1959-02-06

Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: On August 28, 1958, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Finance reported to the house on a special meeting that had been held in Washington under the auspices of the international bank to consider means of alleviating India's foreign exchange difficulties. The Minister of Finance stated at the time that in the light of that meeting it appeared that the most helpful thing Canada can do is to continue to provide India with the Canadian goods she may require in her development program.
In the intervening months there have been detailed discussions between Canadian and Indian officials as to the type of assistance that would be most effective in helping India carry forward her economic development program and which Canada was in the best position to provide. I am pleased to be able to inform the house today that as a result of these discussions it has been agreed that $17 million will be made available to India out of the Colombo plan appropriation for the fiscal year 1958-59 to enable the Indian government to purchase in Canada essential commodities and equipment which they have requested from us.
Of the $17 million, $1 million will be applied to the Canada-India reactor to enable the work on that project to go forward; $10.5 million will be devoted to the provision of industrial raw materials including aluminum, copper and nickel, which are urgently needed by India in various phases of her development program and which will help sustain adequate levels of industrial activity and employment; $2.5 million will be provided in the form of railway sleepers-which I interpret as railway ties-to assist in the expansion and improvement of railway facilities in India; $2.5 million will be made available in the form of fertilizers which are required in connection with India's program to increase her food production; $120,000 will be devoted to the purchase of another three Cobalt beam therapy units for use in Indian hospitals. Discussions covering allocation of the balance of the funds
being made available to India in the current fiscal year are still in progress.
In all cases where Canadian aid is taking the form of commodities, the Indian government has agreed to establish local counterpart funds equivalent to the amount of the Canadian grant. These counterpart funds, as in the past, will be used to cover the local costs of economic development projects agreed upon by our two governments.
The house will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that over the past 15 months Canada was also able to assist India in meeting her requirements of food grains by making available a total of $48 million in the form of grants and loans for the purchase of Canadian wheat. Of this amount $7 million has been provided under the Colombo plan and $41 million over and above the assistance available to India under the Colombo plan.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will welcome the statement the minister has just made with regard to the assistance which is to be provided to India under the Colombo plan. I understand from his statement that from the appropriation of $50 million which the government intends to ask from parliament, $17 million will be used for assistance to India. I am glad that the minister has emphasized the desirability-I think he emphasized it-of giving this assistance in the form which was originally contemplated under the Colombo plan, that is capital assistance, and that the amount of $7 million for wheat that was made available last year for India, to which he referred, is not to be taken as a normal practice under the Colombo plan. I think the minister will agree that it was the intent of the Colombo plan that the assistance given should be capital and technical and not in the form of consumer goods, except when there was an emergency and when the country concerned, because of that emergency, desired that form of assistance.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the announcement that has been made this morning. We of the C.C.F. recognize, as I am sure other members of the house do, that India is the bastion of freedom in Asia and that with her second five-year plan she has experienced some rather serious difficulty. I am sure the Canadian people will welcome any assistance to India to help her develop her economy.
752	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Change in Pricing Policy
Our position with regard to economic assistance is clear. We believe that the government should have set aside a much larger sum of money than has been done on any previous occasion in order to provide for economic assistance to undeveloped countries generally. We feel that the main purpose of the Colombo plan has been capital and technical assistance. We have always said that whenever it became necessary, from India's point of view, to use part of these funds in an emergency for the purchase of food, we were quite in agreement that that be done. We feel the two things generally should be kept separate, namely the Colombo plan for capital assistance and economic development and the other necessary measures taken to assist India to meet her difficult problem of feeding the people of that nation.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, in order to keep the record accurate may I say this. I may have misunderstood the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). The figures and the plan of projects I gave to the house this morning relate to the fiscal year 1958-59. We will ask the house for $50 million, an increase from $35 million, for next year, 1959-60.


WHEAT-STATEMENT ON CHANGE IN PRICING POLICY
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make with regard to the Canadian wheat board pricing policy. Due to the fact that with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway the largest lake vessels will be able to carry wheat directly from the lakehead to St. Lawrence ports, with a consequent saving in transportation costs, the Canadian wheat board has introduced a change in its pricing policy.
The board announced that effective January 30, 1959, there would be an increase in the lakehead price of wheat of 5f cents per bushel, exclusive of a J cent exchange adjustment in price due to a decline in the premium on the Canadian dollar that day. As wheat is usually purchased by the buyers, and ocean freight arranged several weeks ahead of the intended date of shipment, the Canadian wheat board found it necessary to announce these changes in selling prices at this time, even though the seaway will not be open to navigation until late April of this year.
This increase, which represented the board's preliminary estimate of the gross saving in freight likely to be realized, was put into
[Mr. Argued

effect to ensure that the benefits of the seaway would be reflected in an increase in the final payment to western producers.
The increase applies only to the board's lakehead prices. Other than the daily exchange variation to which they are subject, no change was made in the board's selling prices for wheat for shipment from St. Lawrence, Atlantic and Pacific coast ports, or from Port Churchill.
The laid-down prices of wheat in the United Kingdom, European and other markets from these ports have not been affected by the increase in lakehead prices.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question. As a consequence of the minister's statement, or the announcement which he has made, does it not follow that there will be a reduction of 5 to 6 cents per bushel on wheat, as announced several years ago by the former government?


Gordon Minto Churchill: A reduction of what?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I could put the question in this way. In view of the announcement the minister has just made, does it not follow that because of the reduction in transportation costs, as announced by the former government there will be a reduction in the cost of the movement of grain of 5 cents to 6 cents a bushel?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the minister allow the hon. member for Assiniboia to comment on his statement before replying?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the increase which took place in the price of wheat at Fort William and Port Arthur a week ago today, according to press reports at that time of 51 cents a bushel-the minister says today 5f cents a bushel-was a very important one. This will result in an increased return to western grain producers on almost one-half the total wheat crop that is marketed from the three prairie provinces. This is a dividend that the prairie region is receiving, or will receive, from the St. Lawrence seaway. When I first saw the announcement in the press stemming from Winnipeg I wondered if the government's footwork in parliament was not just a little clumsy, because I had expected that this very important announcement would be made here perhaps simultaneously with the change at Fort William and Port Arthur. Nevertheless, it is a very important announcement.
I may have misunderstood the statement of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), but I think the action taken in this case by the Canadian wheat board was the right one, namely that the advantage

should accrue to the western grain producers while maintaining the principle that they have followed now for a few years of selling the grain at lakehead ports and the Pacific coast at the same price. This, Mr. Speaker, I calculate, based on recent history, should result in a one-year period in an increase in income to the grain producers of western Canada of something between $7 million and $8 million.
This is a very important step which has been taken. I express the hope now that other action with regard to wheat will not take away any substantial part of this advantage. As a matter of fact, some part of this increase has already been lost by a change in demurrage charges, and I hope there will be no increase in handling charges of grain in the future to detract from this very important step that the Canadian wheat board has now taken.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In answer to the question of the hon. member for Laurier, this is a reflection of the reduced transportation charges which will come about as a result of the opening of the seaway, and the western producer will get the benefit of that reduction in transportation charges. It will not necessarily be to the full amount of 5| cents. It might be somewhat under that; nevertheless it will be substantial.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce related to the announcement he made. Did the wheat board take cognizance of the tentative seaway tolls on lake shipping in setting this price increase? If so, is an adjustment in the price increase either up or down possible if the tentative toll schedule is changed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question very clearly because of some noise in the chamber. Perhaps I might take it as notice and have a reply for the hon. member on Monday.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DELIVERY AND QUOTA POSITION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on a newspaper report that there is space in Saskatchewan country elevators for 24 million bushels of wheat. In view of this elevator space for 24 million bushels of farm-stored wheat, will the minister inform the
Inquiries of the Ministry house what steps are being taken by the Canadian wheat board to see that delivery quotas are available for this amount of wheat?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The delivery situation in western Canada is much better than it was a year ago, and there is obviously elevator space available for farmers who wish to deliver their grain.
For all provinces, taking 1957-58, there were as of January 26, 241 delivery points on the 1-bushel quota, 1,146 on the 2-bushel quota and 650 on the 3-bushel quota. This year 598 points are on the 2-bushel quota, 1,091 on the 3-bushel quota, 298 on the 4-bushel quota and 41 on the 5-bushel quota, showing a decided improvement in the delivery opportunities for western farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the minister is able to tell us how farm marketings of grain in the crop year to date compare with farm marketings of grain in the crop year one year ago? As a related question I would also ask whether the Canadian wheat board in ordering shipments of grain has some grain sent to Vancouver, for example, even though this is against the freight rate for a certain distance? In other words, is it the policy of the Canadian wheat board generally to keep quotas equal even though this means some freight back-haul?


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to the first part of the hon. member's question, producers' marketings by provinces were a shade higher a year ago, amounting on January 22 last year to 238.5 million bushels of wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax. This year producers' marketings as of January 21 amounted to 217.2 million bushels, but having in mind the quota distribution there is plenty of opportunity for farmers to market their produce as they desire.
With respect to the second part of the hon. member's question, I do not think it can be answered briefly, and I wonder whether he would not be content to wait until the agriculture committee is set up and the wheat board officials are here, when he can discuss that particular point with them. I do not quite see the urgency of it as of today.


Hazen Robert Argue: I might tell the minister that I have asked the question because it is a very important one to the people of the area I represent, and also areas represented by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and others which are almost midway on the

Inquiries of the Ministry freight rate schedule between the terminal shipping points. If there is a measure of overlapping in orders to Vancouver and Fort William it provides an opportunity to equalize grain delivery quotas.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will direct the hon. member's question to the wheat board and have an answer for him shortly.


NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he will report to the house on discussions held earlier this week with regard to representations from Nova Scotia about mass lay-offs in the coal industry, and advise the house whether any remedial action is contemplated by the government.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago a delegation from Nova Scotia consisting of the premier of that province and other representatives, met with me and other ministers in connection with the situation resulting from the glut in coal and the stockpiling of some 1,200,000 tons or more.
A general discussion took place. The views of the people present were listened to, and consideration is being given to whatever action may be taken to the end that the situation may be met. In saying this I am not indicating at the moment what if any action will be taken. Certainly the representations were of such a nature and were so reasonably and fully made that they deserve the fullest consideration, and this they are receiving.
(Translation):


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON REPORTED STATEMENT BY PREMIER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gaiineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a front page article in yesterday's Le Droit.
Allow me to read one or two sentences of that article, so that the Prime Minister may fully understand my question. The article reads in part as follows:
Premier Leslie M. Frost stated in the provincial legislature yesterday, that this year he is bent on getting at least $100,000,000 more out of the taxsharing arrangements with the federal government. Mr. Frost went on to say that he "had not backed down a quarter of an inch" from the position he took when the Liberals were in power in Ottawa.

My question is this. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his government intends to agree to his request for $100 million in grants this year?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The question addressed to the Prime Minister really asks the government to declare its policy. If the Prime Minister wishes to deal with it at this time there is of course no objection, but it seems to me that this is the type of question, relating as it does to a policy decision of the government, which should not be asked on the orders of the day.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the point I was about to make. Any question of policy is a matter for the determination of the government, to be brought before the house when determined.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he does not think this question could be clearly resolved by his convening a conference of the provinces to settle this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Recently I have noticed a very considerable change in the manner of the hon. gentleman. I seem to remember that the question of hospitalization and health insurance could have been settled very quickly by a presentation to the house, but it took some 30 years on the part of the government of his day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a further question. Obviously he did not understand the question I put to him a few moments ago. In view of the statement made by Premier Frost can the Prime Minister not tell us now whether he proposes to try to resolve Premier Frost's dilemma by calling a conference with the provinces, as he said in 1957 he would do at the earliest possible moment?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no amendment to make to the answer I gave a moment ago, but I understated the period by eight years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. gentleman rising to ask a supplementary question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under our rules it is clear that if a prime minister or a minister does not wish to answer a question he may follow that course, but under our practice a prime minister particularly is under an obligation to at least indicate whether or not he feels that a question put is one that he does not intend to answer. The Prime Minister by today's diversion has clearly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member for Essex East when he rose indicated that the practice and rules do not require a minister to give an answer. A question usually calls for a reply, but not necessarily for an answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house have rights.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: While we may have difficulty sometimes in having this government recognize these rights, nevertheless we propose-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a point of order I of course will hear it, but it seems to me that he is rather attempting to engage in a controversy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was about to state my point of order when I was interrupted by hon. gentlemen opposite. Twice I asked a question of the Prime Minister, as to whether or not he proposes to call a dominion-provincial conference, and he replied in both instances by giving an answer in regard to another matter altogether. Now, that is a violation of the privileges of this house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I recognize that it is within the right of the Prime Minister to refuse to answer a question, but if he does give an answer it must be an answer that has the element of relevancy. I ask the Prime Minister now if he proposes to call this conference.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I seem to remember that when the hon. member sat on this side of the house relevancy was not one of the attributes that characterized his answers. In so far as the direct question is concerned, may I state in a relevant maimer that this question was asked on an earlier occasion, and the answer was given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the answer was no.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingaie):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Following the precedent that he quoted with such approval, does he propose to wait 39 years before he calls a federal-provincial conference?
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR TRANSPORT


AUSTRALIA-INQUIRY AS TO RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it the intention of the government to renew the bilateral air agreement with the commonwealth of Australia, which I understand expires early next week?


Sidney Earle Smith: I thank the hon. member for Laurier for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The agreement to which he refers was to have expired next week but there has been an extension of one month, that is until March 11. Discussions with respect to the future of this agreement are now going on, and I am pleased to inform the house that the government is pressing for its continuance.


Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Was this subject discussed by the Prime Minister when he was in Australia?


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as discussions are concerned, when I was in Australia or elsewhere they were discussions between myself and the prime ministers of the various countries, and following the custom of this house I do not wish to make any statement regarding the course of those discussions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister merely if this was a subject of discussion when he was in Australia.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a very unacceptable answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh yes. I have no hesitation in saying that this is a matter that was discussed.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a different thing.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the house whether the government is giving consideration to bringing farm labourers under the Unemployment Insurance Act?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question I wish to advise him that the unemployment insurance commission has this matter under very active and accelerated study at the moment. Upon inquiry they have advised me that a recommendation will be available on this matter in approximately two or three months.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question I should like to direct to the Minister of Labour which also requires some acceleration. Will the minister consider extending the period of the municipal winter unemployment public works program from April 30 to May 30, as recommended by the metropolitan Toronto executive committee?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker in answer to this question may I say that in view of the response we have had from the provinces and the municipalities and the way the projects are now being submitted to the government for approval and are being approved, there is no reason at the moment to consider any extension.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I wonder whether the Minister of Finance would indicate to the house why there was omitted from the estimates and his long explanatory statement thereon yesterday any reference to payments to western grain producers, either in renewal of the scheme now in force or by way of substitution of some improved scheme therefor.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisier of Finance):: Obviously that is a question for my hon. friend to raise in committee of supply when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are under consideration. The estimates I tabled yesterday indicate the government's program as of this time.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the 
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of press reports respecting Dr. Rousseau I should like the minister to tell the house whether Dr. Rousseau was offered a position in another government department, and whether the minister ever refused to see Dr. Rousseau.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker,
I have seen the statement that is reported in the press as having been made by Dr. Rousseau. If the statement was made as quoted in the press it is inaccurate. I do not intend to deal with the inaccuracies in detail;
I do not think any purpose would be served thereby. There are, however, two points that I should like to make very clear.
Dr. Rousseau is quoted in the press report as having said:
Notwithstanding the statement attributed by the newspapers to Hon. Alvin Hamilton, Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Department of Agriculture has never offered me any position whatsoever.
Fortunately for the truth, Mr. Speaker, the offer of the position to Dr. Rousseau was made by my deputy minister in the presence of two witnesses, including a representative of the professional institute of the public service of Canada. It was also made in a letter dated January 20 from my deputy minister to Dr. Rousseau. The offer was a firm offer and was for 30 days. In view of the fact that a member of the civil service has taken this procedure of making a statement to the press, I am going to take the liberty of quoting from a letter from my deputy minister to Dr. Rousseau written on January 20, to which letter I have already referred. I am prepared to table the letter. The relevant portion is on page 3, and reads as follows:
As I told you on December 15, the Department of Agriculture have available a senior scientific position in the field of botany that is available for you should you wish to accept it. It may be that there are other positions outside the public service that you would prefer to take. If not, I would strongly urge that you consider the position in the Department of Agriculture most seriously. It is purely scientific and would, I am sure, provide new opportunities of service in a field in which you are eminently qualified.
The minister is quite prepared that you should have 30 days from today in which to consider this matter. If you do not choose to accept the position in the Department of Agriculture or any other that you think preferable I would appreciate it if you would submit your resignation at the end of 30 days. If you have not taken action in one way or the other during that time the minister will be faced with the unfortunate necessity of recommending your separation from the public service of Canada.
As I said in my statement the other day, the civil service commission of Canada has

been kept informed of all negotiations with Dr. Rousseau. The second point with which I should like to deal is found in this statement by Dr. Rousseau in the newspaper report:
Notwithstanding the repeated requests I made to the minister's secretary for an interview with Mr. Hamilton, and in spite of the assurance given to me that the minister would take no decision whatsoever without having the opportunity to discuss the matter with me, no interview was ever granted.
The facts are that I told my deputy minister many weeks in advance of his interviews with Dr. Rousseau, and also instructed my private secretary who was present at the interview of January 20, to tell Dr. Rousseau that if he so requested I was available at any time to see him. Dr. Rousseau has at no time asked to see me either directly or through my deputy minister or through my personal office. The assurance was given to Dr. Rousseau that all the known relevant facts would be weighed by the minister before arriving at a decision. This, Mr. Speaker, has been done.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: I
should like to ask the minister if he would explain to the house by what right the deputy minister of northern affairs could offer to this man a position in another department, presumably a position that comes under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This matter
was taken up with the civil service commission of Canada. It is a customary procedure which they have followed on occasions, on the basis of which they offer to make an adjustment in staff personnel. This was done in accordance with a proposal raised by the civil service commission.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder
if the minister could say what salary this scientific position in the Department of Agriculture carried and whether for Dr. Rousseau, had he accepted it, it would have meant a substantial reduction in salary?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If my memory
serves me correctly the salary offered was $9,340 for the scientific position in the Department of Agriculture. His present salary is $11,000.
(Translation) :



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arlha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I apologize for not giving him notice of
Inquiries of the Ministry it, but I am sure he will hardly have any trouble answering it.
Has the minister received any requests from poultry producers and poultry associations in the province of Quebec, that steps be taken to prevent the sale on the Canadian market of poultry meat from the United States? If he has, does he intend to grant their requests?
(Text):


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I am not entirely clear as to what
the question was, Mr. Speaker, but I understood it to be whether I had received requests from the poultry producers to prevent the importation of United States poultry, and if so what was the reply. I have received requests of this kind quite regularly, and my reply has been that we do not consider it desirable, in the interests of good trading relations with the United States, to impose an import ban on United States broilers and chickens coming into this country.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Is the hon. minister aware that, in the province of Quebec, poultry is selling 5 or 6 cents below the cost price, i.e. 16 to 17 cents a pound, while the price of broilers is estimated at 21 cents a pound?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to make it clear to the hon. member and to the house, as I have to the poultry producers associations for the past several months, that the decline in the price of broiler chickens, which is the biggest item, is due almost entirely to the very large increase in production which has taken place in Canada. The total production in Canada has gone up from 1953 to the present time from something in the neighbourhood of 30 million pounds to about 180 million pounds last year. The trouble has been that production has been greater than demand, and that is almost entirely the reason for the decrease in the price of broiler chickens. Imports from the United States, in comparison, have been around 5 million to 6 million pounds during the last year. Thus it is quite apparent the importations are not sufficiently large to have had any material effect on the price of chickens in Canada.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Is the
Prime Minister in a position to answer the

Supply-Agriculture
question I asked him yesterday with reference to the sittings of the Borden commission in the Atlantic provinces?


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry, but I am not as yet. I have not had a reply from the Borden commission.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
699. Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration- further amount required, $225,000.
Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister give an explanation for this particular vote?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The necessity for this vote arises, Mr. Chairman, from the fact that this year there was widespread drought throughout the prairie provinces and as a result a very large number of applications for inspections throughout the townships across the entire west. The estimate for administrative costs of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is made each year on the basis of the average cost in years past, particularly in the immediately past years. If you have a heavy inspection program as a result of adverse weather conditions it means that your administrative costs are considerably greater than the amount estimated.
This was the case in this particular year. A great many more inspections had to be made and there was a great deal more travelling to be done than had been the case in the two or three years previous. This amount of money is required to cover the costs of these extra inspections and the travelling expenses of the inspectors.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am pleased to support this vote. I have often said in the past, and I repeat, that I think the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been of great benefit to western Canada. I believe that over the years this act has been amended from time to time in such a way as to generally improve its administration and the benefits provided under the act, and to make it at least somewhat more certain that farmers who in fact suffer crop failure are able to obtain payments.
Before the amendments were introduced into this act during the last session I had a very large number of complaints about its administration and the difficulty of getting payments. I want to tell the minister, in fairness, that the amendments made last year have reduced the number of complaints very substantially. I think the amendments have been in the right direction. The minister
[Mr. Robichaud.l
will recall that over the years when he and I sat almost together on this side of the house, both the Conservative party and the C.C.F. party put forward the idea that in so far as practicable payments should be made on an individual basis so that when a farmer has a crop failure he obtains payment. This objective has not been reached, and it may be a very long time before it is reached. Certainly, however, with one or two exceptions some years ago about which we had many long and heated arguments, the general direction has been to make it easier for farmers to qualify.
I should like, in just a very few sentences, to say that I think the government should consider an expansion of this act. It is not something new that I say today, but something I have been saying for some considerable length of time. I feel that in relation to the purchasing power of the dollar and in relation to the cost of farming, it is very essential that the benefits under this act be increased. We have had arguments in this house on other occasions about several matters.
I am not going to refer to that matter in such a way as to be ruled out of order. However, we have had arguments to the effect that certain other action, namely the $1 an acre payment, was being taken on that basis in order to make certain that farmers who had marketed little grain in past years would receive at least that minimum benefit as compared to what might be received if the deficiency program had been adopted.
I suggest that this is the kind of measure, Mr. Chairman, that should be used and should be expanded in order to make certain that farmers who have a crop failure receive the benefits that come from the national treasury. If it is the general purpose of the government, in supplementing agricultural income, to do so in such a way as to help the small farmers, the farmers who have been unfortunate enough to have crop failures, then this is the act that is designed to do that very thing and it is not designed to be done in some other act to that extent.
I should like to see the benefits under this act increased, as I said last session, to at least $10 per acre from the maximum of $4 per acre. Ten dollars per acre, if paid on the same basis as at present, is not a fabulous sum of money in relation to the cost of doing business and in relation to the cost of farming. One of the first reports I studied when I came to this house in 1945 was a submission which was made by the late R. E. Motherwell on the whole question of prairie farm assistance and the whole field of crop insurance. While many studies have been made since

that time I nevertheless believe that from the studies made by Mr. Motherwell during that time one can learn a great deal as to the problems that are involved in a prairie farm assistance scheme and those that may be involved in a crop insurance scheme. There may be some areas of Canada and some crops to which crop insurance is particularly adaptable. A crop insurance scheme perhaps has a different meaning to different people. But if a crop insurance scheme should attempt to be actuarially sound on the basis that each farmer and each farm shall pay into the scheme over a long period of years enough money to cover all of the benefits that are paid out, on that basis the crop insurance plan will be too expensive for the people who need it most. In the high risk areas the premiums would be exorbitant. I want to say that in the working out of any crop insurance plan-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is out of order, Mr. Chairman.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will not wait, Mr. Chairman, until you rise. I will attempt to keep my remarks confined to this subject. As I said initially, there are in this plan some important features that I think should be retained in any plan that is adopted by parliament. One of them is universal coverage, where everyone is covered in this huge area and everyone has a chance to benefit if he has a crop failure. Another thing I like about prairie farm assistance is that under the act universal payments are made by all agricultural producers. Another feature of prairie farm assistance that has always appealed to me is the fact that it is a federal plan affecting three provinces. It does not say, generally speaking, to agricultural producers within one province as compared to those in another, "You have had more crop failures than other areas; therefore it will be necessary for you to pay more," or in other words that they should attempt to lift themselves by their own boot straps. I am saying to the minister that any scheme that is brought forward either to supplement or to replace the act-and I do not think there is any suggestion from any hon. member that this act be replaced-should not penalize either the farmers who live in the high risk areas or the people, including farmers, who live in a province that is a higher risk province than some others.
I believe it would be a good thing if the Minister of Agriculture would call into conference the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the representatives of the farmers union, the representatives of
Supply-Agriculture
the wheat pools and, if the government felt it was advisable, the representatives of the departments of agriculture of the various provinces in order to see how this present act could be expanded as to benefits and as to premiums and deductions so it could more nearly meet the heavy expenses that farmers incur when they have a crop failure.
As I have said, we feel that the benefits should be increased. We believe that if the benefits were substantially increased, agricultural producers would be prepared to have an increase made in the deductions at the elevator. This is an act that has the support of farm organizations and farmers generally. Any move the Minister of Agriculture may make to improve this act, either in respect of administration or in respect of the benefits that are paid thereunder, will receive the support of the people of the prairie provinces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to say a word or two in connection with the comments which have just been made, Mr. Chairman. First of all I should like to thank the hon. member for stating that his experience has been that the number of complaints in connection with this act have practically disappeared as a result of the amendments we brought in last year.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not say that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will say that. As a matter of fact the number of complaints we have had in my office this year has been almost negligible. I think you could count them on one hand. Last year and the year previous they came in literally by the hundreds and even by the thousands. I think that is the measure of the improvement made by last year's amendments with regard to removing causes for dissatisfaction on the part of the farmers in western Canada.
I do not think we should get into a discussion of crop insurance on this item. The hon. member started to talk about crop insurance but I am not going to do that. I should like to remind him and any other hon. members who may be wanting to talk about crop insurance that it was indicated in the speech from the throne that we were bringing in legislation on that subject this year. I think discussion of that matter should wait until that time, or at least until the general discussion on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, rather than be started here.
I might also say that this year it is estimated that payments from the emergency fund or in other words payments to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act will run to

Supply-Agriculture
better than $20 million. In other words an extensive program and extensive payments are in progress this year. I may also say that the payments made up to date are ahead of those made in any similar period in the last five years. Up to January 31, $8,447,725 had already been paid out. As to the remainder of the $20 million or a little better, the cheques are going out rapidly at the present time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a small supplementary question. Can the minister refresh our memories as to the cost of prairie farm assistance as contemplated last summer when the crops looked bad? If my memory serves me correctly, and I am not saying that it does, I think the original estimate was that the cost might be as much as twice this amount.
The point I would like to make is this, that with the very substantial recovery of the prairie crop last summer even with the amendments of last year, which were in the direction of increasing the number of farmers who could obtain benefits, the amount of money which the government at one point anticipated would be necessary because the crop looked very bad was substantially reduced.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, if I may say so I think that is self apparent. If the crop improved the estimate of the amount we would have to put up would naturally be reduced. At one time we were estimating that payments would run between $30 million and $35 million, but now we estimate they will run to just about $20 million.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, I feel that this discussion would not be complete without some words from the constituency of Vegre-ville. Over the years we have had great difficulty with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as it was. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the act as it was before the amendments were passed last year. In fact I owe that act a great debt of gratitude, because it was mainly on account of the difficulties experienced with the former prairies farm assistance act that I am here today. When I came down last session I had received some 400 separate complaints about the 1957 prairie farm assistance awards. Those were practically all looked after, to such an extent that a month ago I got payment for one section which had not been paid for in 1957. That was on account of an error in the office which was making out the various township maps. This year I have not had any more than a dozen complaints, and those complaints amounted more or less to inquiries.

There are still a few things that could be done to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to improve it, if it is to remain effective, and if it is not to be entirely superseded by crop insurance, which we may not discuss. One of the things that is not taken into account is the vagaries of rainfall and weather in our western country. It is an unfortunate thing that rain does not fall in square blocks. It does not fall in rectangular blocks, and it does not fall in blocks of twelve sections. It is, as I say, a very, very indeterminable and questionable area that lacks rainfall and consequently lacks crops. In my constituency there are areas of three or four sections which did not get rain, consequently they were not eligible under the act because they joined another block which got rain.
Just as an example, several years ago prairie farm assistance was paid in the area in which I farm. I had a very good crop. Bain fell on July 1 that just covered my farm. I produced 44 bushels of wheat to the acre that year, which even in the district in which I live is only part of a crop. I received through the Prairie Farm Assistance Act that year something in the amount of $300, because my neighbours did not get that rain. Now I would be cut out, as I have been ever since that time. But the main thing is that the act, as amended last year, has caused a great deal of satisfaction. It has caused prairie farm assistance to be distributed in a much more satisfactory manner, and consequently it is much more beneficial. Should this crop insurance plan for any reason not materialize, I certainly hope the Prairie Farm Assistance Act can be amended in the manner I have suggested. Then it would become almost a small crop insurance plan. I would have liked to say a few words about how much the $1 an acre bonus was appreciated, but I may not go into that.


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about these estimates. I have had a great deal of experience with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act brought in under the Liberal government but it never proved to be administered in a satisfactory way. They did not seem to take it seriously enough, or to amend the act so the farmers of western Canada would get proper payment under it. Last year western members spent a great deal of time in trying to amend this act, and I felt that we did a very good job in connection with it. I can quite appreciate the little speech today of the hon. member for Assiniboia, because he missed out and was not able to deal with those amendments-


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Well, if the hon. member will consult the record he will find that the amendments went through the house on that day.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might tell the hon. member that I was ill when these amendments were before the house, and that is why I missed them.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I would like to go back to February 3. Hon. members will remember that the hon. member for Assiniboia referred to us as a bunch of little mice. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that those little mice had a big piece of cheese to nibble away at, and we were certainly getting the worms out of that act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Were you nibbling at the worms?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: No, they were not squirming enough for that. While these so-called mice were working on this act the Saskatchewan tom cat was running around the country howling.


Hazen Robert Argue: Debate on a high level.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: The hon. member for Assiniboia should give these little mice a great deal of credit for this act, because I am sure that his constituency will appreciate what we have done through these amendments. This act today is as much on an individual basis as it can possibly be.
I would like at this time to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for the co-operation he has shown through the introduction of the amendments to this act, and I can assure you that there are several constituencies which have not had one complaint this year regarding the act as it stands today.
It did take a little more money for administration, but that was no fault of ours, because a great deal of inspection had to be carried out. I feel the expenditure of this extra sum of money was very necessary in order to carry out the provisions of this act.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to give us a breakdown by provinces of the amount paid in levies by the farmers and the amounts received in prairie farm assistance payments since the inception of the act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These figures are to be found in detail in the report of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for the crop year 1957-58. The information is contained on the last two pages. This report is available to all hon. members, so I will not go into detail with regard to them. I will just give the total figures. From the inception of the act in 1939, and including the crop year 1957-58, the
Supply-Agriculture
amount of the 1 per cent levy collected in the three prairie provinces was as follows: Manitoba, $16 million; Saskatchewan, $60,800,000; Alberta, $30,426,000, making a total of $107,311,000. The payments out under the act to the three provinces for the same period were as follows: Manitoba, $13,943,000; Saskatchewan, $138,755,000; Alberta, $50,755,000. The total of these payments amounts to $204,353,000. There were some small payments in British Columbia which I have not included.


George Robson Muir: I ask this question because I should like to point out to hon. members that Manitoba is the only province which has received less than it has contributed. Our province is as you know, Mr. Chairman, known as the sure crop province. In round figures we paid in $16 million and we took out $13,900,000. Saskatchewan took out $138,700,000 and paid in $60 million; Alberta took out $50,700,000 where they had paid in $30 million.
I think it can be seen from these figures that the setting up of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has helped out the wheat area in Saskatchewan to a greater extent than it has assisted the other two provinces. I wanted to point this out because while it is possible that crop insurance would not work out in some areas, I believe it would work out very well in Manitoba where premiums would not be too high and where the payments received would be more in keeping with what was contributed.


Mr. Kindt:: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question more for the sake of clarification than anything else. The minister has mentioned $20 million. May I ask if that sum is the amount paid out of the federal treasury to supplement the levy of 1 per cent?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That $20 million will consist of the 1 per cent levy collected plus the contribution from the consolidated revenue fund, that is from the dominion treasury. What the amount paid by the treasury will be this year we do not know, because grain deliveries have not all been made. However, the major portion of that payment of $20 million will come from the consolidated revenue fund. The complete breakdown, with regard to past years, is as I gave before; $204 million has been paid out and $107 million collected. In other words approximately half the money paid out from the beginning of the operation of the act up to the present time has come from general revenues and the other half has been collected by means of the 1 per cent levy.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on this item I should first of all like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the hard work and effort he has put in, along with the rest of the western members, to amend this act. I think this work has been very satisfactory, and I gather from what has been said here today by hon. members that there have been very few complaints about the act as amended.
I should like, if I may, to comment on what was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia with regard to payments under P.F.A.A. The hon. member said, it will be recalled, that he would like to see up to $10 an acre paid on a 600-acre basis. This, I should say, would give up to $3,000 a year to a farmer with 600 acres, and I should like to go on record as stating that in my constituency-and I think I am correct in saying there is more P.F.A.A. assistance paid there than in any other constituency in Alberta- I have received no complaints whatever with regard to the maximum payment which has been decided on. I feel that if payments were made up to a limit of $3,000 it would have a very detrimental effect on the advancement of the agricultural industry, and that it would have a detrimental effect on farming in general and be harmful to the over-all efficiency of farming which today is the most important thing about farming.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words about this $225,000 increase in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I note that members from western Canada have been commending the government. I do not blame them. However, I should like to express the views of eastern farmers.
The member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir), who has just resumed his seat, suggested that Manitoba has not benefited from this legislation to the same extent as the others. I would point out that in the province of Quebec, it has not done us any good, because it does not apply. I realize that the act cannot now be amended for the benefit of eastern farmers. I would point out to the minister, however, that in the budget debate this item will come up, and we shall then have an opportunity to go into it more thoroughly. Nevertheless, I wish to say to the minister that eastern farmers are just as interested as western farmers in sharing the benefits of this legislation, which we endorse.
I have no objection to this increase, and if the minister will agree to consider the case of eastern farmers, he can count on

our help during the forthcoming debate on the budget. We shall then make known the needs of eastern farmers.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: It has been pointed out that I have advocated that the maximum payment under this act be increased from $4 to $10 an acre. Of course the $4 an acre payment is made only when the average yields are less than 3 bushels per acre, which in the general history of western Canada, as far as the total area is concerned, seldom happens. But in a year of catastrophe so far as the individual farmer is concerned, with a yield of 3 bushels an acre or less. I feel a payment of $10 an acre is not out of line. If the acreage on which this is paid were increased from 400 to 600 that naturally would bring a maximum payment of $3,000 in a year of total crop failure, and less in a period of partial crop failure of 3 to 5 bushels for the middle category or 5 to 8 bushels for the higher category.
Although I represent generally an agricultural riding I firmly believe that the Unemployment Insurance Act is an excellent piece of legislation and serves a useful purpose in Canada. Certainly we in this group shall be supporting increases in payments under that act. We have advocated this for many years. In fairness, and to keep things in perspective, it should be pointed out that payments are made at the rate of $33 a week, which on the basis of 52 weeks represents a payment of $1,760 a year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order. This item is not for unemployment insurance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, Mr. Chairman, prairie farm assistance if increased in the way I have suggested would bring some farmers in extraordinary years the sum of $3,000. It should be pointed out that this is not net income. Out of the $3,000 would have to be paid the very high costs of grain operations on a farm of maximum size. I would think that relative to the Unemployment Insurance Act my suggestion would bring prairie farm assistance somewhat in line with the benefits paid under that act. I want to make it crystal clear that what I have said should in no way be taken as a criticism of the benefits paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I believe that act should also be extended and improved.
I want to comment briefly on the statement that farmers in Manitoba have paid more into the act over the years than they have received out of it by way of benefits. That of course is perfectly true, and if one wished he could divide up the payments on the basis of municipalities or regions and make any kind of computation he desired. The operation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is not based

on provincial boundaries but is designed to do a job for western Canada. One of the reasons the former minister of agriculture, Mr. Gardiner, used to vigorously advance the principle of this act, even though it provided frequently recurring payments in certain areas, was that the national agricultural policy of the federal government in years gone by settled people in the Palliser triangle, and once that was done the federal government had a responsibility to the producers in that area in times of crop failure. We in this group have always supported that principle as has, I believe, the present Minister of Agriculture.
In conversation with expert agriculturists from the prairie provinces I have discussed the possibility of having grain graded on the basis of protein content. The low yield areas over the years have generally experienced crops with a better protein content. The answer given to me was that farmers who produce the higher protein wheat are generally in the areas of crop failure and receive additional consideration under this act. Therefore, while it is true that certain farmers in specific regions have paid more into this act than they have obtained by way of benefits over the years, nevertheless as far as the value of wheat is concerned when the wheat is sold on the basis of protein content the situation is exactly reversed, and it has been suggested to me that some rough sort of justice obtains. As a result of the case being presented to me in this light I have been somewhat less active, shall I say, in championing the grading of wheat on the protein content basis, although I understand that active studies have been under way in recent years.
The point I wish to make is that the act was not drafted on the basis of provincial boundaries, and that federal governments in the past have taken the position that because national policy settled farmers in the Palliser triangle there was some responsibility on the part of the federal government and some is accepted in this act to protect the farmers' income during periods of crop failure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I feel I should remind the hon. member and other hon. members of the committee that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is not a crop insurance scheme, and it is therefore not correct to compare it to a system of crop insurance or to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The very name of the act indicates the function it fulfils. It was initially put into effect purely as a drought relief measure. Assistance under the act has also been extended to certain other forms of crop loss such as loss due to hail, flooding and grasshopper damage. Essentially this act remains a
Supply-C.B.C.
drought relief measure. It is not a system of crop insurance and it is futile to consider the principles underlying a system of crop insurance or the Unemployment Insurance Act in relation to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
I should also point out that the hon. member for Acadia was correct in stating that to increase payments to $10 an acre would not be wise. His riding is in one of the driest parts of Alberta, as is indicated by the fact that P.F.A.A. payments are always very extensive there whenever there is a year in which they are made.
I believe to increase the payments under the act to $10 an acre would result in a great deal of damage as far as conservation of the soil is concerned. To increase the payments would immediately cause a lot of land which should not be under the plough to be cultivated. Farmers would drill a crop into it and collect $10 an acre not caring whether or not they harvested anything. It would encourage poor methods of cultivation and other malpractices. To increase the payment would undoubtedly do a great deal of damage to our soil resources in western Canada. It would cause to be brought under cultivation land which should be left in grass, and this would be one of the most retrograde steps that could be taken.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
700. Salaries and expenses of the board, $72,000.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word or two about this item. This is not a large vote, but I notice it includes not only salaries for the new board but expenses as well, and I wonder if the minister would give us a breakdown of the amounts for salaries and expenses. I raise this question because I believe the new board has held its first public sittings within recent days.
People in the industry have indicated to me that they were rather surprised to find that the board is conducting its hearings with respect to applications in rather a new fashion, which I feel perhaps should be examined by the minister concerned. I am told that in the past when applications were heard by the C.B.C. board of governors it was most unusual to have questions from the board put through the voice of an official counsel, and similarly it was not usual for an applicant to feel obliged to attend with his solicitor.
I do not want to let down the profession of the Minister of Finance and myself. I can appreciate that a licensed station owner asked to appear before the board with respect to his public service conduct or some other

Supply-C.B.C.
breach of his obligations might wish to engage legal counsel. But when it is in connection with an application for a new licence I should think the public interest would be better served if the members of the board themselves did the questioning and heard directly from the actual person going to conduct the operation rather than listening to his counsel.
I simply draw that to the attention of the minister. The item refers to salaries and expenses, and I am wondering whether provision is being made for legal counsel, something that I believe was very rarely employed under the former procedure.
With respect to engineering and professional advice concerning electronics and other technical matters, upon whom will the new board rely? Will they rely solely on the officials of the Department of Transport or will they be relying, as the former board did, upon advice from the engineering people in the C.B.C., or will the board be hiring new technical and professional people to assist them in matters of this kind?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the item under discussion, No. 700, is to provide for the salaries and expenses of the members of the board from November 20, 1958, to March 31 next, the end of the fiscal year. It covers the salaries of the full-time members of the board, of whom there are three, and in the case of the other members of the board their per diem allowances and travelling and other expenses in attending meetings.
So far as salaries are concerned, the appropriation is to provide for the salaries of 13 members of the staff subject always, of course, to the approval of the establishment by treasury board. The item also covers such things as supplies, equipment and office rental.
My hon. friend asked questions about the method of conducting the hearings and about the use of technical advisers. So far as the method of conducting hearings is concerned, I think that is a matter for the board itself to determine in the light of its responsibilities. I understand some view was expressed that in the case of applicants the board wished in some cases to hear directly from the applicant, but I have no reason to think there is any wish on the part of the board to tell applicants that they should not seek the services of counsel if they choose to do so.


William Moore Benidickson: It is the other way around. I think the board itself has set a new pattern in conducting the questioning through counsel rather than the board doing so directly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As to the board's conduct in questioning applicants I take it that is a matter for decision on the part of

the board as to what is the most effective way of adducing the information. The size of the board might indicate that it would be more effective and expeditious to have the questioning conducted through one person, an experienced counsel, rather than having questioning proceed in what might otherwise be a rather sporadic fashion from a number of interested members of the board.
With respect to the last question put by my hon. friend having to do with the use of technical personnel, of course the services of the technical personnel in the Department of Transport will be available for the use and assistance of the board as it may require.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
701. Grant towards the anticipated operating deficit of the radio and television services-further amount required, $2,193,552.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, item 701 deals with a grant toward the anticipated operating deficit of the radio and television services of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The remarks I intend to make will be directed exclusively and objectively, I hope, to the operating deficit and the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I should like to deal with the present dispute now engaging the attention of the producers and the C.B.C. I shall do so, I hope, realizing that the parties are now negotiating with each other. But I would point out that I would feel much more satisfied if the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Labour were in their seats. After all, this is a matter which affects the Minister of National Revenue and he should be present, as should the Minister of Labour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of National Revenue, who is the spokesman for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the house, is on his way down to the chamber now.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would my hon. friend like to know how this estimate arises?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It may not affect what he wishes to say, but this item comes before us for a very simple reason.


Lionel Chevrier: I would rather be allowed to continue my remarks in the manner in which I had intended to make them. If I should be out of order the chairman will call me to order, but I shall do my utmost to stick to the item before the committee.

As I said earlier, the parties to the dispute are now negotiating their differences and that is all to the good. I commend those who are responsible for bringing these people together. So far as we on this side of the house are concerned, they have our very best wishes that they will be able to bring the dispute to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible. No one will be happier than I if such is the case, because I am sure that no one, whether on this side of the house or on the other side, is anxious to see any group of individuals suffer because of a difficulty such as the one which has arisen.
But in dealing with this matter objectively it strikes me that there are some things that the minister responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its operations should take into account. There are the long term and short term effects of any dispute, whether this one or another one that may take place involving the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its producers or other employees. Of course, as I said a moment ago, it is unfortunate that 1,300 people, together with the producers, should have been out of work for almost 39 days. However, that is something which has taken place and there is nothing that can be done about it at the moment save and except to continue the efforts that are being made at present to bring about conciliation of the dispute.
But because of the nature of the operations of the corporation there are long term effects of such a dispute and the long term effects I have in mind relate to the future of the French network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am sure I do not have to convince you, Mr. Chairman, that the group of people who are responsible for having established the French network have done a magnificent job. If tribute is to be given to the C.B.C. by all means let them have it, but credit must be given to these producers who are responsible in no small measure for creating the interest they have thus far in the kind of programs that have been seen on the French television network.
I am not an artist, and I do not pretend to know what are the exigencies of the technical side of the programs. I believe, however, I can appreciate whether or not a program is good. I have been told and retold that these producers not only compare with their brothers in the rest of Canada but are far superior to those in Paris. The productions they have been staging on the French network are, in fact, far superior to the programs which are produced in Paris.
Now, that is going quite a long way. This information comes to me from very reliable sources. Those of us who have watched the
Supply-C.B.C.
programs can well believe that is the case. Well, if it is the case, as I have every reason to believe it is, then I think the greatest care should be taken in the future, as at the present time, to see that the talent of those producers is not lost and that its benefits are given to Canada.
Dealing still with the operations of the C.B.C., there is one thing which I think has been entirely forgotten in so far as this dispute is concerned, and that is that it is not regional; it is not a local matter. It is a national matter. It is of national importance that there should be adequate service for the French television network. It is a matter, I am sure, of importance to the English speaking Canadians who are interested in bicultural Canadianism for Canada that the best possible kind of programs be available for the French network.
Having said that, I am sure the house will accept what I am saying in the spirit in which it is given, namely that here is a group of people who have done their utmost to bring about productions which are second to none in their field, and that every effort should be made to bring about a settlement of this unfortunate dispute at the earliest possible moment. I say again that I welcome the efforts that have been made thus far to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. I trust and hope that those who are responsible for having brought the parties together will be successful in their endeavours to negotiate a satisfactory settlement of this dispute.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is a responsibility of the people's representatives to seek information on C.B.C. expenditures.
In its report to the government for the fiscal year ending in March 1958, the C.B.C. says:
The corporation has achieved in five and a half
years the speediest expansion of T.V. services of all countries of the world.
I am happy to notice this achievement, but it has cost a great deal to the taxpayers. For instance, during the fiscal year 1957-58 the C.B.C. has received from the treasury, by way of subsidies and other special revenues, like excise tax on television and radio sets and parts, a total of $41,177,181. This amount was paid by the people.
It is more than the Canadian National Railways' deficit for the year 1957-58.
Not only did the C.B.C. spend that amount of more than $41 million provided by the public treasury, but it also spent $32 million more: $28 million in revenue from commercial advertising, plus a deficit of close to $5

Supply-C.B.C.
million, in spite of the money it had received from the treasury and of the considerable amounts it had drawn.
This is disturbing, enough so to make us wonder if we are not allowing the C.B.C. to do more than it should or, perhaps, if we are not permitting it to indulge in extravagance or wild ambitions.
I wonder, for instance, if the corporation, which runs into heavy deficits and dips into the public treasury at a rate of $40 million a year, should incur such heavy expenditures as those required to send reporters to the Riviera to interview people like Mr. Robert Service and Mr. Somerset Maugham. We also wonder if the C.B.C. should be spending thousands on half-hour programs that the public could well do without, interesting as some of them may be on occasion.
The C.B.C. is costing a great deal to the taxpayers, and gives its personnel a raw deal, judging from the enthusiastic support given the striking producers by performers, stage-hands and other employees. It is a duty of the people's representatives to keep an eye on C.B.C. expenditures.
(Text):


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: I should like to deal with the subject which has been dealt with by the hon. member for Laurier, though I intend to deal with a slightly different aspect of this problem. Before I commence my remarks on that subject, I should like to make a comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm. He has pointed out what he deems to be the extravagance of the Canadian people in supporting the C.B.C. I want to point out that the Canadian people do not support only the C.B.C., but in addition they support all the private radio and television stations across this country. The money to cover the cost of these stations comes from the people of Canada and from no one else, whether it comes as a few cents on your tax bill at the end of the year or whether it comes as an extra 5 cents on your cake of soap. I think our contribution toward the C.B.C. is one which is worth while for the Canadian people. In this way the Canadian government will at least have something to say about the programs that are presented to the Canadian people and prevent the C.B.C. being sold to Lux soap or some other such organization.
What concerns me about this particular estimate with which we are dealing, which

is to cover the anticipated deficit of the C.B.C. this year, is that a portion of this anticipated deficit will have gone to fight this particular strike we have now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does my hon. friend wish me to clear up that point now?


Murdo William Martin: At the conclusion of my remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has nothing to do with it.


Murdo William Martin: I have here a copy of a pamphlet which runs to 13 pages and which is entitled "The History of the Dispute between Montreal television producers association and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation". This pamphlet sets out the management's side of the problem. I do not know who produced it or where it was produced, but I assume that it was produced on C.B.C. time, that C.B.C. material was used, and so forth. I have also seen copies of the telegrams sent to the wives of the employees involved in the strike at Montreal. The cost of these must have run into a considerable sum.
It is unfortunate that we have a dispute such as we have now in Montreal, but the fact still remains that if we do have a fight it should be a fair one. One of the major complaints that has been brought to my attention by both the producers and the others who have supported them so strongly is that the C.B.C. has been given an opportunity of presenting its side of the case while the others have had to use whatever means were available to them. Let us remember that the C.B.C. costs are paid by the Canadian government and the money is raised by the Canadian people. Here we have a case in which something for which the Canadian people as a whole pay is being used by one side in a particular dispute. I feel that is something that should be given very careful consideration. The government are responsible for this matter. If things like this must happen, they should ensure that it should be fair for all the people concerned. It should be fair for the people who are now on strike and for the people who support that strike. They have just as big a stake in it as anyone else.
We have had many references to the legality and illegality of this thing. We find that our cabinet, along with many other people in Canada, cannot make up their minds as to the legal or the illegal aspects. I do not think the legality or illegality of the strike is really the most important aspect of this matter. We can remember the time a few years ago when child labour was legal in mines and so on in this and other countries. Today it is unheard of. It is not only illegal

today but it is also unthinkable. Laws change from time to time. I think the most important thing for this government to find out is not necessarily whether it is legal or illegal but whether it is right, just and fair. We may find things which are legal but which are not fair or just. That is the time when we change the laws in order to ensure that what is fair and just is legal as well.
We had one illustration of this sort of thing by the Minister of National Revenue in the house, I believe just last week. He gave the house the impression, which possibly he innocently had himself, that the picketers had been responsible for certain acts of violence. But the following day, on being questioned in the house, he admitted that he was not sure and that nobody knew just who was responsible for this thing. That is one illustration of the point I have been making. I think this government owes a deep responsibility, in connection with these disputes which arise in government departments, to let us know exactly or at least as closely as we can possibly find out who is right and who is wrong before we take any position or make any statements.
There is something else that all hon. members in this house should realize and look closely into, namely the situation itself. I am speaking particularly to the English speaking members representing English speaking areas of Canada. I do not think they have realized just how important and vital this matter is. I heard a newspaper reporter the other day discussing this situation. He brought out an extremely important point. He said that for English speaking Canadians to get a true and proper conception of this particular situation it would be necessary for us to have a situation in which Wayne and Shuster, Juliette and all the other top television stars in Canada as well as the top television stars in the United States which are carried on the English network in Canada, such as Ed Sullivan, Perry Como, and so on would be out on the picket line. He said that if they were out on the picket line it would mean exactly the same thing to English speaking Canadians as does the present situation to French speaking Canadians throughout Canada. I think that is something we have completely overlooked, namely the national importance of this dispute that has been going on.
I believe the government should have gone into it much sooner than they did. I should also like to convey my congratulations to whoever has been responsible for getting the parties together. That is the only way in which this dispute can ever be settled. As long as they are apart there will be no settlement. I also think this government owes a
Supply-C.B.C.
duty to make sure, first of all, what is right and what is wrong and then, if necessary, to have the necessary laws passed so that whatever is right may also be legal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Before any other hon. members speak under any misapprehension as to the reason this item comes before the house, Mr. Chairman, I think I should give a brief explanation with regard to it. As hon. members will recall, one of the sources of the revenues of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for some years has been the revenue yielded by the excise tax on receiving sets and tubes. When the operating budget of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was drawn up for the present fiscal year, namely 1958-59, it of course was based on the assumption that $12 million would be received from that excise tax which was earmarked for the sustenance of the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. When the new broadcasting act was proclaimed in November, further receipts from the excise tax were cancelled. That was the effect of the act. Of the $12 million that had been provided in the estimates for 1958-59, the corporation had received $9,806,448. Consequently the present item of $2,193,552 is simply the amount remaining out of the original $12 million which was the anticipated yield from that excise tax.
The vote for this sum now becomes necessary to meet the operating requirements of the corporation to the end of the present fiscal year. It does not therefore represent, in the net result, any increase at all in the amount required to conduct the national broadcasting system of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In a sense it is a revote, but it arises simply in the manner I have indicated, namely because of the repeal of what was a statutory provision directing that the yield from the excise tax should go automatically to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, no additional vote whatever is involved here. Not an additional cent of taxpayers' money is being appropriated by this item to the support of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at all.


Mr. Nowlan:: In fact it is a subtraction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is simply in effect a revote.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, while we
are on this item, I feel it is my duty

Supply-C.B.C.
to add a few words to what has already been said, in view of the current dispute between the C.B.C. and Montreal radio and T.V. producers. I am sure we all deplore that strike, and hope it will be settled just as soon as possible. However, I regret to note that among those who are attempting to settle the dispute, some are more or less active, or perhaps should I say more or less inactive, in achieving this purpose.
I do not believe that we, who are sitting on the side of the opposition, are open to criticism in this regard. Indeed, even some members on the government side thought it proper at the last minute to step in and work towards the settlement of the dispute. They have done so, no doubt after noting the inaction or confusion of the government which, I am convinced, would like the dispute to be settled but which, unfortunately and in my humble opinion, has failed to take the proper means of doing so.
Mr. Chairman, as stated this morning by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), this is a national problem, a national emergency, affecting at least a third of our population.
I was reading in the papers, last week, that there are roughly 3 million T.V. sets in Canada, and I think I can safely say that a third of them are in French-Canadian homes. On the basis of an average of three or four listeners per home, it means that nearly four million French Canadians are affected by this strike, and would like to see it settled, because they are taxpayers, especially since the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) has mentioned that the province of Quebec is like any other province.
We all remember the railway strike that took place at the time when Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was prime minister. Mr. St. Laurent had described it as a national emergency in the economic field. My feeling is that the present dispute is likewise a national emergency in the cultural field. As a matter of fact, I wonder what the hon. members who speak the other official language would think if, instead of a French network producers' strike, there was a strike on the English network.
The hon. member for Timmins referred to fine programs: Perry Como's, Ed. Sullivan's and others. The French-Canadian population also enjoys fine programs such as The Plouffe Family and others. It also likes to get the T.V. news, to hear talks and to watch such programs as Point de mire, Un homme et son peche, etc.


An hon. Member:: And Seraphin!


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I think Seraphin would be a typical example of the present government. As a matter of fact, I would even say that the present government is behaving very much like Seraphin, in regard to the settlement of this emergency. We know that our friends opposite are always eager for suggestions. They want to run the country, but only in so far as we make suggestions to them.
One suggestion I can offer to the government as a means of settling this strike is to follow the example of the former prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, who settled the railway strike to the satisfaction of all Canadians. That strike was that of an independent, autonomous corporation. But as it created an emergency affecting the majority of Canadians, as soon as the prime minister heard that a dispute was imminent, he wrote a letter to the parties involved, asking them to reach some agreement and showing the advantages and disadvantages of a possible strike. When the strike loomed closer and closer, the government offered to appoint a mediator, a suggestion which was accepted by the parties. Both sides then attempted until the last minute to reach a settlement. But when all its attempts at conciliation had failed, and when it realized that the strike was inevitable, the Liberal government of that time, conscious, as any government should be, of its responsibilities, called a session of parliament to put an end to this economic crisis.
Now what has the present government done so far? Since the house is now in session, there is no need to call a special session of Parliament. If the members of the cabinet, and hon. members opposite, had only studied the pros and cons of the dispute, they would have read the opinions of experts in such matters, such as Father Jacques Cousineau, S.J., a professor in the law faculty of the University of Montreal; Father Gerard Dion, director of industrial relations of Laval University; and Mr. Jean Rheal Cardin, director of industrial relations at the University of Montreal. They would have found that, in the opinion of those three experts, the only way to reach a settlement of this dispute is through arbitration.
I suggest that, to solve this national dispute, the government follow the procedure that was established at the very beginning

of the second 1950 session. I call it national because it affects a third of the population in the cultural field, and because the people involved in it run into the millions. 1 would also point out that the C.B.C., in addition to operating in the red at the present time, is losing money through failure to carry out its contracts with sponsors or advertisers. It should also be remembered that those who dare not or will not cross the picket lines are now out of work, and therefore are getting no pay and do not qualify for unemployment insurance.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this dispute will be settled as soon as possible, and I commend the parties who are now striving to reach an immediate settlement. I feel the government should consider the matter more fully than it has done so far, notwithstanding the claims of the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), and I urge the Minister of National Revenue to take advantage of the help offered by the Solicitor General if need be, or by any of their own members who, being faced as we are by the government's failure to act, have decided to do something on their own.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I would at once follow in the footsteps of my hon. friend, the member for St. Denis, who spoke very forcefully about the circumstances as we find them now. However, the house will excuse me if I turn to another aspect of this question, and it is one with which I am sure the minister is familiar. The item under discussion deals, of course, with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the operating deficit, and the point I should like to make at the moment has to do with the present membership of the executive committee of the board of directors of the C.B.C. which was ultimately responsible for the action taken by the corporation in this unfortunate dispute.
When the new Broadcasting Act was discussed in this house not so long ago-I believe it was in August of last year-we on this side of the house intimated to the government that very careful consideration should be given to the qualifications of members of the two boards because if this were not done serious difficulties might arise in the future. Perhaps I might be allowed to put on record the question which was asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the reply which was given by the Minister of National Revenue. The question is taken from Hansard of August 25, at page 4097: 66968-9-49
Supply-C.B.C.
Would anybody who owned shares in a press association or chain of newspapers also be disqualified by ownership of shares in that press chain from sitting on this board if that press chain or corporation also ran a broadcasting station?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not prepared to give a legal opinion on such a set of facts. As my hon. friend knows, every set of facts varies slightly one from another. All lawyers know that. I think a person would be very reckless to attempt to give a legal opinion today which would be of no avail anyway because if this matter were dealt with administratively it would have to be dealt with by justice and if it went further it would have to be dealt with by the courts. But I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the words "directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner, or otherwise" are very broad and will preclude many people from taking a position on the board. There can be no question about that; I do not want to try to give a legal definition of the area as to who is going to be excluded and who is going to be included.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate interjected at this point to say this:
But either the minister or some other minister or the Prime Minister is going to have to recommend certain names to the governor in council and the governor in council is going to have to appoint these people. Therefore it does seem to me that since parliament is being asked to make this enactment we should know precisely what this provision is supposed to mean. Would, for example, a shareholder in Canadian General Electric, which probably makes and sells parts of radio apparatus, be excluded or would somebody owning shares in Canadian Investment Fund, which might happen in turn to own some shares in Canadian General Electric, be thereby excluded? It seems to me that this is very vague and very far-reaching indeed and that perhaps it would be worth while to take another look at it for it might turn out that about the only people who will be eligible in the country will be farmers, fishermen and the unemployed.
I want to put on record one other quotation from the hon. member for Ottawa West, who made the following observation:
What about people engaged in the distribution of radio apparatus? Chain stores distribute radio apparatus. Would this apply to employees of chain stores?
The matter which I seek to bring to the attention of the minister in the house is that at that time, in the course of the debate we on this side warned the government of the danger of not taking extreme care as to who might or might not be appointed and sworn in as members of the board of directors. We gave a warning having to do with the composition of these two boards, and now we have good reason to believe that at least one member of the board of directors of the C.B.C.-there may be others-does not meet the qualifications set out in section 22, paragraph 6. I should

Supply-C.B.C.
like to read the appropriate part of section 22, which reads as follows:
Every director shall, before entering upon his duties as such, take and subscribe, before the Clerk of the Privy Council, an oath in the following form:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully, truly and impartially, to the best of my judgment, skill and ability execute and perform the office of director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and that, while I continue to hold such office, I will not, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise, engage in the business of broadcasting or have any pecuniary or proprietary interest in a broadcasting station or in the manufacture or distribution of radio apparatus.
I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the last words, "distribution of radio apparatus". If we go back to the Radio Act, which I have before me here, we see that in section 2, subsection 1, there is a definition of radio apparatus which reads as follows:
Radio apparatus means a reasonably complete and sufficient combination of distinct radio appliances intended for or capable of being used for radio electric communication whether for transmission or reception or both.
On the other hand, the word "distribution" as opposed to manufacture covers all levels of distribution, that is, retail as well as wholesale. Although I am told there is no formal definition of the word "distribution" in our statutes, that is the meaning which is generally accepted in practice. It is the definition which is applied, for example, by the combines investigation branch of the Department of Justice and by the restrictive trade practices commission. That commission has published several reports dealing with this: subject. For instance, there is a report in my hand-and I quote-"concerning an alleged combine in the distribution and sale of gasoline at retail in the Vancouver area." This clearly indicates that distribution covers retailing, and this can only mean that anyone who is engaged in selling radio reception sets is not eligible to either of the broadcasting boards. However, my information is to the effect that one of the members of the board, who happens to be Mr. Raymond Dupuis of Montreal, is still president of Dupuis et Freres which is a large department store selling radio and television sets.
In spite of this, he was sworn in as a member of the board of directors of the C.B.C. on December 4, and at a meeting of that board in Montreal later on he was elected to be a member of the executive committee. Moreover, I am informed he was the only French speaking member of that committee from the province of Quebec to attend the meetings during the dispute, though he was not entitled to sit in that capacity.
[Mr. Chevrier.l
In order that there may be no misunderstanding of my position, I want to make clear that as far as Mr. Raymond Dupuis himself is concerned I consider him as a friend of mine. I know him. He is a man of distinction and a man highly respected in Montreal business circles. He is not only successful but is known throughout Canada, and I would not want anything that I am saying here to be interpreted as impugning or attacking his personal character or reputation in any way whatsoever. What I am doing, and what I maintain I have a perfect right to do if the circumstances are as I have related them, is this: I submit that this matter has been badly handled, and I maintain that the government has been badly advised in inviting a person who is in this position to become a member of the board of directors.
I say this because we on this side of the house warned the government about the position last year. We warned the government with regard to this aspect of the legislation, as I have already made clear, and if the facts as I have related them are correct, this gentleman, estimable as he may be, has been placed in a highly irregular situation by the government and I think the government, through the minister responsible for the C.B.C., owes an explanation to the house with reference to this matter. I think he should take the first opportunity to report to the house whether or not these facts are correct. If they are not correct, then, of course, I shall desist immediately. I believe the minister should also report whether the executive committee of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would have taken an attitude different from that they have taken up until the time the negotiations were resumed with respect to the dispute if Mr. Dupuis had not been attending the meetings.
It seems to me that the government through the minister must make a clear and full statement about this matter because it could throw a new light on the position of the C.B.C. in regard to the dispute. I am sure the minister would understand that in raising the point I do so in a constructive rather than a destructive way because, if the facts as I have related them are so, then the situation is serious.
(Translation):


Mr. Rouleau:: Mr. Chairman, we are being asked this afternoon to make $2,193,552 available to the C.B.C. It seems that in recent weeks the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) has sought to shirk his responsibility towards the C.B.C. And yet today he is asking the house to vote $2,193,552 to the C.B.C. which comes under

his jurisdiction. It is common knowledge that we of the Liberal party have always given the C.B.C. the funds required for its operation.
Before going any farther, I would like to pay tribute to the C.B.C. for having organized our French network from scratch and, in doing so I would like to refer to an article by Father Jacques Cousineau, which I read in the magazine Relations of February 1959, page 47, and I quote:
The C.B.C.'s progress in the field of television has been amazing. To make CBFT in six years, the world's number one French television station, ranking with top U.S. and British stations, has called for a considerable effort which is all the more admirable because those in authority and chiefly responsible for this result are hardly 40 years old.
Mr. Chairman, if the C.B.C. has thus managed to build up our national French network in particular, it is mostly due to the teamwork which prevailed within C.B.C. Therefore I would again quote Father Jacques Cousineau who said, in the same issue of Relations:
The collective effort achieved by the C.B.C. in Montreal since the end of the second world war constitutes the greatest cultural achievement in the history of French Canada:
If that result could be obtained, Mr. Chairman-as it was under C.B.C. management-it is due to thorough and intelligent teamwork. It was done under the direction of the C.B.C. board of governors, but also through the teamwork of management personnel.
The C.B.C. now employs 2,700 people, 500 of them in management; it has 800 clerks, 50 newswriters, 55 caretakers and cleaners, 93 members of the Societe des Auteurs dra-matiques, 800 members of the Union des Artistes, 650 stage and studio employees, together with 450 technicians and 85 producers.
It is all those people together, Mr. Chairman, who have made the C.B.C. and are keeping it alive. If the C.B.C. ranks first among French networks of the world, it is because of this teamwork.
In his short remarks before the adjournment, the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) said that the C.B.C. was costing too much money. He referred to extravagance on the part of the C.B.C., to recorded programs, and to programs filmed on the Riviera. Among those programs filmed overseas, and particularly in France, he might have mentioned-and I 66968-9-49J
Supply-C.B.C.
do not know just what he had in mind-the magnificent film shown on the French C.B.C. network, showing the charming wife of the Prime Minister, Mrs. Diefenbaker visiting stores in Paris. I do feel that this is not what the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm had in mind.
He also referred, without actually identifying them, to other 30 minute programs which, he claims, constituted extravagance on the part of the C.B.C. Aware as I am of the views held by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm about the C.B.C.,- for having heard them repeated here during the last session-I have a fair idea of what he had in mind. At this point, I would take the liberty of quoting what is probably his master's voice, words from an article by Mr. Robert Rumilly, in Nouvelles lllustrees for January 24, 1959:
This strike is affording the government an opportunity to rectify its mistake by firing the person chiefly responsible (Alphonse Ouimet). In a matter of 24 hours, it would change the whole atmosphere of the organization. This sole execution would ... be sufficient.
This would be proper warning to the Liberal press washouts, the Liberal organization discards and misfits, the leftists of all kidney that have been crammed into this government organization.
The strike also provides an opportunity to launch the indispensable investigation into C.B.C. wastefulness.
That is no doubt what the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had in mind when he referred to wastefulness in the C.B.C. In another article, in the same paper, Nouvelles lllustrees, Robert Rumilly feels that:
Mr. Mark Drouin is practically Prime Minister Diefenbaker's sole advisor in matters which concern the province of Quebec.
Further, he adds about Mr. Mark Drouin:
Very poorly qualified as a spokesman for the people of French Canada he does a bad job of informing and advising his leader.
His dealings and relations with the C.B.C. have led him astray.
Those are the words used in the newspaper Nouvelles lllustrees, by the friend of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Chairman, we don't think there is any extravagance in the C.B.C. As in any other concern, there might be room for improvement, but we are convinced that the C.B.C. is doing a good job with the work assigned to it, and is doing so because of the co-operation and effort of

Supply-C.B.C.
all its employees. Anyway, it there is any waste and extravagance in the C.B.C., it is surely not with respect to the C.B.C. French network producers in Montreal and, for the information of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I must say that, according to our information, those producers are getting $2,000 to $5,000 less than producers of the same class in Toronto.
It is because of this teamwork by C.B.C. employees that we have managed to get what we have got, and it is that same team of workers which, to prove its solidarity, refused to cross the picket line, and in a generous gesture, decided to support the C.B.C. producers in their demands.
Since December 29 last, Mr. Chairman, since the C.B.C. producers decided on the work stoppage, this parliament of Canada has had a serious problem to settle, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said this morning.
On account of the strike, because of this dispute at the C.B.C., five million televiewers are deprived of favourite programs. The hon. member for Laurier also stated this morning that our French network is being disrupted.
What did the government do? The cabinet members, who have been sitting in the parliament of this country since January 15 last, failed to agree on the matter, and did nothing. The Liberal opposition had to track down the government to rouse public opinion and the government itself.
As I said a while ago, it was made under the inspiring leadership of Hon. Lionel Chevrier, thanks to whom the C.B.C. strike will be settled.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. members on the government side, instead of deriding the members from Quebec, should have risen before it was too late and made fair demands on behalf of the C.B.C. employees. Mr. Chairman, to arouse public opinion and the government, the C.B.C. artists, technicians and other employees in the province of Quebec, and particularly in Montreal, had to send large delegations to Ottawa to meet members of all parties, and members of the cabinet, to make them realize that this was a serious problem that had to be settled not only for the sake of the province of Quebec, but of the country as a whole.
The member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) stated this morning in his brief remarks that the C.B.C. was in trouble because of the way it has dealt with its employees. In my opinion, it took quite some time for the hon. member to realize that there was something wrong in Montreal. I feel that he should have risen the first week

of this session and that he should have brought the situation in Montreal to the attention of the government. Furthermore, he should have intervened earlier in the dispute. In fact, this French speaking cabinet member should have suggested to the government the steps to be taken to settle the dispute instead of letting an English speaking member make these suggestions. It was he, as a French speaking member, who should have come up with constructive suggestions.


Mr. Tremblay:: Petty politics.


Guy Rouleau: As for us, Mr. Chairman, who are sitting on this side of the house, we showed interest in this issue right from the start. We took an interest in this dispute because we are more particularly involved. We have followed this dispute very closely because it concerns more particularly one third of the country's population, the Frenchspeaking population. Every right-minded Canadian across the country, whatever his country of origin and the language he speaks, must show concern for this problem which affects one third of his fellow countrymen.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this strike, that this dispute of the C.B.C., is about to come to an end. I welcome this possibility and I wish with all my heart that everything will return to normal at the C.B.C., for the benefit of the population and of those more directly concerned, the C.B.C. employees.
I sincerely hope that the teamwork to which I referred in my opening remarks will be resumed so that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation might remain that of which we are so proud: the world's best French network.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, judging by what the previous speaker said, there is not much point in worrying about the dispute in Quebec. It seems that the hon. member for Laurier has it all in hand. Therefore I should like to ask the minister a couple of questions. One of them is an old one and relates to the provision of television service to some of the smaller, local points in the country. There was some discussion about it last year when C.B.C. matters were before the house and there was also reference to it in the Fowler report. Has the C.B.C. gone any further in its plans in that regard?
Related to that, I wonder if there is any possibility of some form of compromise or middle way in providing such facilities whereby if certain communities were prepared to raise the money to underwrite the installations the C.B.C. would then provide the

service. Then I have a third question. I realize that any arrangements concerning investigation of the operations of the C.B.C. and the board of broadcast governors lie within the province of the special committee that will be set up, but has the minister any idea when that committee will begin to function? What arrangements will be made for the board and the C.B.C. directors and permanent staff to come before the committee?
The last question I should like to ask the minister relates to some remarks he made in the house with regard to the relationship of the press gallery and the C.B.C. He indicated at that time that he would never take the position of telling the C.B.C. who should appear on their programs. That is all very fine, but he also indicated that in his view the C.B.C. may have gone too far in restricting the choice of people from the press gallery in the way they have.
My own opinion about this particular problem is that the C.B.C. should have the guts to appoint its own people to handle this chore but somehow it does not seem to be ready for it. I should like to know what the minister's views are on this topic and if there is any way out of the divisiveness that seems to be created by the fact that the C.B.C. considers that only a small number of members of the press gallery have the requisite facility with language and the requisite television glamour, shall we say, to appear before the cameras.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief as usual but I do want to ask the minister this question. Will any of this grant be used for the erection of low power relay stations to serve districts that are without radio communication at the present time or without satisfactory communication? The minister knows the situation in the Kootenays. I have repeated it time and time again in the house. There is a need for three or four of these stations to serve between 4,000 and 5,000 people who to-day are being denied satisfactory Canadian radio reception. Will the minister tell the house what the policy of the government is at the present time with respect to providing such stations to serve districts suffering from this disability? Can he tell the house particularly what the C.B.C. has in mind with respect to the constituency of Kootenay West this year?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the very brief remarks I want to make on this item will also be on a different topic. I know that my constituents are concerned about the strike of the French network C.B.C. producers although they are not directly affected thereby so far as television is concerned because, as I have said before, in northeastern New
Supply-C.B.C.
Brunswick and along the Gaspe coast we have a concentration of population amounting to 200,000 people who are deprived of all television service and facilities.
On Wednesday the minister replied to a starred question I had placed on the order paper and I was pleased to hear him inform the house that a study is being carried out so as to arrange for the inauguration of such service. I know that the minister might answer that a private concern was issued a permit last year to operate a television station on the Gaspe coast at New Carlisle. This station is supposed to serve a certain area of northeastern New Brunswick with programs 65 per cent in French and 35 per cent in English. Such a service will not be satisfactory to our population. We have in northern New Brunswick certain towns such as Campbellton, Dalhousie, Bathurst, Newcastle and Chatham where a percentage of the population is English speaking. I am rather concerned because I know that some of the officials of the private company wishing to inaugurate a system at New Carlisle, when they are speaking at those centres which are predominantly English say, "You do not have to worry; although our licence calls for 35 per cent of English programs, if we only get on the air you will realize that most of our programs will be in English." When they are addressing a French speaking area, they say the same thing, that the people do not have to worry because most of the programs will be in the French language.
Before I resume my seat I should like the minister to intervene with the C.B.C., in the same way that he has to give facilities to his own constituency in Nova Scotia. I know the minister realizes that in northeastern New Brunswick and the Gaspe coast the 200,000 residents are Canadian taxpayers who pay their share of the amount which is being voted in this house to the C.B.C. In a few months we will be asked to vote another $69 million for the operation of the C.B.C. These 200,000 taxpayers in eastern Quebec and New Brunswick, will contribute to this fund and they have a right to have their share of service. It may be that even a very small proportion of this northern vision might be diverted to New Brunswick, and then we would have the service for which we have been asking.


William Moore Benidickson: While this item is under discussion, I should like to make a few remarks about what I regard as a rather neglected area with respect to C.B.C. services, particularly in the television field, namely the constituency I represent. The Prime Minister during the last election campaign chose our area as a very fitting platform from which to indicate certain promises that the people were

Supply-C.B.C.
-led to believe would be fulfilled if he were [DOT]elected. When appearing at Kenora he made an announcement on March 18 that he had [DOT]certain changes to make with respect to the .governing body of the C.B.C.
A press report in the Winnipeg papers on the following day said that the Prime Minister made what was a surprise disclosure during his political speech at Kenora. These newspapers went on to say that Mr. Diefenbaker received one of the loudest rounds of applause when he virtually promised this area a television station.


An hon. Member:: Virtually.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, virtually. I just want to remind the minister that last session there were several questions and answers concerning this problem, and on January 30 of this year the minister did provide me with a reply on some follow-up material I had advanced. At page 568 of Hansard, he indicated that the C.B.C. had a budget of $100,000 for satellite stations across Canada in accordance with the program that he announced last June 25 in the house. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would comment on the fact that to date, after this great lapse of time, Kenora has had only an expenditure of $702 in this direction, and I think he would agree most of that was probably for travelling expenses and so on. I was a little bit disturbed to find that, in contrast with these very poor figures with respect to Kenora, St. Boniface and Trail, B.C., there seems to have been very rapid progress with respect to satellite T.V. service in the area in which the minister himself is particularly interested, Nova Scotia, in that Liverpool, Shelburne and Yarmouth last year had expenditures by the C.B.C. of $54,492 out of the $100,000. I wonder if the minister would just look at this situation in other parts of Canada and try to equalize this progress that has been achieved along the lines that he spoke about last June.


Mr. Simpson:: I have been listening with some considerable interest to the hon. members who have spoken on this subject today. I have been listening also with some concern and amazement because of the way in which hon. members have been congratulating the C.B.C. for the work they have done in providing a national broadcasting and television system. I believe we should take quite a long look at the situation before we start patting anybody on the back over this so-called national television system. Until the day comes when all the sections of our country are covered by television I could... not agree with the statement that we have a national television system.

Some members of the opposition have been throwing criticism at the government benches with regard to what they call the inaction of the government in connection with this strike. I must admit I have very little to say in that respect at this time but I should like to point out that during all the years of the Liberal regime we suffered from a lack of television and radio services in the area which I represent, the constituency of Churchill, which embraces about three-fifths of the province of Manitoba, does not have one small portion which is serviced by C.B.C. television. There are 14 constituencies in all in Manitoba, and I think I would be quite safe in saying that well over half of them are not serviced by C.B.C. television.
I do not intend to go into detail on this subject at this time, because later on in this session I hope to be presenting a resolution to the house respecting the desirability of supplying television service to these areas. I should like once more to impress upon the house this one fact; let us all work toward a truly national broadcasting and television system by taking a good look at the expenditures of the C.B.C., with a view to providing those services in those areas which are not already serviced.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister not going to reply to the questions which I raised?


Mr. Regnier:: I believe that last June the minister announced in the house that a satellite television station would be constructed in St. Boniface. We still have confidence that this is going to be done. However, I would appreciate a word of assurance from the minister before we have a vote on this matter.


Murdo William Martin: I am going to add a few words at this time. During this debate we have heard hon. members from the various parts of Canada requesting the minister to see that their particular areas are serviced by the C.B.C. We have also heard from hon. members and have seen in the press throughout the country condemnation of the C.B.C. as a waster of the taxpayers' money. I think that is something we should keep in mind. The general trend of thought is-and I certainly do not agree with it- that the C.B.C. should stay carefully out of any area in this country which is lucrative, and that they should merely serve the ones which private stations dare not enter. At the same time that the C.B.C. is expected to perform this service, it is being condemned as a waster of public funds. We cannot have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. If the C.B.C. is to be expected to serve the non-lucrative areas of this country, surely

it is also entitled to serve in the places where it can get some return and thus help to offset the expense. Certainly I do not think that many members are taking a realistic view of this particular matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: I was waiting, Mr. Chairman, to see whether hon. members had anything else to say on this estimate before it was carried. It is an extremely difficult situation in which I And myself this afternoon. As hon. members well know, negotiations are going on at this very moment, or at least I hope so. They started at 12 o'clock and I trust that if they have concluded it will be in a satisfactory way. There are many things that I might perhaps like to say on the matters which have been raised today but which I think perhaps it would be inadvisable for me to raise at the moment. Perhaps they could be discussed later on when the question is again revived when our main estimates are up for consideration.
I think the Minister of Finance made the situation plain this morning. I should like to reiterate the nature of this vote which we are called upon to pass this afternoon. It is rather unfortunate that the vote is headed "grant towards the anticipated operating deficit" of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As the minister pointed out, in the estimates for this year which concludes on March 31 there was included an item of $12 million, the estimate of the money which would be received from the excise tax on radio and television sets for this fiscal year ending March 31. When the new act was proclaimed some weeks ago that provision lapsed. Of this $12 million the C.B.C. had already collected some $9 million which left a balance which is shown in the estimate today. Hence it is not a contribution toward a deficit at all. It is not an increase item such as that which is usually found in the supplementary estimates. It is simply a bookkeeping item to compensate the C.B.C. for the money which they would have received if the act had not been repealed.
I can go further than that, Mr. Chairman, and say that this item is rather unfortunate from the standpoint of the C.B.C. because, owing to the prosperity which has been engendered in this country by this government and which is so obvious on all sides, the estimate of $12 million which we anticipated as the revenue from this tax was really much less than the amount which we would have collected. The amount has risen to such an extent that it probably will be between $15 million and $16 million which would have been collected from this tax as compared with the $12 million which was estimated. Hence the C.B.C., instead of getting
Supply-C.B.C.
a contribution towards a deficit as if this were an additional amount, is actually foregoing some $2 million or $3 million which would have been received had the tax remained in force until the end of the year.
I want to make that fact plain.
There has been some talk of waste, extravagance and so on and so forth here in this committee today. I have not any doubt in the world, Mr. Chairman, that there is some waste and extravagance in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I would be extremely doubtful that there is not waste and extravagance in any corporation or any business organization or any department of government. In the estimates which the Minister of Finance brought down yesterday I think he proved that point to a certain extent by reducing controllable expenditures by some $39 million despite the expanding services of the government. I am hopeful that in the days to come or in the year to come, when this board of directors working with the management are able to review the entire operation of the C.B.C., it will be possible to effect economies and streamline the organization. If there is extravagance and waste

as undoubtedly there is in some quarters; as I say, it is inevitable-I hope and expect that that situation will be remedied in the days to come.
I want to join with everything that has been said by hon. members here in their tribute to the C.B.C. with respect to the service which it has rendered to this country and particularly with respect to the tremendously rapid growth of television, both on the national network and on the French network. I think the C.B.C. in the development of this television service has established a record which is unequalled in the whole world. Undoubtedly it grew rapidly. It was obliged to grow rapidly. It grew too fast. Undoubtedly in that expanding service there are elements which mushroomed over a period of four or five years and provided an adequate service, both French and English; two networks in this sparsely settled country and I say "sparsely settled" advisedly. Canada has a population of 17,500,000 in comparison with that of our neighbour to the south which has a population of 165 million but has really only three national networks. We have established here a record of which we ought to be proud.
I want to pay my tribute to the management, the employees, the producers, the artists and all the rest of the people who have made it possible to establish this record. I also want to pay tribute, Mr. Chairman, to the management of the C.B.C. for the way

Supply-C.B.C.
in which they have conducted themselves during this strike. This has been the most unfortunate and unnecessary episode in labour relations in Canadian history, in my opinion. It is something which never should have happened. However, having happened, it has been extremely difficult to organize the situation and get control of it and re-establish relations, something which could easily have been dealt with if the strike had not happened. I am the first to admit that there were minor difficulties between management and producers in Montreal which needed attention and which should and could have been dealt with in half an hour if they had been brought to the attention of the management here in Ottawa. But they were not brought to the attention of the management here in Ottawa and the situation went on until, as I said, the strike came.
I think it is justifiable, Mr. Chairman, for me to draw the attention of the committee to the circumstances under which the strike arose and the time factor in connection with it. I think it was on December 29 there was a conference between representatives of the producers and representatives of the management in Montreal, there having been a conference earlier in the month. The producers had raised certain grievances. The management said that they would deal with them. They suggested that the producers form an association. That matter was agreed upon. The association was supposed to meet again and try to iron these things out. Then on December 29, at nine o'clock in the morning, a conference started between representatives of the producers and the representatives of management, and that conference went on during the day. There were breaks for discussion with the principals, breaks for luncheon, of course, and all the rest of it. Then at five o'clock in the afternoon the picket lines were marching around the C.B.C. building. The ultimate weapon, the last weapon, the last weapon that should have been used, was brought into play on the first day.
This fact made it much more difficult to deal with this situation. As I said, if the strike had not happened then, I think that whatever minor differences there were-and I am free to admit there were some-could have been settled very easily. During that conference that day suggestions were made and discussed. One was that the producers name or form an association similar to one in Toronto and that the C.B.C. would be glad to deal with that association. That was refused. The question of organizing a union was dealt with, and I want to make it plain that there has been some talk about that which has not particularly been mentioned

here today, but it has been referred to. This concerned the question of the intransigence and stubbornness of the corporation in dealing with this matter. When it comes to the organization of a union, under our law the union should be certified by the Canada labour board, and should apply to that board for certification. When it has been so certified, then the corporation, of course, would deal with the union. The corporation made it very plain on the 29th that they would be prepared to deal with the union should they apply to the Canada labour board and get certification. That was the second proposal that was made that day. The representatives of the producers said that they wanted the union, but they would not apply to the Canada labour board.
Now I would suggest this. It is true that a settlement or arrangement can be worked out in recognition of the union without going to the board. But the law is there. This is a federal crown corporation created by this parliament and responsible to this parliament. The law of this land was passed by this parliament. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, as I would ask any hon. member of this house, if a corporation can be accused of being intransigent and stubborn when as a crown corporation it suggests to the parties in a labour dispute how they could carry out the labour laws of this country? I do not think it could and I do not think any responsible person can suggest it could.
The third proposition which was put up that day was that each side should appoint a lawyer to negotiate and discuss the question of adjourning for a month, or two weeks, or a week, and try and bring their grievances into focus and deal with them. That too was refused. Altogether there were six or seven propositions discussed that day but in the end they came to no avail, and this unfortunate strike resulted. I think the record is fairly clear that, although the C.B.C. management, as I said, is subject to some criticism in minor matters of administration in Montreal, matters which should have been settled and which will be dealt with, they were not of the subject matter which would justify a strike within the space of eight hours from the commencement of the discussion until the picket lines were in action around the building. So much for that.
The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Dollard-and I appreciate the very, very responsible and objective speech by the member for Laurier this morning in dealing with this matter-with regard to the fact that during this strike there has been a sense of responsibility and objectivity, as I think is expected of all hon. members

at this time. I must say that I thought the hon. member for Dollard sounded, shall I say, as if he thought the time was ripe for an election. I think in that event it would be more in sorrow than in anger.
He inferred that the government had failed in not dealing with this matter. I think that is the first time that suggestion has come from, shall I say, a responsible member of the official opposition. It is rather refreshing, Mr. Chairman, to hear such a critical statement made. This was not a criticism which one would expect to be made of this government. It is not a criticism of which we were warned. This was a government which was going to wreck the C.B.C. This was a government which would interfere with the C.B.C. It is rather ironic, Mr. Chairman, that the minister who was so diligent in making sure there was no interference with the C.B.C. in any way, shape or form, is now being criticized because he has refused to intervene in this matter. I have been insistent from the beginning, since I took on the responsibilities of the office of minister reporting for the C.B.C. to this house in maintaining the position that the C.B.C. is an independent crown corporation. I have reported to parliament that I would not interfere in any way, shape or form with the management of this corporation. I do not think any hon. member in this house should expect me to do so. This government has not interfered in any way, shape or form since this strike has commenced.
An analogy was suggested in this matter with regard to the government taking certain action in dealing with the railway strike. There is no analogy or comparison at all between a competing business like the Canadian National Railways, serving the whole nation, and this intangible, indefinite, but most important organization which affects public opinion, which affects Canadian culture, and which if it once became a political football or a subject of political interference could be wrecked. If we establish a precedent now of interfering with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the labour field, then there is a precedent established for interfering with it in some other way, and we could destroy this organization which is a part of French Canada, English Canada, in fact all of Canada. That is why the government has taken that position and will maintain it.
I hope the discussions which are going on today will be successful. The area of difference is very, very small at the most, I understand. They were sitting until 5.30 this morning, and quite probably they have slept in this morning and have resumed 66968-9-50
Supply-C.B.C.
negotiations at 12.00 o'clock. I am sure that one way or the other those negotiations will probably conclude within the next few minutes, or within an hour or two, if they conclude successfully. But they will conclude in any event.
That, generally, Mr. Chairman, is the position which this government has taken and this is something of the background of this strike. The way has been open at any time for the producers to apply to the labour board for certification. I do not want to weary the committee by going into detail, but I think this should be cleared up. It is true that in 1952, I think it was, there were two applications for certification before the labour board by unions of the C.B.C. In one case the union, I am told, asked the labour board to exclude the producers. The producers agreed, and they were excluded. That was a matter of agreement. A subsequent application came up shortly after that. In this case it was not a union of producers but a union of, shall we say, technicians or some other branch of the employees of the corporation. There were a few of the producers in that group, but no one suggested to them that they be included in the union. The inference was drawn, rightly or wrongly, that they wanted to be out of it, and the Canada labour board excluded them. Then because of those two precedents, Mr. Chairman, I think the producers, inadvisedly and wrongly, thought a precedent had been created there which would prevent them from making a successful application to the board. Legislation and practice move, laws and decisions change, and I suggest that by a decision formed on such an intangible, narrow and doubtful basis, and made six years ago, the board would not refuse and should not refuse an application. If the application had been made it would have been resolved. I am not sure whether there is a time limit during which the board has to sit, but I am sure it would have been resolved long before this. The corporation has at all times been ready and willing to recognize the association. It has been functioning successfully now in Toronto for a year, and the same offer was made to the producers and was refused.
Someone-I think it was the hon. member for Dollard-referred to the salary differentials between Toronto and Montreal. I am instructed by the C.B.C., and I have no doubt my information is correct, that the differential between the salary which the top producer in Toronto receives is in the neighbourhood of $1,000 more than is paid to a top producer in Montreal, and that in the case of 75 or 80 per cent of the producers

Supply-C.B.C.
the salai'ies paid are exactly the same, though, of course, the producers in Montreal have done a remarkable job. We must, I think, remember another factor which affects this question. I am surprised that the salary differential is not greater because of competition from the networks in the south, competition from all the English speaking networks. The pressure on English speaking producers is far greater, of course, than is the pressure on producers in Montreal where the competition factor is not very important. I can assure hon. members that there has been no discrimination with regard to salaries, or so, at least, I am told. At least, it lies within a margin of $1,000, and we all realize that in top management in any field a differential of $1,000 is insignificant and not a matter for discussion.
It has been suggested that the French network has been disrupted. It is most unfortunate that these programs, which are a great tribute to the producers and which reflect tremendous credit on the artistic ability of our friends in the province of Quebec who have organized this great French Canadian network, should have been largely disrupted, but I must say that there has not been the disruption which has sometimes been suggested here. The network has been operating. Shows have been put on, and films have been put on. Perhaps the people in Quebec, from the standpoint of films, are more fortunate than those who watch the English networks. As hon. members know, the service draws on banks of old films, and those shown on the English network are often fairly old. On the other hand, the French network has been getting recent films from European centres and I am told they have been most thankfully received.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, there are many factors I could discuss. I have received a tremendous amount of mail on this question myself, a tremendous amount from the province of Quebec, and certainly the opinions which have been expressed in the correspondence I have received would not suggest -unfortunate as the situation has undoubtedly been-that there has been any great blow dealt to the French network or that the corporation has been wrong in the stand it has taken. The corporation has been carrying on these negotiations for many weeks. It is indeed most unfortunate that a great Canadian of French origin, the president of the corporation, one of the first to obtain the presidency of a great national corporation, should have been stricken at this time. I refer, of course, to Mr. Ouimet, the man who made the television service of Canada what it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: It has been suggested in some places-not here, and not by the producers- that there is a racial element in this; that these Englishmen-English Canadians-are doing things to our boys that should not be done. I want to congratulate the producers, because I have talked to them about it. I have talked to Mr. Querion and Mr. Duceppe and they both told me they were satisfied about this and that they would do everything possible to suppress it. And they have.
I also wish to say this in fairness to the management of the C.B.C. All the steps which have been taken-all the letters written by the C.B.C. management-were signed by A1 Ouimet that Sunday morning before he was stricken with a heart attack, and the C.B.C. management, apart from negotiations carried on personally around the table, have taken no stand on this question whatsoever except that authorized by Mr. Ouimet, who had been working under great strain before he suffered this unfortunate attack. I realize it is most regrettable that he was not able to carry on. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Carter and to Mr. Bushnell who insisted that negotiations should be carried on with these Canadians of French origin through this period and I want to pay tribute to everyone concerned and to the employees who have kept the system operating, working long hours, as long as 15 or 18 hours at a stretch, sometimes at great risk.
The hon. member for Timmins made reference-I still do not understand it-to something said about assaults and so on. Certainly, there is no one in the C.B.C. who has been engaged in assaulting or threatening people who are working in the C.B.C. I think that is obvious. I am sure there is no one who thinks for one moment that the C.B.C. has anything to do with it. I may say that some of the wives of employees who are working are getting as many as 100 telephone calls a day saying that their husbands may not get home or what might happen to their child when he goes to school. Those are the things that are going on beneath the surface.
I have just been handed a note which says that negotiations adjourned a few moments ago and are to resume in half and hour. T^at is the news with respect to the latest situation in connection with these negotiations.
There were questions asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, by the hon. member for Port Arthur and others with respect to developments in their own areas. I think that these questions had, perhaps, better be left until the committee meets, at which time the officials of the corporation

will furnish accurate and detailed information, rather than that the hon. members should rely on the replies I am able to make at the moment, which can only be general in nature. However, I can assure the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that the extension in his area was provided for in the estimates last year and that it is the intention of the corporation to carry this out. If there has not been such a development on this project as should have taken place, or as he expected, it is regrettable, but the item is there and if the money cannot be expended this year it will be provided in next year's estimates. This is a matter for the C.B.C. They work out these various areas and every one of these plans which was named last year in Kenora-Rainy River, in Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and in Manitoba-there are six or seven-are being, and will be proceeded with by the C..B.C, I hope they will be completed in the relatively near future.
I think there is nothing more I could usefully add at this moment. I have probably overlooked some of the matters to which hon. members have referred, but there are times, as I have said, when silence is golden, particularly when the negotiators have adjourned for half an hour.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister not going to say whether or not there is a member of the board of directors sitting contrary to the provisions of section 22 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act?


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not think there is a member of the board of directors sitting contrary to the provisions of section 22 of that act. As he said, the hon. gentleman is referring to Mr. Raymond Dupuis. I am very happy that a distinguished Canadian of outstanding business experience is prepared to sit on the board of directors of the C.B.C. at a great sacrifice of time and effort. Mr. Dupuis is not responsible in any way whatever for any decisions which have been made in connection with this strike. I think I am right in drawing the inference from what was said- and if I am wrong the hon. gentleman will correct me-that Mr. Dupuis may have been considered responsible in some way for decisions to resist the strike or to defer a settlement. Neither Mr. Dupuis nor any of the executive members took part in any discussions about this matter until after Mr. Ouimet became ill.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt I should like to state that I neither said that nor could that interpretation be placed upon the remarks I made.
66968-9-50i
Supply-C.B.C.


George Clyde Nowlan: We shall see, Mr. Chairman.. We will look at Hansard tomorrow morning and see what was said. That is the inference I drew. If I am proven to be in error I shall certainly withdraw the suggestion immediately. I thought that is what the hon. member had in mind. I read in the newspapers and drew the inference from remarks made here that it was because Mr. Dupuis was a director of Dupuis Freres, a large department store in Montreal. Like anyone in the retail store business he is engaged in the retail sale of radios and television sets. Certainly that was never in the minds of those who drafted the legislation. The definition of the words "radio apparatus" were inserted in the act to guard against something else entirely and I believe the definition did serve to guard against it although perhaps by being too stringent in the language used. The definition was inserted to avoid pressure being brought to bear upon the corporation by the manufacturers of radio apparatus or equipment. That is why the word "apparatus" was used.
It is true that there is a technical definition of the words "radio apparatus" in the Radio Act, just as my hon. friend said. We know why it was put there. It is no more related to this, of course, than daylight is to dark. Under the terms of the Radio Act in the early days a licence fee was charged. Most of us in this chamber can remember when we had to buy radio licences. Efforts were made to avoid non-payment of the radio licence by saying, "I do not have a radio; I have only tubes or part of a radio."
The definition of radio apparatus was designed in such a way as to cover any apparatus whatever that might be capable of receiving or transmitting a signal. Unfortunately the words "radio apparatus" which appear in the Broadcasting Act, also appeared in the Radio Act years ago, the same term exactly. They were inserted in the Radio Act to make sure that people could not avoid paying a radio licence fee by claiming that they had only part of a radio set as opposed to an operating radio.
Mr. Dupuis drew this matter to my attention and we spoke about it on one occasion. I told him that the intention of the government was to make sure that no one would be in a position to bring pressure to bear on the corporation with respect to the manufacture or sale of radio apparatus. The corporation, of course, buys apparatus. What we were thinking of were expensive installations running into thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in cost. Certainly no one in his right senses at that time or since would have inferred that it could have been designed to apply to a person who happened to

Supply-C.B.C.
sell a radio or television set on the floor of -his retail store whether it be a huge department store or a little country store at some crossroad corner. I thank the committee for its indulgence. I overlooked dealing with that point when I spoke.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to say a word at this juncture I should like to state that I am grateful that the minister has seen fit to reply to the question which I raised. His reply was a lengthy one and what is recorded in Hansard will indicate the position as between that taken on this side of the house and that taken on the other side of the house.
I must say to the minister with deference that his reply is not satisfactory or acceptable. It is not satisfactory for the minister to say, "It is not the intention of the government that the act should be read thus and so". In reply I must say that the minister did not tell parliament that when he brought down the Canadian Broadcasting Act. Those are the very things against which they were warned by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Ottawa West. They were warned that a situation like this might develop and their remarks can be found on the record. The minister now rises in his place and says, "That was not the intention. I told this gentleman who, I repeat again, is a most honourable person, that this was not the intention of the government". If it was not the intention of the government, that is one thing. It certainly was the intention of parliament as is indicated in the legislation and I leave it to those who without being learned in the law are able to read the English language. I am sure they can come to no other conclusion but that the section as it now stands is being contravened in this instance.
I am grateful to the minister for the position which he took at the outset of his remarks. He started off to explain the situation as it is with calm, serenity and dignity. He continued in that vein for a while but then for some reason or other he veered drastically from that course. To my utter amazement and I am sure to the amazement of this committee, as well I venture to say to that of the Minister of Labour, the hon. gentleman proceeded to condemn the attitude taken by producers, representing one of the parties to the strike. He went on to say that following the meeting on December 29 they went out and put a picket line around the building. He said there were some irregularities and there was some violence. And then, to use his own words, he said the circumstances were not such as to warrant a settlement under conditions as they existed then.
[Mr. Nowlan.)
He said, in effect, "The strike should never have taken place; the government would never interfere; the producers inadvertently and wrongly thought that they did not have the right to re-apply to the national labour relations board".
I say to the minister with all the deference at my command and with the respect for his person which he knows I hold that strikes or disputes are not settled in that fashion. After all, people have a right to strike. That is an innate right in this country. Whether those who are striking are right or wrong it is not within the minister's jurisdiction to say that they are behaving irregularly in one way or the other. Perhaps that lies within the purview of the Minister of Labour but certainly it is not within the purview of the minister who is "the boss" of the C.B.C.
The minister then went on and made another startling statement with reference to the right of association. Whether or not these men form part of management they surely have the right to associate. That has been maintained time and time again. That is another right that is given to Canadian citizens. In addition to that, those who have carefully studied this question-and I do not want to mention the names of these experts-say without doubt that these people have the right to form an association. This is the opinion of those who are in the know.


George Clyde Nowlan: No one ever questioned that.


Lionel Chevrier: A moment ago my hon. friend indicated that that was the case.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not believe that construction can be placed upon my remarks.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend went so far as to say they had not the right to associate.


George Clyde Nowlan: The record speaks for itself. My hon. friend questioned an inference which I drew from his remarks and certainly I am entitled to question an inference he draws from mine. I certainly did not intend to give the impression that I felt they had not the right of association and I am convinced I did not do so. There never has been any question but they had the right. They were urged, begged and pleaded with to form an association and they promised to do so but they went back on their promise the next morning.


Lionel Chevrier: I accept the minister's statement but that was not the attitude he took in the early days of this issue. I say to him that his attitude has changed tremendously from that he took in the early days of the strike and the attitude of the Minister of Labour has also changed. At that time they

were going to wash their hands entirely of the strike, have nothing to do with it and not interfere. "It is not our business," they said. That was the position taken by the government at that time.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Laurier has just said that the position of the Minister of Labour has changed from the early days of the dispute. That is not true. My position is still the same as it was in the early days at the beginning of the strike.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question? Is it not a fact that the minister saw officials of the C.B.C. at one stage to discuss the dispute that was under consideration at the time?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I met the C.B.C. but not to discuss the merits of this dispute in any way whatsoever. On January 16 at the beginning of the session the hon. member for Laurier asked me a question and, as found in Hansard, I stated my position and that of the Department of Labour very clearly. That position is still maintained. I saw the producers on two occasions. The second occasion was when the march on Ottawa was staged and I gave them some very good advice. My advice was to resume negotiations with the C.B.C., and I am very happy to tell the hon. member that they took my advice and are now negotiating. If the hon. member is not satisfied with that procedure, most certainly he is going to a great deal of pains to upset this whole situation.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I find it very strange that the Minister of Labour would say that he has seen the producers and has seen officials of the C.B.C. on two occasions but not to discuss the strike.


Michael Starr: Again I rise a point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: That seems to be-


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Laurier is not telling the truth.


Lionel Chevrier: -quite a strange-


Michael Starr: I did not say that a moment ago.


Lionel Chevrier: -attitude on the part of the Minister of Labour. When a dispute is taking place the Minister of Labour sees one side and then sees the other side but not to discuss the dispute.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: Order. Hon. members are speaking at the same time. I would ask them to please speak one at a time.


Michael Starr: On a point of order-
Supply-C.B.C.


Lionel Chevrier: I have the floor at the moment.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. A moment ago the hon. member for Laurier said that I had admitted that I met the producers once and the C.B.C. people twice. I said exactly the opposite. I do not think the hon. member pays attention to what is being said in the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, of course it is one thing to interrupt a person when a speech is being made and it is another thing to interrupt him when one does not like what is being said. That is exactly what is happening because while the Minister of National Revenue is responsible to a large extent for what is taking place, the Minister of Labour has a great responsibility too but he will do nothing. He sits there on the fence like a mugwump, with his mug on one side and his wump on the other.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Lionel Chevrier: Where is the point of order? There is no point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: I will not sit down for you. I will tell you that. You cannot make me sit down. I raise a question of privilege. Let me tell the hon. member-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must remind hon. members that they should not interrupt in a loud voice the speaker who has the floor. Furthermore, it would be highly appreciated if members of the house would not all talk at once. It would be easier for the chairman to carry out his duties.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is that while I was discussing the very matter now before the house one hon. member interrupted and said, "sit down". I submit that the hon. member has no right to use that kind of language under the circumstances and I protest in as strong language as I can against that kind of conduct. Now, if the house will allow me-


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier used a word to describe me that I think is not parliamentary and I think he should withdraw it-


William Moore Benidickson: Mugwump.


Michael Starr: -because, Mr. Chairman-


William Moore Benidickson: Thinskinned.


Michael Starr: -I have endeavoured ever since taking over the responsibility of this office

Supply-C.B.C.
to do a job with respect to relationships between management and labour that come under federal jurisdiction. Most certainly, in the light of what I have heard from the hon. member for Laurier, I would not take any of his advice because none of the settlements that have been brought about would have been brought about.


William Moore Benidickson: That is not a point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to resume I shall try to do so in a little calmer fashion provided I am not interrupted by hon. members on the other side of the house. I was saying a moment ago that not only the conduct of the government but the conduct of the Minister of Labour in particular is unacceptable to this side of the house, and I am sure it is unacceptable under the present circumstances because the Minister of Labour has taken the position from the outset that he should not intervene. Whether that is right or wrong is up to him to determine. I say it is wrong and I propose to indicate why I say it is wrong. It is wrong because I believe that the position of the government under the circumstances is confused and contradictory. I hope the Minister of Labour will not interrupt me when I say that because he remembers quite well the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue that this strike was illegal. He said so in no uncertain terms and his language was quite clear. He repeated it at least two or three times and I am told-if I am wrong the minister will correct me-that on the occasion of meeting the producers in the railway committee room he relented from that position and said that perhaps he had gone too far. Whether that was said or not, I pass it by. But even after that he came back in the house and said that the strike was illegal.
Your colleague, the Solicitor General, stated quite clearly on two occasions that it was not; first in answer to a question put by myself and then during the course of the discussion he said that the position of the producers was legal. Where did the Minister of Labour stand in that regard? I said he was on the fence because he made no pronouncement as to whether it was legal or illegal. Which is it? Surely the attitude of the government is contradictory and unclear.
The Minister of Labour should be competent to make an authoritative statement on the question because it is really his department which has the responsibility. Labour relations are the responsibility of the Minister

of Labour rather than the Minister of National Revenue but the Minister of Labour has refused to make his position known other than to state that it is not the intention of the government to intervene. Here again the government has a responsibility-


Michael Starr: I wish to refer the hon. member for Laurier to my answer to his question commencing on page 9 of Hansard for January 16 last. He will see the answer to what my position is there.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not mind being interrupted from time to time as I go along by statements such as: "Look at Hansard and see the reply to my question."


Michael Starr: It is just to put you straight.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, I know the minister does not like this. I know the Minister of Labour is embarrassed.


Michael Starr: I am not embarrassed one bit. The only thing I am embarrassed about is that you are doing a good deal of harm so far as this dispute is concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: Who started it?


Michael Starr: You are doing it. You are doing a great deal of harm.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Don't let the minister point his finger at me because if I continue he won't point his finger.


Michael Starr: You are doing a great deal of harm with respect to this dispute.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. While an hon. member is speaking he is not to be interrupted-


Michael Starr: Let him tell the truth then.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -except by an hon. member rising on a point of order or a question of privilege or, with the permission of the one who has the floor to ask a question. Once again, will hon. members please refrain from these manifestations when a member is speaking.


Lionel Chevrier: I come again to the question of the inconsistency on the part of the government in so far as this dispute is concerned, inconsistency brought about by two views in the government, apparently, one which is indicative that the strike is illegal and the other indicative that it is not. It is for this reason I was saying, when I was interrupted, that there is a responsibility on the part of the government to clear up the present confusion.
The statements made by the Minister of National Revenue in the house this afternoon, it seems to me, have already been

made clear in their implications. I submit again, with deference as I did a while ago, that under the circumstances it would strike me that they are not justified. So far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we cannot see how the dispute is illegal in any way whatever. The producers have no collective agreement with the C.B.C.; many of them did not even have individual contracts with the corporation when the interruption of work began. Finally, so long as they are considered by the C.B.C. as part of management they are not covered by the act and therefore they cannot violate it. This is the only interpretation that can reasonably be given to the present dispute, and it was for that reason that it was not possible for us to understand why the government could not intervene in the matter.
I should like, if I may, to move to another aspect of this subject, which again has to do with the responsibility of the government in the dispute. From the beginning the Minister of Labour has refused to intervene, as he stated, on the ground that under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act he was not authorized so to do.


Mr. Chambers:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Egan Chambers: I wonder if he has carefully considered the effect of what he is saying today on the situation as it actually exists? 1 know he is anxious to bring things to a conclusion, and I just hope that he'will think before he continues in this vein.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member wanted
permission to ask a question, but he did not ask a question, he made a statement. In reply to that statement I would say that had he been in the house and had he listened to the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue which brought about my reply, then he could have asked his question first and foremost of the Minister of National Revenue.
Now, if I may return to a consideration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, section 56, subsection (I), clearly states:
The minister may either upon application or of his own initiative, where he deems it expedient, make or cause to be made any inquiries he thinks fit regarding industrial matters, and may do such things as seem calculated to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to settlement of disputes.
That language is quite clear. In our opinion, which I submit to the minister is a sound one, the minister may, if he wishes, intervene and do the things that are referred to
Supply-C.B.C. in the act. We have never, nor will we accept on this side of the house the narrow interpretation that has been put on this statute by the Minister of Labour.


Michael Starr: That is your choice.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is my choice and I have a right to express myself as I am doing, and that is why I hope the minister will not continue to interrupt me in my expression of thought, and the careful consideration that I have given to these matters.


Michael Starr: Providing your facts are correct.


Lionel Chevrier: These facts are quite correct. It is because the facts annoy the minister that he has been interrupting me.
In spite of the Minister of Labour's unwillingness to intervene, he did meet with the representatives of the producers on at least two occasions, as he said when he interrupted, and he met with the officials of the C.B.C. I will not pursue that any farther because I am sure the minister could rise and say that he did meet them, but he did not discuss the dispute with them. Of course, if he says that, I have to accept his word. Those are the rules of the house and that is all there is to it. I am not going to draw any inference, but what I am going to say is this. Having met the producers on the one hand and discussed the matter with them, and having met the C.B.C. officials on the other hand, whether or not to discuss the matter With them, it seems to me that the only other logical thing to do was to see both of them together. This is the point at which the good offices of the Minister of Labour and of the government could have been of tremendous assistance, of tremendous use.
.. It seems to me only logical that when parties are seen and met separately, that is ope step in the direction of leading to a settlement of the dispute. The next step which follows is to meet both of them together. If the minister had seen fit to do that, I am sure that the position . which exists today would probably have been anticipated by at least 10 days.
If I may go a step further, while the minister took the position that he could not intervene for the reasons that he gave, the Prime Minister on the other hand gave a completely different interpretation of the inaction of the government. He said to the representatives of the C.T.C.C. about 15 days ago that the government could not intervene in this dispute because such intervention would be undue interference with the affairs of the C.B.C. for which it could be criticized. Here again, Mr. Chairman, we get from the government two different accounts of the

Supply-C.B.C.
same situation. I maintain, and I repeat, that the position of the Prime Minister with reference to this matter is unacceptable. I say that government interference with programming, government interference with freedom of information or freedom to express points of view on a network of the C.B.C. is one thing that should be avoided. Everyone, I think, in this house will approve of that. However, government intervention for the purpose of offering its good offices to settle a labour dispute is an altogether different thing.
It is not only possible, under the provisions of the legislation which I mentioned a moment ago, but it is also, in the present case, the most practical and most desirable thing to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the duty of the government.


Michael Starr: That is your opinion.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is my opinion and I say not only is it the responsibility of the government but, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said, it is the duty of the government so to do.


Michael Starr: That is only his opinion, too.


Lionel Chevrier: Let us just pursue this matter a step further and see whether or not the position which I am taking is not a logical one. If a dispute were to occur between the C.B.C. and the existing certified unions representing its employees, surely the Minister of Labour and his department could intervene and such intervention would not be viewed as undue interference with the affairs of the C.B.C., especially if such dispute led to a long interruption of work paralysing both national networks. I am quite sure that the Department of Labour has intervened in the past and that that intervention was not seen as undue interference in so far as the settlement of labour disputes is concerned. If the Prime Minister's argument was carried to its logical conclusion, it would seem that we would have a special category of labour disputes, namely those involving the C.B.C., where the government, through the Minister of Labour or otherwise, could not intervene in any way whatsoever. What would happen then if we had a long strike which paralysed all the public networks, and which was brought about by the intransigence of some C.B.C. officials?
Because of the position which I have just set out, I think I have established quite clearly that the two positions taken-that by the Prime Minister on the one hand and that by the Minister of Labour on the other-with reference to the intervention in this dispute are not acceptable or tenable. The inescapable

conclusion is that the government has the right and therefore the duty to intervene in disputes such as this one and then to help bring about a satisfactory solution. Moreover, the Minister of Labour has the right to intervene personally, as I suggested earlier. Notwithstanding his interruptions, I am sure that if he had determined to intervene in this dispute the matter would have been settled many days ago.
Let us assume just for a moment, if I may, that the government is right in asserting that it cannot intervene in this dispute. Even if this were true, it does not mean that the government has no responsibility whatever in this respect. Even if it were true that this is merely a dispute within the management of the C.B.C. and that the government cannot intervene directly, it certainly cannot be denied that the C.B.C. is ultimately responsible to parliament and that parliament, through the committee on broadcasting which is to be set up during this session, can intervene and hear the two parties in this dispute. This suggestion has already been made. Even now, if the dispute is settled, the government may wish to consider, setting up the committee so that parliament would get an idea of what were the reasons for the difficulties. If as I say, such shall not be the case and the matter is not resolved, then I submit again with deference that this is a proper method-and I suggest it to the government-by which to dispose of the dispute.
However, the initial responsibility for setting up that committee belongs exclusively to the government. The government cannot deny that responsibility. We on this side of the house again urge the Prime Minister in the strongest possible terms to set up this committee immediately. As I said earlier when I rose to speak, the parties are now meeting in conciliation proceedings to consider the matter and that fact is all to the good. I hope that the conciliation proceedings which have been established by private initiative will be successful. But if they are not successful I submit with deference to the government these three methods which I have outlined in a rather general way. I suggest first the idea that the Minister of Labour should himself intervene. I suggest next the establishment of the committee on broadcasting so that parliament could consider the matters which are under dispute; and finally I come to the appointment of a commissioner under section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act as recommended earlier today by my friend the hon. member for St. Denis.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, let me say, as I did at the outset of my

remarks, that what prompted me to make the remarks I have made was the statement by the Minister of National Revenue this afternoon. I attempted to deal with the matter as objectively as I could. If I have not succeeded, it will be up to the committee to judge me in that respect. But what I want to lay particular stress on is the fact that there are many people who are suffering or who have been living for the last 40 days in extremely difficult circumstances. The French network is in danger. Five million people are not receiving the programs to which they are accustomed and entitled. Because of that fact it seems to me that notwithstanding what was said in this house or what may be said hereafter this discussion has been a good thing. This discussion has put the government on its mettle. This discussion has moved the government to attempt-if not by themselves, by others-to bring about a meeting of the parties. So long as the parties are meeting, so long as they are in discussion, there is every reason why a settlement can be effected. We on this side of the house hope that a settlement will be arrived at soon.


Mr. Carter:: Before we leave this item, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister of National Revenue would be good enough to clarify one of his earlier statements which I did not quite catch because my attention was diverted at that particular time. I thought I heard the minister say that the purpose of this item is to offset an anticipated loss in revenue to the C.B.C. owing to the removal of some tax. I wonder whether he would be good enough to specify what was the particular tax to which he was referring.


George Clyde Nowlan: I thought I made that matter plain, Mr. Chairman. It is not an anticipated loss. It is an actual loss. The tax to which I was referring is the special excise tax on television sets and radio sets, which tax has been paid to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation under the statute and which was estimated in our estimates last year would amount to $12 million for the year. When the new act was brought into force, the old act, of course, was automatically repealed. This item represents the difference between the actual money they have taken in and the $12 million which they had anticipated. As I told the committee earlier, if the act had run its full course to March 31, my instructions are that the amount would have been substantially in excess of $12 million.


Chesley William Carter: I thank the minister very much for that explanation.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have just witnessed an extremely interesting
Supply-C.B.C.
aspect of this debate and, I must say, a surprising one. We have observed a number of interruptions, and I think the most disturbing of them all was when the minister proceeded to interrupt Your Honour. I do not think that procedure is in keeping with the best interests of this house.
I find that most of the notes that I have made and intended to deal with at this time relate to matters which have already been dealt with by the hon. member for Laurier. As a result, my remarks will be brief. However, there are a few matters which I think should be underlined and one or two which I think should be added to the ones already dealt with by the hon. member. It is true that the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Labour have stated on many occasions that they did not want to interfere in this matter and could not do so. The answer, I think, shows that both of them have in fact interfered.


An hon. Member:: How?


Murdo William Martin: In the first place by the fact that the Minister of Labour stated that this was an illegal strike. That is definitely interference without intervention.


Michael Starr: That is not true. I never said this at all in the house. The hon. member does not know to whom he is referring. He is confused.


Murdo William Martin: We have also again today seen what is a very-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on a point of order, if the hon. member would permit me. It seems to me that in the past it has always been an established rule in this house that when a member of the government speaks, under the doctrine of collective responsibility he speaks for the government. Therefore, it appears to me that the hon. member for Timmins was perfectly justified in drawing the inference he did.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Timmins definitely stated that it was the Minister of Labour who said that, and I objected. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is always getting up on a point of order, but I think he is confusing the point of order which he is raising. He would not if he had been listening to what was said.


Murdo William Martin: I did in fact say the Minister of Labour, but the hon. minister has pointed out very well that he wants to be associated in no way with the Minister of National Revenue.


Michael Starr: I said that I did not say that.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.

Supply-C.B.C.


Murdo William Martin: I have always had a great deal of respect for the Minister of National Revenue for the fairness which he usually displays in this house, but much to my surprise he has, for the second time today, made it unmistakably clear where he stands with regard to this particular strike, and it certainly does not appear to me to be a neutral stand. Both hon. ministers, I think, have mentioned that they do not want to interfere. But we have had the example of cabinet ministers boasting in this house that they are very much in favour of one of their private members interfering. I refer, of course, to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. It would appear to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is resorting to the level of ward politics. Owing to the fact that both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of National Revenue appear to line themselves up definitely on the side of management in this particular dispute, it is for some of us to take up the position of the other side.


Michael Starr: You are the ones to do it, the C.C.F.


Murdo William Martin: I have never yet seen any dispute where everyone was on the wrong side. If that was so there would be no dispute. Certainly if one side of this dispute is going to be defended by members of the cabinet, then certainly it behooves the other side of this dispute to have somebody champion their cause in this house. Personally, I do not want to take sides in this dispute. As I said before, the only thing I am interested in-and I think I can speak for the rest of this group-is to see that fairness prevails in this matter. I think that is the most important thing of all. I suggest once more that the government should not confuse interference and intervention. It appears to me that they seem to have some difficulty in keeping the definition of these two words apart. All that we have ever asked is that they intervene in this matter, not that they interfere. It appears that all they have done is to interfere, and have refused to intervene.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, it is rather extraordinary to note, considering the situation prevailing within the C.B.C. together with the numerous and pertinent questions which were asked by the members sitting on this side of the house, that not a single minister has deemed it proper to take the floor to convey at least the impression that he was interested in the settlement of this problem.
What happened when the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) took the floor to make a charge which was perfectly in order?
[The Chairman.]
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) merely ran away, rather than try to control his temper a little longer.
No situation such as this had ever occurred in Canada. I am convinced that if the English network were in a similar situation, the ministers would rise and endeavour to settle it, but this problem here is secondary, for the simple reason that it is only the French network which is involved.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: This is ridiculous. It is awful to say such things.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is a fine example of national unity. Party before country, nothing else.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is the hon. member saying "Party before country"?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Certainly.


Alexis Pierre Caron: When did the hon. member take the floor to defend the interests of his fellow-citizens in the province of Quebec?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We are doing it every day. We do take the floor; we do not remain in our seats as opposition members have been doing for 25 years.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I admire those pointless utterances. They are the same people who, in the last election campaigns, claimed that everything would be settled once the Conservatives are in power.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You do not even know the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Ridiculous!


Alexis Pierre Caron: I know that the people from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm are satisfied with mighty little.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Thanks for the compliment. You will regret that.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must remind hon. members that they must address the chair if they wish to have the floor. They cannot direct their remarks to another member who has the floor.
(Translation):


Mr. Johnson:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Mr. Habel:: Sit down; you may talk later.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have no objection.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: If I properly understood the hon. member for Hull, he said a moment ago that if the English network employees were on strike, the government would consider the problem, but that, since only the French network is concerned in this matter, the government is refusing to deal with it. Does the hon. member think he is expressing the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in making such a statement in the house?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am not speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition; I am speaking in my own name, and I am expressing a personal opinion, as any member is entitled to do here. And, in order to prove that my argument may be considered as sound, for several weeks the strikers have unsuccessfully tried to negotiate and obtain interviews.
One day they even got a letter advising them that, if they were not back to work on a certain morning, they would be considered as having handed in their resignations. Immediately, English network employees sent in a letter of protest and the ultimatum was withdrawn. That one intervention on the part of the English network settled the situation, which proves that if the English network employees had been on strike, that important part of the population would not have been allowed to be deprived of the programs to which they were entitled. That is why I submit the ministers should intervene.
The hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) told us one day: "You blame us when we consider interfering in C.B.C. affairs." We recognize that the government has no right to interfere in C.B.C. programming or management, but when there is a labour dispute, when the corporation and its employees cannot reach an understanding, there has to be intervention from someone. And nobody is better qualified than the ministers to intervene in that field.
While a minister says: "We will not intervene because the strike is illegal", another declares: "We have to intervene because the strike is legal". One states: "I will try to do something", another states: "I will not commit myself, I do not know whether the strike is legal or not". What confusion! Those who are bound by ministerial solidarity are making a spectacle of themselves, in the eyes of all Canadians, as leaders who do not get along with one another. It is a very unfortunate situation for the country.
Supply-C.B.C.
I submit that the Minister of Labour should intervene directly. Instead of leaving the house as he did a moment ago, he should have risen and answered the questions directed to him. Moreover, he should have told the house for what reason, if any, he failed to intervene or, if he intends to do so, why he is going to.
Some of those people are on the verge of starvation. Those people who probably used to get reasonable salaries lived according to their means, and after being on strike for several weeks, are now in need. And all this time the ministers are saying: "We will not intervene."
I suggest that those ministers are not living up to the responsibility entrusted to them and the oath they took, because they should be managing the country so that things might run as well as possible.
There they stand doing nothing, incapable of doing anything, because they don't like to see the labour group have the better on their creature, the Canadian radio organization. That is where the problem lies-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Our creature?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the new board is a creation of the new government.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Is Mr. Andre Ouimet one of our creatures?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Those are the people who do not want to settle the situation. It seems to me that a minister of the crown should at least promise Canadians that the government will intervene in an attempt to settle the problem. The citizens of Quebec province, and French Canadians throughout the country, want their favourite programs back on the air. That is a matter of right, because they are paying their share of the expenses of all C.B.C. networks, and it is our contention that the present government has no right to let things go on in this way, and that it is its duty to intervene. Whether the Minister of National Revenue believes the strike to be illegal or not is beside the point. What we want is a network that will give us our favourite programs. In my view, the minister has a duty to speak up; he has a duty to act, and under the circumstances, I am surprised to see him remain silent in the face of so many demands from so many members of the house.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to get involved in this debate triggered by the supplementary vote requested

Supply-C.B.C.
by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). However, all day long we have been hearing various speakers, always on the same side, voicing all kinds of complaints on the dispute now involving the C.B.C.
Mr. Chairman, I need not repeat the statement I made the other day, that I am in favour of the right of association, of good order, and of justice in disputes of all kinds. I need not repeat that I am extremely anxious to see this dispute settled to the benefit of the parties concerned. However, I cannot understand, nor indeed can I accept, that Liberal and C.C.F. members should try, in a dispute that has some tragic overtones, to appeal to racial prejudice and seek to interpret this dispute as a racial issue. That is not according to the facts.
The dispute is between the C.B.C. management on the one hand, and a group of C.B.C. producers on the other. It is not my responsibility to pass judgment beforehand on the legal and factual points involved. But in my view, there are ways of reaching an agreement without resorting to such demagogic methods as those used by the Liberal opposition today. There are ways, Mr. Chairman, of bringing things back to their true proportions, and of setting down the equation as it should be in this dispute. Negotiations have been started, and both sides have been trying to find a basis for agreement. Talks are now under way, and the statements of Liberal members might well have damaging effects on these negotiations.
Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why members are attempting today to jeopardize those negotiations by raising the most damaging issue in the circumstances, the racial issue. I am a French Canadian, just like the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron). Just as much as he does, I would like the French network to resume its programs. But I do say as forcibly as I can that I cannot understand why the ministers of our government should attempt to make of this dispute a racial issue. Those are not the matters under consideration. It is a problem of normal demands made by employees to an employer. That is the true problem and the one the government is trying to settle at this moment is the problem placed on that basis. On the one hand, we have workers who are demanding satisfactory working conditions and, on the other hand, an employer, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which must safeguard its own interests and, at the same time, be fair to its employees. That is the problem in its true light.

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, it is necessary to get into a bitter discussion on a nationalist theme. This is just another scheme of the Liberal party which, for years, has contrived to split Canada in two camps, the Anglo-Canadians and the French-Canadians, so as to make use of this disunity for electoral purposes. Mr. Chairman, it is time to put an end to this game, and that extremely respectable problem be no longer used for electoral purposes.
In 1958, the province of Quebec has replied quite clearly to this question asked by the Liberals: "Do you still want a political party that is against the province of Quebec?" It was finally understood in 1958 that the Canadian political problem did not lie in this bitter quarrel between two ethnic groups. It is wrong, in regard to the C.B.C. dispute, to try to revive old ghosts and old buggaboos. Mr. Chairman, these people have been trying for weeks, by all kinds of insidious, malicious and dishonest questions-


Alexis Pierre Caron: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. A member has no right to say that the questions asked in this house are dishonest; it is like saying that the question asked is infamous and the member for Roberval has just said that these questions are dishonest.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, if the
word-


Alexis Pierre Caron: He should withdraw his words. I would like to have a ruling.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: The hon. member has made his point of order.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: One moment, please. You are not the Chairman.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. members taking part in this debate should be more careful in the choice of adjectives they are applying to their colleagues. I do not think the hon. member for Roberval had any one in particular in mind when he said that the questions asked were dishonest. Consequently I cannot ask him to withdraw his statement, since the adjective he used was aimed at nobody in particular. However, I would invite the hon. member for Roberval and others to be more moderate in their speeches.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was saying that the opposition members have, for the past few weeks, been following a line of insidious questions, in the full sense of the word, and they have tried to divide once more the province of Quebec.

As I said, that is not the essence of the dispute. This problem involves workers and employers who are trying to find a fair formula. That is the heart of the matter.
This afternoon I heard the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau)-I did not rise to challenge his words-trying to make us believe, despite all the endeavours made by this government to bring the parties to a fair settlement, that the credit for the prospective settlement is due to the hon. member for Laurier. The other day, Mr. Chairman, I referred to the conversion of the hon. member for Laurier. Today, they want to try to canonize him.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that to bring about dissensions on a nationalistic issue is a normal or a fair approach to the solution of a dispute.


Lionel Chevrier: What do you know about settling disputes?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman-


Lionel Chevrier: What do you know about settling disputes?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: -when I heard those
noises, Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that the reason I did not rise earlier is that I had sensed the political motives underlying the attitude of our hon. friends in the opposition.
The hon. member for Laurier asks me how much I know about labour relations. He could very well put this question to himself. Mr. Chairman, I have sufficiently studied-


Lionel Chevrier: Are you asking me?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: -that question to be in a position to give my opinion without prejudice to the rights and facts. The statement I want to make once again is that we, Conservative members for the province of Quebec, do not see any racial aspect in the C.B.C. dispute and I say again that I fail to find, in particular, the attitude that has been attributed this afternoon to the government ministers.
I trust that the dispute will soon be settled to the satisfaction of all interested parties, but I feel that there are in this dispute certain factors difficult to ascertain and it consequently calls for serious study.
In the past few weeks, we-and I include myself-met with some of the C.B.C. people -some of the producers, in other words- who explained their attitude. We listened
Supply-C.B.C.
to them with interest and sympathy. For my part, I have been attempting for weeks, by all the means at my disposal, to help settle this dispute whose dire consequences I fully appreciate.
I am sure the co-operation of truly disinterested persons will bring about the settlement called for by our friends in the opposition, and for which they hope to be unjustly credited.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the member who has just resumed his seat said at the beginning of his remarks that all remarks had come from one side of the house. It seems to me that he overlooked the fact that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) also took part in the debate. Moreover, I hope he was in his seat when the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) answered the questions which were put to him. As for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), who certainly did his share of interrupting, he did so until such time as he could no longer control his temper, after which he ran away. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) was also heard digging political arguments in the Duplessis way. The last two election campaigns were shot through with Duplessis politicizing.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I would point out to the hon. member for Gloucester that his statement to the effect that the hon. Minister of Labour ran away is not quite in order. I would ask him to tone down his language, and also to stick to the point without getting involved too deeply in provincial matters.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I shall change my phrase and say that the Minister of Labour did not remain in his seat.


Lionel Chevrier: He left in a hurry.
(Text) :


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The way this question has been handled by the government is a pure example of the confusion and indecision of the present government in the adoption of its policies. One minister said the strike is legal while another rose and said it is not legal and the Minister of Labour on his part said he would not interfere. All these hon. gentlemen are absent from the house at this moment while this most important question is being discussed.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. It being 5 o'clock it is my duty pursuant to standing order 15 to

Private Bills
rise, report progress and ask. leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting, as the case may be.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred in.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-4, to incorporate the Waterloo Mutual Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of Bill No. S-4 I should like to provide the house with some background information and the reason for the application made by the Waterloo Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The Waterloo Mutual Fire Insurance Company, one of the earliest of the Canadian insurance companies and the first company in Waterloo, was incorporated under the statutes of Upper Canada in the year 1863 and has continued actively in the insurance business during the past 95 years.
The company's activities are, by the nature of its incorporation, confined to the province of Ontario and the company, which now has a premium income of over $3 million annually, has probably covered the field well in Ontario and desires authorization to do business in the other provinces of Canada. That, however, is something for the future. The immediate reason for seeking dominion incorporation is to bring the company under dominion registration and inspection by the federal department of insurance. This is because the company would then have a much better standing with regard to securing reinsurance from other dominion licensed companies as it would then be subject to the same inspection.
However, probably the most important reason is due to the fact that many of our life insurance companies and most of the United States insurance companies taking mortgages in Ontario refuse to accept the policies of provincially registered companies on their mortgage loans. They more or less take the stand that they are dominion registered companies and any fire insurance companies insuring buildings on which they make mortgage loans should also be dominion registered and subject to the same inspection. This has caused the company considerable loss of business and cancellation of policies on very good fire insurance risks and has impelled the company to take this step at this time.
As you may well know, Mr. Speaker, the city of Waterloo in my constituency, the home of this company, is best known as the Hartford of Canada. As a young boy I marvelled at the expansion of the insurance business in our city. From year to year, through the fine efforts of many outstanding citizens, the insurance companies have grown tremendously so that today Waterloo has within its borders the head offices of six insurance companies employing 1,500 people, all of whom are doing splendid work in their particular departments. I might mention that the total assets of these companies exceed $750 million.
It is a well-known fact that no other city in Canada has such a large percentage of its economic activities embodied in the insurance business. These companies, through good management and fine assistance received from all employees, have been able to cover the length and breadth of Canada and also to establish branches in many foreign countries. Much more could be said about the company concerned in the bill but I feel that I have given the essentials and I ask for your kind approval of the application.


Mr. Regier:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is common courtesy that when members of the House of Commons have not received copies of a bill that bill is not proceeded with until such time as we have received our copies. Perhaps the member would like to move the adjournment of the debate. I think that would take us out of the predicament we are now in because we can hardly be expected to participate in the debate when we do not have the bill. I have here the file of the bills from the other place and as you can see it is completely empty. I also do not see this bill in the file of House of Commons bills. I am not necessarily opposed to the bill before us.
Mr. Pallet!: I wonder whether the hon. member who has just spoken would like to move the adjournment of the debate?


Erhart Regier: I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Regier the debate was adjourned.



LISE NOLET LUNGHI

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill SD-1, an act for the relief of Lise Nolet Lunghi.-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. Speaker:: As there are eleven divorce bills standing for second reading is it the wish to have these bills taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[The Chairman.]



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill SD-1, for the relief of Lise Nolet Lunghi.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-2, for the relief of Margaret Stewart Cairns Bamber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-3, for the relief of Gertrude Czerny Thomschitz, otherwise known as Gertrude Cznery Thomas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-4, for the relief of Miriam Hirsh Leff.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-5, for the relief of Phyllida Fair-bairn Smith Draper.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-6, for the relief of Janos Sztecsi-nics, otherwise known as Jean Sztecsinics.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-7, for the relief of Margaret Craig Murdoch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-8, for the relief of Nita Stella Pollock Adams.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-9, for the relief of Enis (Ines) Vit Desnoyers.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-10, for the relief of Helen Elizabeth MacDonald Downey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-11, for the relief of Silvia Fre-derike Diethilde Beate Angela Buchsel Fatter.-Mr. McCleave.
He said: Mr. Speaker, these form the first of a considerable number of bills of a similar nature which will come before us throughout the remainder of the session. It is anticipated now that approximately 275 to 300 divorce bills from the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland will be presented to the House of Commons over the next six or seven months. Because of the number of cases involved it might be of interest if I, as the sponsor of these bills, were to make a brief statement of some of the principles involved. As the House of Commons knows, although the people of the country are perhaps not completely aware, in dealing with divorce cases in parliament we are in fact exercising a judicial function, taking evidence, weighing it and determining upon it, applying proper legal principles and then adjudicating whether the party seeking relief should have the relief that is applied for.
Because we are a judicial body in a sense but also because as members of parliament we have legislative duties, it sometimes happens that petitioners who ask parliament for relief confuse our functions and make what I would call improper approaches within the House of Commons looking for divorce relief. It came to the attention of the members of the committee dealing with divorce last year
Private Dills-Divorce
that several petitioners had entered the parliament buildings and in effect had become lobbyists on their own behalf. At the very outset I think we should issue in the House of Commons, and I hope through the medium of the house to such petitioners, a clear warning to petitioners that they should leave us alone in the carrying out of our judicial functions. Two approaches were made to myself personally last year and on both occasions I almost had to throw the people involved bodily from my office. I have also had complaints from other members of parliament that they, too, have been approached by a petitioner or by the respondent who was defending the action. This is entirely improper, Mr. Speaker, and it strikes at the judicial functions that I and the other members of the committee are called upon to perform, as well as the functions of the House of Commons, for the House of Commons has to pass upon the work of the committee.
I am going to make this statement, therefore, which I hope will remove this evil about which I have been speaking for the past few minutes. This has nothing to do with my position on the committee, but as the sponsor of the bills. If I am offered reasonable proof that anybody has lobbied in parliament concerning the passage of a divorce bill I shall refuse to move the adoption of that bill in the House of Commons. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, there is a natural inclination for people who have troubles which come before parliament, and the people of two provinces do have to bring their matrimonial problems to us, to say, well, I have a member of parliament and I have dealt with him on almost everything else affecting the federal government, therefore I shall deal with this member in connection with this divorce. However, the situations are not the same, ^fe are exercising a judicial function when we deal with these divorce petitions and for that reason we must be in the position of judges who are dealing with these matters in their own courts, free from being approached or importuned by any source whatever. I shall, therefore, repeat the warning, that if anybody comes to parliament and lobbies on behalf of one of these parties to a divorce action, and this brought to my attention by any hon. member, I shall not move the adoption of the bill in any of its stages in the house.
I think it would also be well to set forth one other matter that caused concern in the past year and might also cause concern again, and that is the right of people to come to parliament to petition for these

Private Bills-Divorce
divorces. In general, it is a right given to the people from the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland. The other provinces have their own divorce courts. There may be certain exceptions because, as the lawyers in the house know, cases should be brought in the province which is the domicile of the husband, but in the case of desertion this law is relaxed slightly. It has happened from time to time, and it will probably happen again, that people who should bring their actions in Ontario or New Brunswick come to parliament and ask for divorce because they may, perhaps, have resided in Ontario and Quebec or in Quebec and New Brunswick and so the question of domicile is difficult to determine.
There has been at least one case before parliament in recent years, in which action clearly should have been brought before the Ontario Supreme Court, yet it was brought to the Senate and the House of Commons, the two houses that are already overburdened with other duties. Perhaps it would be of benefit to the lawyers who are guilty of this sloppy practice if I were to put on the record some remarks appearing in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, page 336, citation 456. It reads:
The ancient rule as to petitioners for private legislation was laid down by Mr. Francis Palgrave before a special committee of the British house on the 22nd of June. 1832. The principle was, said he, that no person should come before parliament as a suitor, or trouble it. if, on the face of his petition, he could have his right at home. If there were any other mode of obtaining redress, he was not to apply to parliament, but, if from the insufficiency of the law or any other similar cause, he could not obtain redress, then the supreme court of parliament was to give him a speedy and effectual remedy.
I think that is the practice that should be followed. People who have cases that could be heard in Ontario, for example, should not burden us with them. It might also be of interest at this particular time, when we are facing another busy schedule of dealing with these cases, to consider the exact numbers that have been brought before parliament in the last decade. For members who are interested, I refer them to the Journals of the Senate for 1958, and the special report of the standing committee of the other house on divorce presented at pages 370 and 371. I shall quote some figures from that report. Since 1950, inclusive of that year, to the end of last year, parliament has considered 3,108 divorce cases. This works out to an approximate average of 345 per year. These cases concerned applicants from the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland.

The divorce rates are set forth in that interesting report. We find that the national divorce rate per 100,000 of population, granted in Canada in the year 1957, was 40.3. Here are the rates by provinces: Newfoundland, 1.4; Prince Edward Island, 2.0; Nova Scotia, 35.6; New Brunswick, 36.5; Quebec, 10.9; Ontario, 50.8; Manitoba, 35.5; Saskatchewan, 27.5; Alberta, 62.6; and British Columbia, 104.8. The two provinces whose residents do have to come before us for relief rank first and third for the lowest rate of divorce, with Prince Edward Island in between. This gives some idea of the scope of the problem.
If I may, I should like to very briefly refer to the judicial principles that guide the committee of this house, or have guided it in the past and I presume will guide it in the future, in determination of these cases. We have not acted arbitrarily or on whim, Mr. Speaker, in determining the grounds upon which applicants will receive their relief. A body of law and a body of practice has grown up, set down in the rules of the other place and of this house, and apparently taken from the province of Ontario.
The matter of the burden of proof in these cases has been one which has given anxiety over a good number of years. It was dealt with last year in some spirited debates in this chamber. I thought I might refer to it again because, either through my own inadvertence or failure to make myself clear, a remark got on Hansard which would suggest that I said the burden of proof in these cases is that which pertains in criminal actions. This is not so, Mr. Speaker. The burden of proof was set forth in the Smith v. Smith case in recent years in the Supreme Court of Canada. That court emphatically rejected any notion that proof of adultery must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the court came to the conclusion-and I believe these are the principles that are followed in determining cases that are before us today and the other ones that will come before us later-that it would adopt the principle used in civil actions, namely the balance of probabilities: was it more probable that such and such an event happened or was it more probable that it did not happen?
In these cases, Mr. Speaker, the members of this house are continually baffled, perplexed and made angry by the so-called hotel and motel cases. If a man and woman have left their homes or their places of residence and have gone to one of these resorts, usually of the cheaper type, and there are found together, for a long time it has apparently been assumed that they had gone there for the purpose of committing adultery. There is reason to believe in Canada today

that this old fashion has changed and that a good number of these people go to the hotel and motel for the purpose of rigging up evidence in order to get a divorce.
Since none of us is a human lie detector and since we suffer all the perplexities that human flesh can suffer in trying to determine whether we are subjected to fraudulent evidence or cooked up cases, I and other members of the committee are left in a great deal of doubt about some of these cases. About 30 per cent perhaps of the cases that will be decided this year are cases of exactly that type.
By way of reflection I throw out this suggestion. Until one can read the human mind it is extremely difficult to know when parliament is being imposed upon. However, I say this. If in past years it is assumed that these people have gone to these hotels and motels for their own particular pleasures, there may yet grow up a presumption in the law-and if it does grow up, I am sure it will be applied by the committee of the other place and by the committee in this place-that these people have gone there for the purpose of obtaining divorce evidence. I have heard of such cases although I cannot say that I have heard of them in reference to anything that has come before us. However, I know the temper and the mood of some of our members and of their resolve, if they can find that such a practice exists, to get at it and stamp it out. With these few observations, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks in moving second reading of the first group of divorce bills.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) a question arising out of some remarks he made. In asking this question I want to assure him at the same time of the high respect and great esteem all the members of this house have for him for the way in which he performed his duties last year. I think the job he did, not only for the committee but for the house as a whole is one that is remembered with great appreciation by the members of this house.
However, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the remarks he made with regard to lobbying need some clarification. That is why I rise at this time to speak in respect of that problem. I certainly agree that lobbying by parties to a divorce case must be discouraged in the most vigorous manner that can be adopted. At the same time it seems to me that the statement made by the hon. member for Halifax could be clarified a little bit by him in this respect. I am sure that neither he nor any other member of this house would like to see a petitioner in a divorce action put
Private Bills-Divorce
in a position in which his petition was not going to be introduced into this house because a party on the other side of that divorce action conducted lobbying practice in respect of it. I hope, and I believe I can say that I can expect, that the reply of the hon. member in that regard will be that the petitioners will not be penalized by the activities of those who are opposed to them in these divorce actions because, of course, that would operate as an automatic barring of the suit.
The second question I should like to raise at this time in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax is with regard to this business of hotel and motel evidence. Any lawyer who has had experience in this business in the divorce courts realizes that much of the evidence must necessarily arise out of incidents which take place in locations other than the home of the respondent. Certainly the experience of the divorce courts has been that those who stray from their marital duties are more likely to do so outside of their own home and in hotels, motels and other places of that nature. I would be much opposed to the creation of any assumption on the basis that if the evidence disclosed that the offence has occurred in such a place, there would be a presumption against the reception of such evidence. I am sure that the hon. member for Halifax meant his statement more as a warning to those who might try to indulge in that practice. I am sure that the better position would be to examine carefully on its merits all the evidence that is received. Then, if it should be found that the evidence, no matter in what location the alleged event took place, was collusive or was the result of connivance, that evidence would be rejected and indeed in those two instances the petition itself would be rejected. I would be very much averse, Mr. Speaker, to a situation arising where there was a presumption in regard to evidence arising out of the mere location of the alleged offence. I had hoped that the hon. member for Halifax might have dealt with those two points.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for the house in expressing appreciation of the work that the present chairman of the miscellaneous bills committee has done. I would say in addition that the previous chairman, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea), also did an exceptionally good job on this very difficult committee. I would also like to express appreciation for the explanation that the chairman has given of some of the problems that faced this committee.
Last year I had the privilege, if it can be considered that, of sitting on this committee,

Private Bills-Divorce
and I think that parliament must take a very close look at what does go on in this committee. We have heard from the chairman many of the directions which have been given in this important matter of granting divorces in provinces which have not seen fit to make a divorce available in any other way. This has caused a great problem, because I do not think that parliament was constituted-certainly this chamber was not constituted-in such a way that we are able to handle these divorces, with the many problems which arose last year.
I would like to echo the warning given by the chairman in his remarks directed to this matter concerning the accusations which have been made with regard to certain cases. There are a number of members of parliament who have sat on this committee who have been accused, publicly and privately, of having accepted rewards for the way they handled one particular case. I think that is a thing which should not be allowed to happen, and the committee should not be placed in such a position where that sort of thing can be even hinted at. I do not think there is any reason to deny or explain the charges or countercharges in these particular cases. I think that when the committee is directed to sit, part of the direction from the house must be that an investigation should be conducted by this committee to eliminate some of the problems which the chairman has outlined.
This committee was not able last year to hear evidence in a proper manner with any recourse to the due process of law. I think this was an oversight in the constitution of this committee, which could be remedied by direction of the house to this committee to investigate the problem and make recommendations to the house. I think we are all in agreement that the chairman has had this in mind in the work he has done in looking into the problems which have faced this committee and past committees for quite a number of years. It now becomes the problem of the house not just to pass these en bloc, but to give some direction as to how they can be better processed so that all the people involved, both the respondents and the plaintiffs, get a much fairer deal than they do under the haphazard method we have had to use in the past.
It has always been the contention of this group that this is not a function of parliament but is something which has happened because of our constitution. It is something which we have been faced with, and is something that we should be able to solve ourselves much better than it has been hitherto solved.

It may be interesting to note that in the figures which the chairman gave Quebec had only 10.9 per cent of the national average. What would happen if the province of British Columbia were to bring its divorces here? We would probably be sitting the other four months of the year handling divorce cases. This group, on numerous occasions, has outlined its many suggestions for ridding parliament of this particular problem. I think that in the discussions of the committee last year there were several new and unique methods suggested to eliminate some of the problems. One of them, to which I think the committee could give some consideration this year, was the matter of asking the courts in the province of Quebec, while not asking them to grant divorces to decide if adultery had been committed. This would mean that they would hear the evidence; they would make that decision, and when these cases come to parliament we would be assured by the province of Quebec that their courts had made a decision, and that adultery had been indicated to their satisfaction. Parliament would have no problem then in passing these bills at the end of the year, whether they be 400, 500 or 1,000. There would be no problem with them. I think this is a suggestion that could certainly bear some study.
I think the chairman will agree that in some of the cases which came to parliament there was evidence of separations and other civil litigations, and they had enough evidence that the charge of adultery had been proven to the satisfaction of the court hearing those other litigations. I think these are cases which should be borne in mind, and in my opinion, unless this parliament is willing to decide that the members of the committee should be able to make a more honest decision, a decision based on fact and not on party lines, as one of the cases was decided last year, then I think parliament is not going to do itself any service.
The reason why I say that this was decided on party lines is that one case came before this house, and the recommendation of the committee was that it was not a good case, that a divorce should not be granted, and it was recommitted from the floor of the house and sent back. I do not think I need go into the reasons why it was sent back. Those allegations were never presented, never proved, never even offered, and as you know when the case came back it had the support of several of the parties. I suggest that parliament has an obligation, at least to its members on the committee, to give some direction which during this session will solve these problems, so that many of the faults which the chairman has just outlined can be taken care of.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, as one who has served on the committee on miscellaneous private bills for a number of years, I would like to add one or two observations to those made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), and by those who spoke after him in this debate. The handling of these divorce bills is, I think, perhaps one of the most difficult duties, perhaps one of the most distasteful duties, that any member of parliament may be called upon to perform. As the hon. member who has just taken his seat pointed out, we are charged with a tremendous responsibility to this house. We are also charged with a tremendous responsibility to the people whose fate we decide. Those responsibilities can be decided only by an honest assessment of the facts which are laid before us. I for one, Mr. Speaker, have felt that the way that our present committee is constituted under its terms of reference and the regulations by which we are governed is such that we are handicapped in performing that duty.
The hon. member for Halifax has pointed out one very important aspect of this problem, namely the tremendous increase in the number of divorces dealt with by this committee -such a large number that members of the committee must pass judgment on them without having time or opportunity to get even a bare acquaintance with the facts of the individual cases. Perhaps we salve our consciences in this respect by saying that these cases are not disputed and that we are merely regularizing situations which have been existing for a number of years, and making everybody happy. That may be so, but there is another way of looking at the question.
We are also faced with the situation that the more difficult cases are disputed, and in this respect we find the committee divided into different categories. Some of the members have legal experience and are prone to consider cases from a legal point of view. Others of us are humanitarians, not so much concerned, perhaps, with the legal or administrative niceties as with the effect upon the human beings concerned of decisions which may be taken. There is also the problem of having before us parties neither of whom the committee can believe. It becomes, then, a matter of trying to decide who is telling the least number of falsehoods. We must also look at the cases from the point of view of guilty parties and innocent parties. According to the law, one of the parties has committed adultery. Whether the other party has committed adultery or not is not known; he is not faced with the accusation,
Private Bills-Divorce
and it has not been proven. So he is innocent. It adds up to this: any decision we make is more likely to be a matter of chance than of a mathematical assessment of the facts.
Perhaps this cannot be helped under the present set-up, but I do think something could be done to place the committee in a more favourable position. For instance, certain changes might be made in our terms of reference and in the rules which govern our handling of these cases. Perhaps another committee should be appointed, a committee with a special set-up and suitable terms of reference and regulations to enable it to deal with this problem. I understand that the committee on miscellaneous private bills was constituted for a purpose very different from what appears to be one of its main purposes now. I think the solution I have indicated will be the best solution. Certainly, the committee should be empowered to take further steps to ascertain the true facts, where such a course is deemed necessary and particularly where it is thought that none of the witnesses is telling the truth. At present we have no power to subpoena witnesses; we have no power to force people to appear before us. Moreover, we cannot take any action with regard to the financial aspect of these cases or with regard to the travelling expenses involved, as can be done in the other place. We are further handicapped in that we must arrive invariably at one of two decisions.
Perhaps this is not the time at which I should refer to the manner in which the committee should be constituted. I did think, however, that it would be timely to broach the subject now in order that the government might give some thought to whether it would be advisable to alter the rules which govern this committee or at least to set up a separate committee which would give us a better chance of doing the job we should like to do.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that I have permitted a fairly representative discussion of the procedural problems, though they are really not relative to the issue before the house, because this is the first time divorce bills have come up this session and because there appears to be a desire to discuss the problems which the house faces in this connection. However, I do not think the discussion should be continued indefinitely because, after all, we have before us 11 or 12 bills to consider and the debate is on these bills and not on the general question of procedure.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: May I say in connection with those remarks that in my judgment this debate is very helpful. This is certainly a very serious

Private Bills-Divorce
problem and one which has faced the House of Commons for many years. We have the first lot of these bills before us today and I would suggest that in the circumstances it is not out of order to have some thought given to this whole question as has been done this afternoon in a very helpful manner.
After all, it is a very serious situation when the House of Commons is expected to spend hours dealing with these divorce bills and when a committee of the House of Commons spends other hours, all in a rather inefficient way, in my humble judgment. I do not see why there should not be freedom to discuss the problem in the house. I know of no other occasion when it could be discussed, other than on such an occasion as we find here this afternoon. If we are to be restricted simply to dealing with the facts of 12 cases we shall never work out a solution to this problem. The very fact that 11 or 12 cases are being taken en bloc today is, I suggest, a good reason why some general discussion should be permitted, and I do hope Your Honour will not rule that the debate on these bills must be restricted in the way which has been suggested. There have been very thoughtful speeches made this afternoon by hon. members of all three parties.


George James McIlraith: All out of order.


Howard Charles Green: I hear the hon. member for Ottawa West grumble that they were all out of order but, after all, he is not the Speaker of the house.


William Moore Benidickson: Or the leader of the house.


Howard Charles Green: I am just making a submission to Your Honour. I submit that in the circumstances the debate should not simply be chopped off in the manner in which Your Honour has indicated might be done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might say a word on the point raised by the leader of the house. I must say that I was troubled, as was Your Honour, by the fact that the normal business of the house was being disturbed by a debate which was wholly out of order. A member from each party has now spoken and I strongly support Your Honour in giving their rights to those members who prepare for the regular business as prescribed in the rules.


Howard Charles Green: This is regular business, just as much as any other business on the order paper, and I do not know what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate means when he suggests that there are other measures which have a higher priority than those now being considered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was merely suggesting that the rules be observed.
[Mr. Green.l


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: All the time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Mr. Speaker:: I took the view that this was a useful discussion-and undoubtedly the house was interested in it-but that we had had a fairly representative discussion. I thought that all the viewpoints had been expressed. To my mind it is clearly out of order to continue discussion at this time unless the house wishes to do so. If there is general agreement that debate can usefully be continued further I certainly would have no objection to that being done. But after we got to the point we had I thought it was desirable to make the precautionary remark I did. We all know we are not following the rules. If we wish to continue in this vein further there is no objection to it but I think it should be by general agreement that we continue.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the most interesting discussion that has arisen this afternoon as a result of the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) I should like to refer to some things which if they have not been said have perhaps been on the verge of being expressed.
It is true in a sense that we exercise a judicial function when these divorces come before us. But we also have a legislative function in which, technically, we could grant a divorce even if the grounds on which divorce is usually granted were not there. In that way this house technically could give to the provinces concerned wider grounds for divorce than those obtained in the other provinces where divorces are dealt with judicially by courts that are established.
There is a serious anomaly in the situation where a divorce has been heard perhaps very carefully by the other place and then it is brought to this house through the committee on divorce by way of appeal. There is no agreement on the decision of the other place and the committee is confronted with the task of ferreting out the truth on the basis of the evidence to ascertain whether or not divorce should be granted. As I understand the rules, the committee of the House of Commons has not the power to call witnesses except by arrangement with the solicitors concerned. If an arrangement is arrived at the witnesses appear before us and the evidence is heard in a proper fashion. That is a serious weakness, if we are to observe the function judicially as it has been set out. It is not always enough to read the evidence as it appears on paper because in many cases where a doubt exists as to the evidence it is

necessary to see the parties to the action in order to judge whether or not they are telling the truth.
Another weakness in the present system of dealing with divorces arises from the fact that appeal hearings may continue for more than a day. Members serving on the committee have other commitments and it is not possible for all members to remain at the hearing from beginning to end. This makes it difficult to reach a decision. It is difficult to come to a conclusion when one has heard only part of the evidence. That is another weakness in the present method which, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) has said, is a rather inefficient method of dealing with the question of divorces.
I believe the entire system is rather cumbersome. Serious consideration should be given either to setting up a judicial committee of the other house and let it deal finally and ultimately with divorce cases without their being referred to the House of Commons at all or to establishing a special court like the Supreme Court of Canada to deal with cases of this kind anywhere in the country, if they cannot be sent to the Exchequer Court because it is already overburdened. To do so would allow this house to devote its entire time to dealing with those matters with which it was designed to deal.
In this question, however, there exists something more than the application of logic because it concerns the feeling and convictions of certain people toward divorce. As is inevitably the situation when strong public or individual convictions are involved one cannot always come to a logical conclusion. Surely, however, we are approaching a sense of maturity in dealing with this problem. Surely it can be dealt with more logically than is the case at present. Hon. members who are elected to deal with national problems should not be required to spend time dealing with matters of divorce, important as they may be to the people concerned.
I would like to again emphasize the concern some of us felt last year when we did attempt to come to a judicial decision with respect to these cases. There were some individuals who felt that they had sufficient pull to be able to change the decision of the committee. That condition will always exist so long as divorce is handled in this way. People tend to mix the dual functions of members of parliament who sit in one instance judicially and in another instance legislatively. They feel they can approach their member of parliament and ask that their views be considered. If any party to a legal action were to go to
Business of the House
a judge and ask that his position be given favourable treatment it would be a sure way of losing his case. I am glad that the hon. member for Halifax sounded the warning he did this afternoon.
All hon. members regardless of party affiliation or provincial representation should consider this problem in a mature way and attempt to reach a solution that would benefit not only this house but all parties concerned.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member for Halifax speaks now he will close the debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the leader of the house would indicate what business we may expect for next week. I take it that the government intends to go ahead with the motion to go into supply on Monday and Tuesday but it would be helpful to know what would come after that if it is possible for the house leader to tell us.


Howard Charles Green: That is the intention, Mr. Speaker. Wednesday will be a government day. We will commence with the supplementary estimates and then continue with the resolutions on housing, the trans-Canada highway, the Northwest Territories Act, the National Defence Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I cannot say in what order we will proceed other than that the National Housing Act resolution will follow the supplementary estimates.
Thursday is the last private members' Thursday. There is some doubt as to the order of business for Friday but we may take estimates. I shall advise hon. gentlemen opposite at as early a date as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the house leader very much.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Special-
699.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration- further amount required, $225,000.

[Stage Direction]
700.	Salaries and expenses of the board, $72,000.﻿799
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 9, 1959