, as he did today, the assurance that members of parliament in no way would be restricted as far as the consideration of the main estimates was concerned.
Let us not forget that this is not the same situation we had last year or the year before. We are being asked for one-twelfth of the estimates for the fiscal year 1957-58. Within the course of let us say 10 days or two weeks we may be asked for another one-twelfth of the estimates, but it is conceivable that we may not have an opportunity to consider the budget resolutions.


Walter Edward Harris: I have given assurances to hon. gentlemen opposite that as far as I am concerned they will.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The only way the minister could really give that assurance would be to assure all hon. members that they will be coming back. With all its assurances it is quite conceivable that the government could proceed to finance for another eight or ten months without any hon. member of this house having an opportunity to say very much, if anything, about how the amounts listed in the estimates are to be spent.
Possibly I should not have said at the beginning that I intended to cross-examine a particular minister, but I suggest that conceivably it might have been better if the Minister of National Defence had an opportunity to make a short statement with respect to what I am going to say.
I could not help but note when the main estimates were tabled, and again when announcements were made to the house with respect to certain contemplated expenditures, let us say in the field of health and social services, that emphasis seemed always to be placed on the fact that we were facing an extreme inflationary danger. Reference was always made to the possible effects of increasing certain expenditures upon that inflationary condition.
I have watched closely for some comment with respect to the largest single item of expenditure in our budget, namely the 35

cents out of every dollar which is allocated to national defence. Over $1,722 million are being allocated for national defence during this coming fiscal year, a reduction of approximately $52 million or 3 per cent compared with the estimates of last year. But I would remind the committee that on top of that we have over $16 million for the Department of Defence Production, and many of the allocations for the Department of External Affairs and other departments could be categorized as appropriations for national defence.
It seems significant that during the last three or four weeks I have received quite a number of communications either criticizing the government or asking why it is that the government does not get right down to business and effect essential economies in the field of national defence. It is pointed out in one document I have received that all collections in the personal income tax field and one-third of the collections in the sales tax field are required to cover the appropriations for the Department of National Defence.
It is pointed out that while Canada is spending 35 per cent of its tax and non-tax revenue on national defence the United States spends only 11 per cent and Great Britain, which has borne a terrific burden and which has just as much at stake as we have, spends only 9 per cent. The general feeling on the part of the government there is that that percentage is far too high, and they must make certain reductions without affecting the defence of the nation. Denmark spends 3.6 per cent of its budget on national defence.
I might just say at this point that while so much attention is being paid to the necessity of holding the line as far as health services are concerned-I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be probably the first to point out that his department uses about 2 cents of the revenue dollar-while the Department of Agriculture uses about 2 cents out of every revenue dollar; while the Department of Public Works uses 4 cents and the Department of Veterans Affairs 5 cents; while our provincial subsidies require 8 cents out of every tax dollar; while we use 9 cents to cover family allowances, 11 cents for public debt interest, and 20 cents for all other expenditures exclusive of national defence, we find we are expending 35 cents out of every dollar for national defence.
We in this group have always taken the position-we took it during the war and ever since-that Canada must have adequate 82715-180*
Interim Supply
defences, but there is increasing evidence that Canada can secure those adequate defences at a lesser cost. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that. I shall not take the time to go into detail, though I could produce the evidence at the present time.
The Minister of Finance, acting in the best interests of the Canadian people, should see to it that there is a clamping down soon as far as that department is concerned. I contend that this department contributes more to the inflationary condition we have today than any other department of government. In the first place, there is no department of government which makes such claims on our capital resources. There is no department of government that makes such a heavy claim upon consumer goods. There is no department of government that makes a proportionately greater claim upon manpower, both skilled and unskilled. This department enters into strong competition with the civilian market, and makes it very difficult for the civilian market because of the extremely high inducements which are offered to those who go into this particular field.
It is also probably true that there is no other department of government of which it can be said that its activities are directly concerned with the providing of services, and very wonderful and valuable services at that. But practically all wages, all pensions, all gratuities, salaries and so on, provide direct competition for the consumer goods of the nation.
I am wondering whether economies which might be desirable in the Department of National Defence are left to the Department of National Defence itself to decide. I am inclined to believe the time has come when the government of Canada should see to it that a body quite outside the Department of National Defence is given this responsibility. I do not think the treasury board would be good enough in this particular case, though it does good work in the field in which it operates.
What I have in mind is that we should get right down to home base to see whether or not it is possible to ensure an adequate defence for Canada, but at the same time chop 10 or 15 per cent off the cost. Some of those who live in areas where defence establishments exist have approached me within recent times and have given me information indicating that there could well be a tightening up in a number of directions; for example, with regard to the utilization of armed service vehicles for non-military purposes. These people know this is being done, and they know what these vehicles are being used for.

Interim Supply
Such matters may sound unimportant, but I am definitely inclined to believe that if a body such as I have suggested were to study the situation they could make some very useful recommendations. The government so far has shown no reluctance to set up royal commissions of various kinds. We have had bodies appointed to inquire into radio and television, the arts and sciences and so forth, and I am inclined to believe the time has arrived when we should appoint somebody to ascertain whether or not we get service in return for money spent, and whether it is necessary to spend more than about 60 per cent of what is being spent today in order to get the same type of defence protection.
Mr. Chairman, I do not expect that a cabinet minister can be everywhere and know everything that is going on, no matter how capable, how honest or how reliable he may be. This is no reflection upon the minister. As a matter of fact I am almost inclined to believe he would not mind following a course such as I have suggested. And I am urging on my own behalf, as a member of parliament, and on behalf of those who see a good many things going on and who have reported them to me, that the government should give some consideration to taking the course of action I have proposed.
In case it may be said that I have said either too much or not enough, may I point out that I am in a position to elaborate to some extent, and I may even do so. However, Mr. Chairman, I think I have opened the door, and there are a lot of members of this house who will be able to support what I say from their own experience and from evidence which has come to them. What I have said is no reflection on the individual members of the armed services, and I do not want anyone to say it is. That is not what I am saying at all. It is something resulting, maybe, from certain accepted courses of procedure. However, I would certainly like to see some action taken in connection with the matter.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I explained to hon. members privately yesterday that I had another public engagement this afternoon, and I am now over two hours late. I wonder if hon. members would pass the item and during the budget debate make whatever speeches they might have meant to make now. I think everyone has an opportunity of speaking again on the budget resolutions.


Alfred Claude Ellis: May I point out to the minister that that is not necessarily true, because there is an allocation of time which restricts, let us say, a group. I am sure we cannot put on all the hon. members we might want to put on to cover the subjects we have in mind.


Walter Edward Harris: That is true. We have only three more days left in the budget debate, but anyone may speak on it. I presume there will be another amendment going in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not to ways and means.


Walter Edward Harris: If this is not possible, if the debate is likely to continue beyond the next two or three minutes-I am not asking any particular favour-I would like to move that we rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Erhart Regier: I take it the minister is assuring us that the house will not be dissolved and hon. members sent away without our having those three days?


Walter Edward Harris: I think we have told hon. members of one of the parties opposite that it is the intention to continue the budget debate tomorrow and on Monday and Tuesday.


George Randolph Pearkes: I would like to have said a few words on this occasion, but in view of the fact that there are other opportunities I will defer to the minister's wishes.


Mr. Montgomery:: I wonder if I might be permitted to take up two or three minutes to deal with a matter which I consider to be of urgent importance. I would like to address myself either to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of Agriculture who is, I imagine, equally involved in this matter. I am referring to the critical situation which has arisen with regard to potatoes in view of the present tariff position.
Potatoes are coming in from the United States at a price which makes it impossible to obtain a market for the local product. Down home they are being peddled from house to house. A letter I received recently points out the seriousness of the position, and I am wondering whether the government would not consider immediately introducing some sort of a support program under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I just want to take a minute or so to make the suggestion, because I have this letter with me now. It is a critical situation, and I trust the government will try to do something.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31,	1958, the following sums be
granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, namely:
1.	The sum of $275,279,008.34, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958; and
2.	The sum of $1,605,946.59, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958;
as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 360, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: When shall this bill be read a second time7 Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Stanley Howard Knowles: It is clear, is it, that the minister is just asking for one-twelfth across the board? There are no instances of two-twelfths or other fractions, as sometimes is the case?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: When shall this bill be read a third time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Supply-Post Office SUPPLY
The house in commitee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
334. Operations-including salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices, railway mail service staffs, and supplies, equipment and other items for revenue post offices, also including administration, $93,819,562.
Mr. Rea:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Postmaster General one question. As found at page 2023 of Hansard of March 8, the minister mentioned that he had received assurances from the manufacturers of the electronic equipment for the sorting machine, and that the installation would start by March 29. Can the minister tell us whether that has happened?


Mr. Lapointe:: I did say that March 29 was the date I had been informed that they would start installation. I am told that the machine is being shipped this week end and that installation of the machine in the Ottawa post office will start on Monday.


Alfred Claude Ellis: There is a matter I should like to draw to the attention of the Postmaster General. On a previous occasion I made some reference to the question of mail delivery service in the city of Regina, and suggested that there should be a speed-up in the service. Since that time I have had the opportunity of examining the status of mail delivery in certain sections of the city. While assurances have been given that delivery services are to be extended to sections where they are not now in existence, there is one particular area of the city I should like to draw to the attention of the Postmaster General.
I have recently received a communication from a constituent living in a housing area in the city of Regina known as Pioneer Village. This is a housing development for senior citizens of the city of Regina. At the present time the dwellings house somewhere in the neighbourhood of 170 people, all of whom are either old age pensioners or spouses of old age pensioners. At the present time they are not receiving delivery service to their homes, and I think of all people who deserve consideration with respect to the delivery of mail it should be our senior citizens.
Some of these people find it very difficult to go to the central office in order to collect their mail, and in view of the age of the people living in Pioneer Village I think special consideration should be given to them. I would ask the minister whether it might not be possible for the department to provide delivery service to the homes which these people occupy.

Supply-Post Office


Hugues Lapointe: I will be very pleased to look into the situation. I might tell my hon. friend that I happen to know the particular locality. When Pioneer Village was developed I was made acquainted with the development in my other capacity as Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I will certainly look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
335. Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration, and to authorize and provide for the adjustment, as of October 1, 1956, of rural mail delivery contracts in effect on that date or entered into by way of renewal after that date, under the provisions of subsection 2 of section 33 of the Post Office Act, notwithstanding paragraphs (b) and (c) thereof, $51,940,991.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister while we are dealing with the transportation vote. I think I can best illustrate the point I have in mind by reading briefly from a letter I received recently from one of my constituents. The letter reads in part as follows:
As you know we get a weekly boat which brings mail and supplies, no passenger service at all. But my complaint is over the mail. It takes two weeks to get a reply from Vancouver now. When the Union boat carried our mails we could order stuff from Vancouver by one boat and get it delivered on the next boat up. Now it always takes two weeks and even urgent letters take two weeks for an answer and three weeks from Campbell River to here. There is something sloppy somewhere. I wish you would give someone a kick where it would do the most good.
I am going on the assumption that this is the proper place to do the kicking. I can give the minister the particulars of the locality to which I am referring, but the complaint I have in mind is of more general application. By way of illustration I would remind the minister that this letter makes reference to the fact that it takes three weeks to deliver a letter from Read Island to Campbell River.


Hugues Lapointe: What is the locality?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This letter comes from Read Island, but the writer mentions that it takes three weeks to get a letter from Read Island to Campbell River. Read Island by air from Campbell River is approximately ten minutes flight. Read Island is located in part of the school district centred on Campbell River. It is part of the hospital administration district centred on the hospital at Campbell River, and generally speaking Campbell River is the main centre for this area. I have mentioned that it is about ten minutes by air from Campbell River to the place where my correspondent lives.
I think situations of this kind perhaps do illustrate the need for the department to review some of its existing policy in respect of those whom it allows to carry the mail. As

I understand it, generally speaking arrangements for the carrying of the mail are made only with scheduled air lines, but as I see the situation developing in the coastal areas of British Columbia we now have quite a number of what amounts almost to scheduled services but which are actually on a non-scheduled air charter basis. Perhaps the department could profitably examine the possibility in some cases of making exceptions to the policy which requires that scheduled air lines carry the mails. That is particularly true in cases where, within the limits of a few days, arrangements could be worked out so mails could be delivered on a much more frequent time schedule on a reasonable cost basis than the one now existing with the boat service on some parts of the coast.
I use this particular situation as an example because we have an air base at Campbell River. It happens to be operated by a firm known as British Columbia Air Lines, which operates small light planes that, in the course of a week, visit most of the places in the area which generally find an administrative and shopping centre in Campbell River.
It is unfortunate that people who live that close to a centre of that kind have to be confined to a mail service every three weeks from one place to the other. I hope the department will make a careful review of this situation, because I feel it might well be possible to work out some variation in existing plans and regulations that would provide some of these people with a much better service than they are getting at the present time.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the people served by R.R. 1, Kakabeka Falls, I wish to thank the Postmaster General and his officials for a six-day a week delivery instead of a thrice weekly delivery. The people appreciate it and asked me to extend their appreciation. They use their mail in a proper way, too.


Mr. Jones:: Is the minister in a position to answer my question of last week regarding the mail contracts with T.C.A., C.P.A., the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the cost of the conveyance of mails during the last calendar year-I have the figures for one year back, as my hon. friend may understand. From December 1, 1955, to November, 1956, they are as follows: Canadian Pacific Railway, $5,753,163.67; Canadian National Railway, $7,029,020.42; T.C.A., $8,759,594.25; Canadian Pacific Air Lines, $1,769,830.67.


Erhart Regier: Can the minister now bring us up to date as to the intentions of the department in relation to the parcel post delivery

service for the Vancouver-Burnaby-New Westminster area? Exactly what plans has the department in mind at the present time?


Hugues Lapointe: There has been no change in the situation to date, Mr. Chairman.


Erhart Regier: Do I take from the hon. minister's reply that conditions will remain as they now exist until at least the end of 1957?


Hugues Lapointe: Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. We are looking into the situation from the point of view of bringing in a system which will be more efficient and more economical than the present system.


Erhart Regier: Can the minister inform us what the per parcel delivery cost is to the post office of the business handled by the pony express? Is it 11 cents per parcel or 16 cents per parcel, or what does it work out at?


Hugues Lapointe: They are not on an item basis; they are on an hourly basis. The plan we are looking into at the present time is to establish a per item basis for those contracts through the whole postal area of Vancouver for the purpose of getting a better control and a more efficient and a more economical delivery system, but this has not yet been accomplished.


Erhart Regier: Can the minister tell us what the hourly rate is to the pony express? I have seen some of the pay statements. I know that while they pay on an hourly basis, they also make a calculation of how much this is costing on a per item basis. I would like to know what is the hourly rate?


Hugues Lapointe: It is $2.95 an hour.


Erhart Regier: Can the minister tell us what it works out to on a per parcel basis? I know the department does furnish that.


Hugues Lapointe: Slightly over 12 cents.


Erhart Regier: The minister says they are investigating a scheme which would put the whole thing on a per item basis, and I wish to commend the economy efforts that are being actively considered. In the light of the minister's announced policy of decentralization, can he assure us that when these new arrangements are decided upon tenders will be called at least for those parcel post areas that are now being serviced by the pony express? Will tenders be called for the New Westminster and South Burnaby areas when and if the new arrangement is arrived at?


Hugues Lapointe: If tenders are called for, Mr. Chairman, they will be for contracts to cover the whole postal area of Vancouver. One of the purposes of this project is to avoid having to deal in parcel post delivery with 8, 10, 15 or 20 different contractors, all operating on
Supply-Post Office
different bases. Purely from an efficient and economical point of view we believe, and the officials of the department advise me, that in such postal areas as Vancouver the operation should be one single operation, so to speak, and that is what we are looking into now. I am advised that such an operation would be both more efficient and more economical, but no final decision has been taken yet.


Erhart Regier: I understand that at one time an offer was made to take on at least one of those units at a per item cost of less than the present cost being paid to the pony express. I do not think the minister has quite made clear to us how this fits in with his announced policy of decentralization.
I do not see what difference it makes to the New Westminster postmaster whether parcels are being serviced by a New Westminster man under contract or whether it is some outside firm coming in from Vancouver to pick up the parcels. I wonder whether the minister could be a little clearer so we could really understand him when he says he is pursuing a policy of decentralization, and he now tells us it is more efficient to have it all under one roof, as it were.


Hugues Lapointe: When I have referred
previously to the policy of decentralization I have always had in mind the recommendations which were contained in the Woods-Gordon report to the effect that decentralization should be put into effect in the Post Office Department. What was meant there was that the over-all control from headquarters in Ottawa should be decentralized to the various postal districts. In other words it was felt the heads of these various districts should be given more authority to deal with local problems as they came up. This has been done, and the practice is being continued. It is that to which I referred as the decentralization policy.
Now, one could go on with decentralization until you get down to the individual operation or each individual employee of the department, but a certain control has to be exercised at one level, and we are now doing that at the district level.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister care to commit himself on that subject and state whether a city like Saskatoon is an efficient operating unit, or would it be too small a unit for efficient postal operation?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, but I do not understand.


Erhart Regier: The minister was making a point that we could carry this decentralization to the point of ridiculousness, and I agree with him. We cannot decentralize down to the

Supply-Post Office
last employee. However, I am fully aware of the fact, first of all, that there are possibly thousands of post offices which serve only 75 or 100 households. They may be uneconomic from a business standpoint, but I should like to have a statement from the minister as to whether a city of 50,000 or 60,000 like Saskatoon would be an efficient unit, and whether you could follow the policy of decentralization down at least that far.


Hugues Lapointe: Saskatoon, as I understand it, is a unit by itself and under its jurisdiction may come some adjacent territories. It is considered that it should operate as a unit. We have in Saskatoon, as elsewhere, local officials who now have greater authority to deal with problems without necessarily having to wait for a decision from headquarters. They have more authority than they had previously.


Frederick George Hahn: The minister is familiar with my representations to him in respect to the same contract we are discussing. I would ask him now whether the pony express has a firm contract at this time covering the whole metropolitan area of Vancouver.


Hugues Lapointe: No, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick George Hahn: Then the minister spoke of an investigation that is being undertaken. When does he expect a report on that investigation?


Hugues Lapointe: Well, the study has been pretty well completed, Mr. Chairman, but no decision has been taken yet.


Frederick George Hahn: In view of the fact the department is in the process of making a decision, can the minister let us know when he expects the decision will be made known as to what method is going to be used, and who is to get the contract?


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that exactly.


Frederick George Hahn: The fact is, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam indicated a few moments ago, that there is a group in the city of New Westminster interested in the opportunity of bidding on this over-all service. Will they be given an opportunity to tender on the distribution of parcel post mail in the metropolitan area, the same as pony express?


Hugues Lapointe: Well, if tenders are invited for a system covering the whole area they will have an opportunity to tender for the whole operation the same as anyone else.


Frederick George Hahn: Do we have assurance, then, that tenders will be called before any action is
[Mr. Regier.l
taken in respect to who shall receive the contract, that is the whole contract?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, before any contract would be awarded.


Erhart Regier: In that case, could the minister explain how it was that these men received their notice without tenders being called for the whole contract?


Hugues Lapointe: Because these men did not have a contract with the department. I explained that previously. Each of them had what is known, and what they know, as a temporary arrangement. It was simply an agreement between the local responsible officer and these men to do that work on the basis of so much an hour. This agreement could be terminated at any time.
That is a practice which has always been followed by the department in dealing with these contracts in large centres, particularly before tenders for a firm contract are called. Because of the various adjustments that have to be made, the practice of the department has been to enter into a temporary agreement and at a later date, based on the experience they have had with this temporary agreement, they can then make the basis for a firm contract.


Erhart Regier: There is much more involved than merely the parcel post delivery. It is very obvious that we are being asked to sacrifice our identities all around Vancouver just to build a political machine in the city of Vancouver. I would like you to call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Nicholson:: Before you rise, Mr. Chairman, there is some doubt as to whether or not you called another item.


William Alfred Robinson: Did the hon. member for Cariboo rise on item 335 or 336?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On the last item; the same one.


Mr. Leboe:: On item 335.
Progress reported.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 241, respecting The Western Assurance Company-Mr. Fairey.
Bill No. 242, respecting The British America Assurance Company-Mr. Fairey.
Bill No. 265, respecting Equitable Fire Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Boisvert.
Bill No. 264, respecting the Bishop of the Arctic-Mr. Fleming.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 243, to incorporate The North Waterloo Farmers Mutual Insurance Company-Mr. Schneider- Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 4-Classes of insurance authorized.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the sponsor of this bill whether this company is being given authority to write life insurance, or just other forms of insurance?


Mr. Schneider:: No life insurance, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 266, respecting les Reverends Peres Oblats de Tlmmaculee Conception de Marie-Mr. Richard (Ottawa East)-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Change of name.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question about this bill. To whom should I direct it?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The sponsor, according to the bill before me, is the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is he available?


An hon. Member:: Not here.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Do you wish me to report progress and ask leave to sit again?


William Gilbert Weir: Perhaps someone who served on the committee could answer your question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, I will ask my question. I would like to know if there has been any correspondence with the provincial governments that are mentioned, in view of the fact that the schedules to this act cite certain statutes of the former province of Canada and the present provinces of Quebec and Ontario. This is a rather unique piece of legislation in that it amends a statute which was originally passed by the former province of Canada -prior to 1867-and was subsequently amended in part by the province of Ontario and in part by the province of Quebec. Now the federal parliament comes into the picture.
Private Bills


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might attempt to answer my hon. friend's question, because I served as chairman of the committee which dealt with this bill. Those questions were asked in the committee and were replied to, I believe, by Mr. Addy, who was the counsel representing the order, and by the hon. member who sponsored the bill.
This order received their rights under the statutes of two different provinces many years ago and for some time they have been doing business, entering into contracts, performing various activities and have owned land. Throughout this period they have endeavoured to satisfy what they understood was the law of both the provinces from which they received their authority. I believe Mr. Addy indicated that the purpose of this bill was to re-establish the order as a proper legal entity, and that this in no way would affect the propriety of what they had done before. I do not know whether I have made myself clear to the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, Mr. Chairman, it still seems to me a rather odd situation. As the hon. member has pointed out, the statutes of two provinces of the present Dominion of Canada are involved, namely the statutes of the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario, but before 1867 and before those provinces came into being under the present British North America Act there existed the former province of Canada, and it was the legislative assembly of that original province of Canada which passed this statute in the first place.
What puzzles me is this. The original statute-in fact it is referred to in this act as the principal act-was amended by these two provinces that are now part of the Dominion of Canada, and I presume those amending statutes passed by Ontario and Quebec are included in the statutes of those provinces. Yet we have sections of this bill which amend and in fact repeal some sections of those provincial statutes.
I would like to know whether the provinces were consulted. I confess that this is a technical question, but, it does seem to me that it should be properly answered.


Mr. Fairey:: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee it was I who asked Mr. Addy if there was any conflict between the provisions of the act we are now considering and the act to which the hon. gentleman refers, and his answer was in the negative, so I presume he had taken whatever steps were necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, whom did Mr. Addy represent?

Private Bills


William James Henderson: He was the parliamentary agent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For the applicant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the people who are seeking the legislation; I see. Did anyone speak for Ontario or Quebec in the matter?


William James Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is out of the ordinary for any entity that holds property or does business in various provinces to apply for a charter, as in this case, by act of parliament to establish their authority with the federal government, because it permits them to transact business interprovincially with greater facility.
I think there is sufficient advertising in government publications of bills of this nature to ensure that any objection that might be brought forward would be advanced. In the committee and in correspondence dealing with this matter it has not come to my attention that there is any objection. No objection to this act being approved was raised by any member of the committee, and the committee recommended it for the approval of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I have something to say applying both to clause 4 and clause 5. I do not intend to oppose this bill in any way, and I want to apologize to the chairman of the committee which considered this bill for not being able to attend. The clause reads:
The corporation may purchase, take, have, hold, receive, possess, retain and enjoy property, real or personal, corporeal, or incorporeal-
I read carefully the preceding clause to which the committee has just agreed, and I must compliment this corporation upon its objects. I remember a few years ago when another religious organization came to the miscellaneous private bills committee with an act of incorporation. I made careful note of one of the clauses in that bill. I refer to the bill which was brought to us a few years ago by the seventh day adventists.
This particular clause provided that if any real estate came into the possession of or was purchased by the corporation, unless it was used for the purposes for which it had been bought the directors were obligated to dispose of it within a specified time, which I believe in that case was 15 years. After the committee had met I met the clergyman who had attended the meeting out in the corridor

and told him I was pleased to see that clause in their act of incorporation, that it was something to be heartily endorsed. He told me they had looked over the acts of incorporation of a number of other religious organizations which had been given the blessing of parliament, and had simply copied the clause found therein word for word.
Quite often people bequeath real estate to religious organizations, and in older parts of the western world this has created certain evils in that the real estate has not been disposed of and at times had been permitted to become slum areas. Quite often religious organizations are hesitant about ridding themselves of real estate as long as it produces revenue, and religious organizations are always short of revenue.
I notice that this organization is doing a great variety of good works, I suppose throughout Quebec and Ontario, and I imagine that its funds are also limited. I wish some of our older religious organizations-I use the plural here because I have no particular church in mind-would consider the possibility of inserting a provision in their acts of incorporation which would ensure that real estate coming into their hands would be used only for the purpose of fulfilling the worthwhile objects of the organization, and that unless that is done the management would be directed to dispose of such holdings.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
On schedule 1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if it is proper for you to call the schedules to this bill. Schedule 1 is an act passed by the former province of Canada in 1849. Schedule 2 is an act passed by the legislature of Quebec in 1875. Schedule 3 is an act passed by the legislature of Ontario in 1901. These schedules are attached to the bill for reference, or for information. Surely we cannot pass the bills of other jurisdictions which in fact we are amending.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I believe the point raised by the hon. member has been raised on previous occasions in a slightly different way in connection with treaties, which can only be accepted or rejected, and not amended by the house; and by carrying the schedules to this bill, which have been agreed to already by the miscellaneous private bills committee, I submit that all the chairman's initials would indicate is that these are the schedules referred to in the

clauses of the bill. It is my opinion, which is far from being an expert one, that if they were not there the bill would be incomplete.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Joseph Ricardo Bouziane.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Grzegorz Niski, otherwise known as Gregory Niski.

Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of John Masson Garland.

Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of James Frederick Greengrass.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Theophila Yanishewski Lazoryk.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of David Hutcheson MacKay.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Karl Heinz Grube.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Waltraud Feronika Thorwart Servay.

Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Elizabeth Krawchuk Yovdofchuk	Ripchinsky.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Gweneth Vernice Blackman Waterman.-Mr. Henderson.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Before the next item is called may I ask for the unanimous consent of the house to be given, in the same manner as the house gave it ten days ago. The remaining bills on the order paper are, with three exceptions, all second readings of divorce bills. The exceptions are No. 85, an act respecting TransMountain Oil Pipe Line Company and items 145 and 146. As there may be some extended discussion on the divorce bills, I wonder if the house would give unanimous consent to the calling now of items 145 and 146?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Purdy:: Why does the hon. member omit No. 85?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The sponsor of that bill was spoken to, and it was understood there might be some objections to advancing that particular item above its present place on the order paper. But items 145 and 146 are small bills, they are non-controversial, and it is desired to send them to the miscellaneous private bills committee.
Private Bills



THE PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

Mr. R. W. Mitchell (London) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 343, respecting The Progressive Insurance Company of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we have an explanation, please?


Robert Weld Mitchell: This bill provides for two things only. One is to change the name of the corporation from "The Progressive Insurance Company of Canada" to "London and Midland General Insurance Company". It provides also for an increase in the capitalization of the company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. 344, respecting the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member sponsoring the bill would state its purpose.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The bill in question is very short, having in view two purposes. Legislation with respect to the Baptist convention of Ontario and Quebec goes back to 1889 and was amended in 1911. The name of one of the boards of the church, which has been "the church edifice board" is proposed to be changed to "the church extension board". That is the only change in the first section, to bring it into line with similar names adopted by other churches and to make it more closely descriptive of the present function of that particular board.
Clause 2 of the bill enlarges and redefines the objects and powers of the convention in the light of its present activities and needs. Naturally, conditions have changed a good deal since the present section was first enacted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
William James Henderson: Perhaps I might refer to the request of the hon. member for Eglinton for the unanimous agreement of the house to consider certain bills. He indicated at that time that there might be objection to certain bills ahead of the bills with which he was concerned. I think those were the

Private Bills
bills appearing on the order paper as items 147 to 161. I have not been informed that there is any objection to these bills. Though they are not bills which deal with companies or religious communities, at the same time they concern the rights and privileges of Canadian people, and I ask for unanimous agreement that these bills be now considered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Kingston is asking this with respect to the bills included in the orders from No. 147 to No. 161, both inclusive, but no more than that. If this is his request we have no objection to these bills being dealt with at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Items 147 to 161, both inclusive on the order paper are divorce bills. Is it unanimously agreed that they be considered at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it also agreed that they be entertained in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 345 for the relief of Romeo Cadieux.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 346 for the relief of Albert George Mugford.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 347 for the relief of Andree Duquette Mathieu.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 348 for the relief of Hans Leth.- Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 349 for the relief of Roland Le-clair.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 350 for the relief of Mary Shirley Mortimer Hogan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 351 for the relief of Magda Kadar Niederhoffer.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 352 for the relief of Edith Joyce Hawkes Balogh.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 353 for the relief of Dieter Heinrich Karl Hellmann.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 354 for the relief of Marion Don-nithorne McAlear.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 355 for the relief of Noella Lauzon Dinelle.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 356 for the relief of Gloria Helen King Fletcher.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 357 for the relief of Ronald Edward Parker.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 358 for the relief of Elizabeth Maidie Davies Jones.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 359 for the relief of Irene Grace Weir Robertson.-Mr. Henderson.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are a number
of second readings on the order paper, items 55 to 83, both inclusive. Is it agreed that these bills be entertained in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. 248 for the relief of Mary Boldo-vitch Mogil, otherwise known as Mary Boldo-vitch Mogilesky.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 249 for the relief of Doris Irwin Phillips.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 250 for the relief of Kathleen O'Malley Romandini.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 251 for the relief of Lillian Yochalas Ostroff.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 252 for the relief of Gladys Catherine McCluskey	MacFarlane.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 253 for the relief of Mary Kathleen Pineault Miller.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 254 for the relief of Terez Lazar Jankovicz.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 255 for the relief of Winona Beryl Buzan Maynard.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 256 for the relief of Rose Marie Hops Zinman.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 257 for the relief of Doris Velma Gardner Briggs.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 258 for the relief of Pinck Kem-pinski.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 259 for the relief of Margaret Lukis Lambert.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 260 for the relief of June Angela Duyvewaardt Corse-Scott.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 261 for the relief of Frank Maun James.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 262 for the relief of Doris Louise Richardson Turner.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 211 for the relief of Joseph Adelard Gerard Leclaire.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 267 for the relief of Jacques Piche. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 268 for the relief of Ruby Ivy Jewell Daniel.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 269 for the relief of Clara Soloway Ruby Sazant.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 270 for the relief of Jean Houde.- Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 271 for the relief of Gisele Comtois Brodeur.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 272 for the relief of Mitzi Arono-vitch Bezonsky.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 273 for the relief of Miriam Brodish Silverman.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 274 for the relief of Paule Chaput Mongeau.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 275 for the relief of George William Ellis.-Mr. Henderson.

Bill No. 276 for the relief of Joseph Gagne. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 277 for the relief of Lois Altena Robertson Meade.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 278 for the relief of Ethelynne Joan Ratcliff Gauvreau.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 279 for the relief of Mary Flatman Tardif.-Mr. Henderson.



JEANNE D'ARC OUELLETTE MARTIN

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston) for the second reading of Bill No. 234, for the relief of Jeanne D'Arc Ouellette Martin.
Mr, Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was being debated on March 19 one of my colleagues indicated certain points in the evidence which made us raise some question about the measure. We have stated our objections to it. We are prepared to let it go at that on the understanding, so far as we are concerned, that if this bill is passed it will be on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



TRANS MOUNTAIN OIL PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company-Mr. Fairey-Mr. Robinson (Sim-coe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Subdivision of shares.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, when this measure was before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, after the officers of the company had spent most of the day with the committee the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond moved that clause 1 of the said bill be amended by deleting the word "five" in line 11 thereof and substituting therefor the word "ten", and by deleting the words "twenty millions" in line 14 and substituting therefor the words "fifty millions".
The members of our group could not support that amendment, but it is significant that several members on the government side were so dissatisfied with the proposal that they wished to register their objection in some way. There was a recorded vote and I find that Messrs. Casselman, Follwell,
Private Bills
Goode, Green, Kickham and Mclvor all voted for the amendment. It would appear that there were two Conservatives and four Liberals who felt they should register their objection before the bill was passed. When the amendment was defeated and the final vote was called Messrs. Barnett, Cameron (Nanaimo), Campbell, Johnston (Bow River), Nicholson and Thomas registered their objection.
I think it is significant that not a member on the government side of the house, apart from the sponsor of the bill, has stood up in parliament and attempted to say a good word for the proposal. I find that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond made a speech on March 13, 1953, in which he made some very critical remarks regarding the operations of Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. I find that you, Mr. Chairman, had something to say when you were a member of the committee back in 1951. I find that you put these questions to the legal agent of the company:
Q. I understand your present intention is that the line shall end at Vancouver?
A. That is correct.
Q. Are you at the present time considering any plans for an extension of the line from Vancouver to Portland or Seattle or other places?
A. No, it is our intention to go to a terminal at Vancouver.
Q. You have no plans and you have not considered taking the line further south in the states?
A No, our present plans are entirely with respect to the bulk terminal at Vancouver, other arrangements being in the future.
Q. You will find the necessary refinery capacity at Vancouver?
A. That, you appreciate, will be the responsibility or the undertaking of the different refining companies. There will undoubtedly be refinery expansion concurrent with pipe line construction, but what the refinery companies' plans are I am not m a position to say.
The hon. member for Skeena is also on the record. He asked Mr. Blair this question: Will this Trans Mountain company be in the business of buying and selling oil or just carrying oil for other people?
Mr. Blair answered:
Its primary purpose is to carry oil.
In his speech on March 13, 1953, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond said:
[DOT] * * I believe that this house and the people of Canada may have occasion to request that this charter be reinvestigated.
On March 19, 1951, Mr. Blair, who was introduced to the committee as the parliamentary agent for the company, made the very definite commitment that the plans were that this would be an all-Canadian operation, that they had plenty of funds in Canada to finance it, that there was a market in Canada for the product at the west coast and that the building of the pipe line would result in a great development in the constituency of the hon.

Private Bills
member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and possibly in part of the riding of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.
What do we find now? We now find that more than half of the oil passing through the pipe line is going to the United States market.


Francis Thrower Fairey: That is not true.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The sponsor says it is not true, but if he listened to the evidence given to the members of the committee he will recall that the estimates for 1957 indicate that more than half the oil passing through the pipe line will go to the United States market. I cannot take the time to look it up now but I am sure some of my colleagues will look up the information and give it to me. It will indicate that more than half of the oil is going to the United States market.
I submit that the hon. member who is sponsoring the measure should rise at some time while the bill is still before us to give some explanation to his colleagues who were prepared to pass the bill through parliament without even looking at the evidence which was placed before the committee that spent a day in interviewing the officials. Therefore I think it is pretty obvious that here is a *corporation that got the permission of parliament to build a pipe line under false prefences. They indicated that this was to be a project of which Canada could be proud, but now they are more concerned about the United States market than about Canada. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond asked this question, as found at page 34 of the proceedings of the committee:
Q. And June, please. I do not think X should ask you to go further than June.
A. June, 74,000 Canadian; 76,000 Washington; 49,000 tankers.
I am sure the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) has that information on page 34 of the evidence. The question was asked by his own colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. It was also admitted that the bulk of the 49,000 barrels of oil for tankers was for United States use. Therefore I submit that more than half the oil going through the pipe line is going to the United States.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Don't you believe in export?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it is very important that we export, but I also think it is very important that we give consideration to the use of Canadian resources in Canada to the maximum degree and the providing of employment for Canadians.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What do you want to do with the oil? It is there.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I also believe we should call a halt to the building up of these large

U.S. corporations. Before the committee the officers of the company made it very clear that they did not need this legislation passed by parliament in order to get additional capital.
In 1951 they were given permission to issue 5 million shares, and to date they have issued less than one-third of that number, about 1,500,000. It is alleged that they want this legislation passed to have more people participate, and before our committee they made it very clear that they had no plans to release any of the 3,500,000 shares, which could be made available to the public without the passage of this bill.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is quite obvious the hon. member has spent more time in the pulpit than in business.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They made it clear also that the principal owners had no plans to dispose of their shares. That was admitted quite frankly.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What you do not know about business would fill a book.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am prepared to give the hon. member for Kootenay East an opportunity to take part in this debate if he will rise in his place. I am quite sure the hon. member is not prepared to go back to his constituency and tell the miners in Kootenay East that he was for a project of this sort.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am all for the passage of this bill. I would not filibuster any bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for
Kootenay East is not going to stand up and tell me that this stock-splitting project is not designed exclusively to make fortunes for people who are gambling on the stock market. There has been no suggestion that the operations of this company have been limited in any way because of the fact that this legislation has not been passed.
As a matter of fact the officers of the company indicated that the price of their shares has gone up since the members of this party drew attention to the fact that Trans Mountain has been such a profitable undertaking. The fact that every $10 share that was acquired is now worth about $120 would suggest that those who put their money in it have done very well. The officers also told us that on the basis of their estimates for last year they have nearly $7 million clear after paying corporation taxes.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Is it not true that they are making that money from oil going to the United States?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Again I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Kootenay East delay his remarks at this time and allow me to proceed with my argument.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member is not making an argument.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We will see that he is given an opportunity before the legislation passes. The fact that every $10 invested in Trans Mountain is now worth about $120 suggests to the people who are forced to pay these high prices for petroleum products-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Americans are paying it; what is the hon. member kicking about?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There cannot be two people speaking at the same time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You tried to last night when I was speaking.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am prepared to see that the hon. member has an opportunity. In the meantime the hon. member for Kootenay East has not risen in the committee and he has not spoken in the house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I did rise in the committee and I did speak in the committee.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member did not go on record in the committee as indicating that this was a fine thing for Canada.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Certainly I did.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: These people came to parliament under false pretenses, asking for legislation to be passed with a view to making it possible for more people to participate in the operation of a company like this, when they also made it clear that they had no plans to issue the remaining 3,500,000 shares, which they could do, and that the main owners had no plans for disposing of their shares. We feel that the members of parliament should be concerned about the very high prices people are compelled to pay for their petroleum products as a result of stocksplitting schemes of this sort.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is all nonsense.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This means an increase in value of the shares from $10 to $120 in six years' time, and at the same time imposing an unfair tariff on the people who are buying the products.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The United States consumers.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I suggest to the hon. member for Kootenay East that he take time to read "Oil and Turmoil" by Morden Lazarus, who discusses the oil situation. This interesting book points out that Imperial Oil, which
Private Bills
is one of the companies interested in Trans Mountain is 70 per cent owned by Standard Oil of New Jersey.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: And the provincial government invited them to come into Saskatchewan.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes. We have a perfectly good reason, with the provincial government not being able to compete with Imperial, Gulf and Texaco, these international cartels. I should like to remind my hon. friend that while Canada is dominated by these large oil companies Mexico has been able to take action in the field of oil. In the December, 1956, issue of The Nation there is an interesting article entitled "Oil for Progress". This article reports what Mexico has been able to do in this field. I quote:
In 1937, the price of gasoline in Mexico City was 20 per cent higher than the average price in the United States. Today, the United States price is 80 per cent higher than the Mexican.
It's worth noting that as regards labour conditions in Mexico, the average wage in privately-owned manufacturing industries during 1955 was about $1 a day; in the oil industry it was over $4. This contrasts sharply with pre-expropriation wage scales, when oil workers' salaries were equal to or lower than prevailing inadequate wages. Pemex has a program of workers benefits unique in Mexico. It includes free schooling, free medical care for workers and their families, pensions and a sayings fund. Last year the company spent $5 million on medical care and schooling . . .
The article points out that from 1938 to 1955 Pemex produced 1,005 million barrels, mostly for national consumption, on which taxes were paid amounting to 5 million pesos. Compared with that, from 1900 to 1937 their production was 1,895 million barrels of oil and they paid to the federal treasury only 77 million pesos. If a country like Mexico is able to stand up to those moguls; to introduce public ownership into the field of oil; to have prices which are 80 per cent lower than in the United States, as compared with 20 per cent higher before public ownerships, we should have a look at this proposition which asks that a further toll be levied on the consumers of petroleum products.
We are spending a very sizeable amount of Canadian funds in connection with our responsibilities in the Middle East. Hon. members should not forget that one of the reasons we are involved in the Middle East is as a result of the large investments in oil in that area.
Another book I should like to recommend to the hon. member for Kootenay East is "The Empire of Oil" by Harvey O'Connor.


Mr. Slick:: Who is Harvey O'Connor?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member will find some of his books in the library. He writes a very good treatise on the empire of oil. One of the things he mentions is that Standard of New Jersey was one of the companies that

Private Bills
was mentioned by I. G. Farben as having made it possible for Hitler to gain information without which it would have been impossible to have waged the 1939-45 war.
This is information that was seized by the United States army. Standard of New Jersey was quite prepared to make available to I. G. Farben and Hitler top secret information which, according to Farben, if it had been denied, would have made it impossible for the Germans to carry on the war.
There is an interesting reference to the sheikdom of Kuwait. There has been a great deal of interest recently in the visit to this continent of King Saud. According to Mr. O'Connor the money flooding in upon King Saud, if spread equally among his 6 million subjects, would give them an annual income of only $23 apiece. However, if he were to make available to them his revenues from oil it would give them another-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Is this Karl Marx Jr.?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No-another $750. In contrast to that, the annual average income was $50 per person.
In view of the fact that these international cartels are forcing the people in various countries to pay these fabulous prices for petroleum products and to build up these incredible fortunes, I think this parliament should not act on the advice of the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) and give its approval to the splitting of these shares to make it possible for those who want to make easy fortunes to get something for nothing, when they are unwilling to do hard work with their hands. They want to share in the fortune which King Saud thinks it is quite all right to have for himself while his subjects live in such depressed conditions.
I hope that now I have concluded my remarks the hon. member for Kootenay East will give his reasons for recommending this measure to parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the member for Kootenay East wanted to speak.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I did not say I wanted to speak. I wanted to vote.


Colin Cameron: The hon. member for Kootenay East, who has had so much to say, is not prepared to get up and say something now.
There is one fact about this bill which I feel the house should know and that is the remarkable disingenuous way, shall I say, in which the members of the committee were treated by the officials of this company. The president of the company was asked at one point of the proceedings what were the

shareholdings of the directors of the company. All he could tell us was that they had the two shares necessary to qualify as directors. It was not until later that we were informed that in April of last year-this has not been mentioned either by the sponsor of this bill or by the company officials before the committee-30,000 shares were set aside at $35 each, when they were selling at $50 on the market, for the officers and directors of the company to take up when they wished to do so.
We were not told that. We were told, in fact, the company had no intention whatever of placing on the market any major holdings that were in the treasury. No mention was made of this step which was taken in April of last year to provide 30,000 shares for the benefit of company officials and directors. They were options to buy, some of which have been taken up.
In addition there is another incident that interests me a great deal. I asked the president of this company this question, which appears on page 43 of the proceedings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines:
Are these oil companies or what kind of business are they in?
There had been a reference to the companies which were shareholders in Trans Mountain and Mr. McQuarrie who is, I think, the treasurer of the company, told me this:
They are in all sorts of business; some are investment people, insurance companies, and all sorts of people who have money to invest.
Now that, to put it quite bluntly, was simply not true, because all sorts of companies are not in this Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. All the shares held by companies are held by oil companies. There are six of them who are major shareholders. They are: Canadian Gulf Oil Company; Imperial Oil Limited; Shell Oil Company of Canada Limited; Standard Oil Company of B. C. Limited; Union Oil Company of California and Richfield Oil Corporation. These companies between them hold 670,000 shares of this company. Then we have a pipe-line construction company, the Bechtel Company, which holds 130,000 shares.
In addition to that we have 14 other oil companies which among them own 250,000 shares. They are: Anglo-Canadian Oil Company Limited; The Calgary and Edmonton Corporation Limited; Calvan Consolidated Oil and Gas Limited; Central Leduc Oils Limited; Del Rio Producers Limited; Home Oil Company Limited; Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited; National Petroleum Corporation Limited; Pacific Petroleum Limited;

Royalite Oil Company Limited; Security Freehold Petroleums Limited; Selburn Oil Company Limited; Trans Empire Oils Limited and Triad Oil Company Limited.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are any of those insurance companies?


Colin Cameron: I cannot see that any are in the insurance business, nor are they in all kinds of business. They are all oil companies. We were told that among the corporation shareholders we would find companies engaged in all sorts of business. I submit to you, sir, that when a company sends officials before a committee of this house and those officials treat the committee in such a cavalier manner, then this house should
Private Bills
be cautious indeed about granting the demands of such a company controlled and operated by such officials. We are still waiting, Mr. Chairman, to find some reasonable proof that the company really wishes to have a wide distribution of its shares. The officials of this company did not tell us these were oil companies.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Prudham:: Tomorrow we shall proceed with the budget debate.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Buchanan: 1.	What was the final cost of the Alexander Graham Bell museum erected in Baddeck in 1956?
2.	Did the provincial government share in this project?
3.	If so, in what respect and at what cost?
Answer by: Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	$409,794.
2.	Yes.
3.	The province of Nova Scotia has shared in this project through its agreement to contribute to the federal government the area of approximately 14 acres of land on which the museum stands. The department has no record of the cost incurred by the government of the province of Nova Scotia in obtaining this land for use by the federal government.


AMMUNITION WORKERS, RENOUS AND KAMLOOPS   WAGE REPORT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has the committee which was established to review the arrangements for determining wages for ammunition workers at Renous, New Brunswick, and Kamloops, British Columbia, now finished its work?
2.	If so, has it made a report?
3.	What are the terms of such report?
Answer by: Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Since the report was prepared by civil servants and is of an advisory nature, its contents are considered privileged. Action which may be taken as a result of the report would be made known in accordance with the customary practice regarding such matters.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
334. Operations-including salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices, railway mail service staffs, and supplies, equipment and other items for revenue post offices, also including administration, $93,819,562.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, March 30, 1957