1960-07-12

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I rise on a question of privilege. On page 5892 of Hansard during the discussion of the bill of rights on July 7, 1960, I am reported as having said:
(Translation):
Where was his former leader, the leader of the opposition, Hon. Mr. Drew, who is now in London? Where was he at that time?
(Text):
It is evident that the word "lui" refers to Mr. Drew and not to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. On page 3 of the translation there appears the following:
Where was his former chief, the leader of the opposition, the Hon. Mr. Drew, who is now in London? Where was he, himself, at that time?
The translation by the use of the word "himself" for the word "lui" refers to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. To say the least the translation, while not inaccur-rate, is ambiguous. I had no one else in mind at the time but Mr. Drew.
This, sir, later led to an intervention by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris), who made a number of affirmations that are not in accordance with the record, who referred to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and who also left a clear inference that Hansard had been changed. I raise this as a question of privilege because the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made exactly the same charge against the Prime Minister during the course of the same debate, and realizing that he had spoken hastily immediately arose and asked that the words be withdrawn. Under the circumstances I trust that the hon. member for Halifax will do likewise.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, of course, is free to do as he wishes. The point ought to have been taken at the time the incident arose. It would be extremely difficult to pursue matters of privilege after they have passed into the record.


Lionel Chevrier: Still on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to do so I should like to say this. I was not
in the house when the words complained of were uttered. I came in toward the end of the speech of the hon. member. I have been absent from the house in the last two days. Therefore I could not raise the matter any sooner than at this moment.


Mr. Pickersgill:: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that I raised the matter at the time.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member feels that it is a matter which he had not an opportunity to raise earlier and that he would like to raise now, I feel that he ought to be more explicit in order to make a prima facie case of privilege. The inference that the record would be changed, unless it is attached to some hon. member specifically, while it might be offensive to the house is not something for an individual to complain of.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not going to press the matter unduly, but the words used by the hon. member for Halifax were these: "Well, unless the Hansard record is changed we shall all be able to see the truth." The words used by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate were practically the same.


Mr. Speaker:: They were the same. The hon. member is correct about that matter. Unless the inference is associated directly with an hon. member-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was.


Mr. Speaker:: -in order to give the implication that he is one who would change the record-


Lionel Chevrier: That is what it does. It is associated directly with my intention to change the record. I say now that I did not change the record, nor did I alter it. All I am saying is that under the circumstances it would seem to me that if the hon. member for Halifax followed the same procedure as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, he should act accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is at liberty to comment on the point if he wishes to do so.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Fifteenth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Stanton.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are two appointments that I wish to announce.
The first is that the government has appointed Dr. J. W. Willard as deputy minister of welfare in the Department of National Health and Welfare. He has been director of research in the department for the past 13 years, originally entering the public service in April of 1941 with the unemployment insurance commission. He transferred to the Department of National Defence at the beginning of 1943 and served as an administrative officer with the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps during the war, attaining the rank of major. In the spring of 1945 he was appointed executive secretary of the Canadian medical procurement and assignment board, which position he held until he was appointed to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Then there is the appointment of the Queen's printer. The governor in council has appointed Mr. Roger Duhamel who is already well known to many hon. members of the house. It might be recalled that he has had a distinguished career in journalism and publishing. Trained as a lawyer, he was employed for a time with the city of Montreal but soon became assistant chief editor of Le Canada. Subsequently, he held editorial positions with Le Devoir and La Patrie, then became director of the Montreal Matin. He was chief editor of La Patrie until his appointment in 1958 to the board of broadcast governors, from which he is resigning.



POSTAL EMPLOYEES-INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADDITIONAL SALARY INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, the view expressed by the President of the United States when he made the statement in question is,\n\naccording to the information that is available, still the case. Therefore anything in the nature of a statement of the kind indicated by the hon. member would not be in order.']
Mr. Azellus Denis (SI. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. I should like to know when and from what part of the country the minister intends to announce salary increases for the rest of the employees of his department?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, by a happy coincidence I was speaking in Three Rivers at the same time that the civil service commission made known the decision with regard to salary increases for certain postal employees, and I was able to give them this information. I might say that contrary to some of the remarks which


have appeared in the press since, my impression from speaking to these people was that they were extremely pleased and delighted at the increase which was granted to them and that they thought it was extremely just and reasonable. This is understandable in the light of the fact that it was the largest single increase they ever received and-


Mr. Hellyer:: After the longest single waiting period.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Eight months too late.


William McLean Hamilton: -greater than anything done for them under previous administrations. It is unlikely, Mr. Speaker, that a similar coincidence would occur again but I sincerely hope it will.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Postmaster General say whether he was on a pilgrimage to Three Rivers?


William McLean Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not on a pilgrimage but the reception I received from those employees as a result of my announcement made it a bit of a good will tour.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure the house that the subject of flights of United States service aircraft over Soviet territory or territorial waters for which bases in NATO countries are used will be discussed at the Canada-United States ministerial defence committee which is to meet today and tomorrow.
Right. Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, that is naturally a subject which will be considerably discussed.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that such flights over Soviet territory are in fact taken to be provocative, and in view of the assurance President Eisenhower gave the world that these flights would be discontinued, can the Prime Minister say whether the Canadian government has made any protest or any statement that such flights should not be undertaken in the future?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the view expressed by the President of the United States when he made the statement in question is,

according to the information that is available, still the case. Therefore anything in the nature of a statement of the kind indicated by the hon. member would not be in order.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether it is the intention of the government to inform the secretary general of the United Nations that if United Nations police forces are required and requested for the preservation of order in the new Congo state, a Canadian contingent is ready, trained and available to be moved by air transport immediately?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will allow me to answer the question I would like to tell the house that a senior official of the United Nations, Dr. Ralph Bunche, is at present in Leopoldville and in close touch with the Congolese authorities with a view to deciding with them what assistance the United Nations might render in the circumstances. The secretary general has returned to New York and will be in touch today with representatives of the independent African states in order to have their reaction as to how and in what manner the United Nations might assist. The hon. gentleman will therefore appreciate the fact that until United Nations plans have been formulated there is no question of requests for assistance from member governments.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Might I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Has our government placed our special battalion designed for emergency use by the United Nations on a stand-by basis ready for immediate air transportation to the Congo in the event of a call by the United Nations for assistance?


John George Diefenbaker: The battalion in question is available, but subject to the direction of the Canadian government, and I simply add as part of my answer to the hon. gentleman the reply which I just gave to the hon. member for Essex East.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN FREEDOM FROM HUNGER CAMPAIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent announcement of the director general of the
Inquiries of the Ministry food and agriculture organization to the effect that a five-year freedom from hunger campaign has been launched by the United Nations organization, can the minister inform the house whether Canada will co-operate in the implementation of the main features of this program? More particularly, will Canada provide technical assistance, and will some of our surplus food be made available?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the answer to this question will be a little longer than you usually like, but I shall be glad to give it.
The freedom from hunger campaign of the food and agriculture organization is designed primarily to stimulate the provision of technical assistance to food deficient countries, and to interest and encourage the participation of non-government bodies and private individuals in the work of FAO. The program does not envisage the supplying of food from surplus countries to deficiency countries. Rather it is designed to broaden and accelerate the technical assistance activities of FAO to enable deficiency countries to expand their own food production.
At the tenth conference of FAO in Rome in 1959, Canada supported the proposal for the freedom from hunger campaign, although pointing out that in addition to its contribution to FAO Canada was contributing a large amount of technical assistance under the Colombo plan and similar plans for Nigeria, Ghana and the West Indies federation. In addition we are now providing training facilities in Canada on seed improvement for a second group from several eastern countries in connection with the world seed improvement campaign, which is now part of the freedom from hunger campaign.
On May 30 there was an informal meeting of representatives of some 20 non-governmental organizations in Ottawa to plan for the establishment of a continuing Canadian committee for the freedom from hunger campaign. This group and others who have expressed an interest will meet with Dr. B. R. Sen, director general of FAO in Ottawa on August 18 to lay more formal plans for Canadian participation.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give the house some idea what amount of money Canada will make available under this program?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, until the meeting with Dr. Sen has been held in August there are no firm plans or commitments in connection with the campaign.

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister was in Calgary yesterday, accompanied by the Minister of Agriculture, did he consider the possibility of extending their visit to that city for the purpose of meeting with the western liaison committee of the farmers for the purpose of discussing the urgent problems faced by western farmers and wheat growers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is reviving a question which seems to have become an almost daily event.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought that after we had passed a bill of rights we would have been allowed to speak in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, you seem to doubt the propriety of the question. I am not now speaking about whether the question should be put, but I am saying that this is a proper question regardless of the number of occasions in which it has been asked. The way for hon. gentlemen opposite to avoid having these questions asked-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the view of the hon. member for Essex East, as I think perhaps there are new circumstances involved. If the hon. member wishes to pursue his question he may do so.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There is an urgency about the matter, and I think the Prime Minister should reply.


John George Diefenbaker: First with regard to the words of the hon. member for Essex East, in which he paid a proper and appropriate tribute to the bill of rights, I simply point out that when we were on the other side during the days of the pipe line debate we realized the necessity for freedom of speech.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Nineteen days of moving phony motions.


Mr. Graffley:: The people did not think so.


John George Diefenbaker: No question was raised yesterday or immediately prior thereto which indicated that we should listen to the committee in Calgary. The meeting, when it takes place, will take place in the city of Ottawa as suggested by that committee.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister intimated that he would have a statement to make early this week on assistance to western grain producers?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a question I asked him on July 8 as to how arrangements were proceeding for a meeting with the western liaison committee, and the Prime Minister's reply that he expected to be in a position "early next week" to give a full answer to that question. Now that we are through the "early next week" period, may I ask the Prime Minister when he will give that answer?


John George Diefenbaker: I shall let the house know, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, since this seems to be the day to raise questions about the western liaison committee and western grain, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture a direct question. Has a meeting now been arranged between the government and the liaison committee?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the policy of the government with regard to relief for western grain growers not be announced until such a meeting with the western liaison committee has taken place?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as has been made very clear to the hon. member and other members of the house, the government will announce its decision on this matter in due course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this matter may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether that means there will be an announcement of policy before parliament prorogues or adjourns?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member has already had an answer to his question on several occasions, the answer I have just given, that this is a matter for government decision and that decision will be made known in the usual way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister from Calgary whether it is his policy not to be stampeded into this meeting?



I960

Douglas Scott Harkness: It is the policy of the government not to be stampeded into any course of action.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether her attention has been drawn to an article in last evening's Ottawa Citizen headed "Continue Battle to Deport 'Visiting' Chinese Woman", and further to ask the hon. lady whether it is really true that she intends to go on persecuting this Chinese woman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question to ask, perhaps he will phrase it in a way which does not amount to an argument, and a provocative argument. If he wishes to ask this question I suggest he frame it in a different way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I should like to know whether the hon. lady intends to pursue this matter in the courts.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answer is yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that case I wish to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us how the government squares its conduct in attempting to exile a Canadian citizen with the bill of rights?


John George Diefenbaker: The bill of rights has not been passed yet.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether in his statement reported in the press about the opening of letters he added anything of significance to what he said in the house on his estimates.


William McLean Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the
79951-0-385
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister any report to make on the meeting on June 8 with the London railroad workers' council which dealt with the transfer of C.N.R. passenger car repair work from the London shops at which meeting the Prime Minister presided?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member first of all for postponing asking this question until today. Unfortunately I do not have my file before me, but I will see that the question is answered at once. I thank him very much.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether it is a fact that a hardware manufacturing company called Hard Metals Limited made a request of the government for assistance which would permit them to consolidate their Canadian manufacturing operations at Elliot Lake, and that this request was rejected by the government in June?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Mmisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the company mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition put forward several proposals with regard to consolidating their manufacturing or assembly plant at Elliot Lake. We were not able to agree to all the proposals that were made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the provincial government of Ontario through its minister of mines announced on July 3 that negotiations with this company were continuing on behalf of both the federal and provincial governments, and that he was confident of a successful outcome?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That may well be, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes that is the benefit of continuing with negotiations. Obstacles which appear insuperable at first are cleared away as you continue your discussions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it a fact that negotiations are continuing with this company?


Gordon Minto Churchill: They have not been closed, Mr. Speaker. We are quite prepared to carry on discussions.

Trade Agreement with Russia SHIPPING



REPORTED BAN ON FAREWELLS TO CREWS OF NORTHERN SUPPLY SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Agreed.']
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport or to his parliamentary assistant. It is based on a report contained in L'Action Catholique which is titled as follows:
(Translation):
There has been a break with a tradition. Relatives and friends of departing personnel are not allowed to see them off.
(Text):
It has been the practice, I understand, in the department when the icebreaker McLean or other icebreakers are leaving for northern waters, to allow the parents of personnel on the ship in question to bid adieu to their relatives. Why has this long standing custom been stopped or interfered with?


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: I will take this question as notice and try to give an answer tomorrow.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, July 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Churchill:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification by Canada of the protocol, signed at Moscow, on April 18, 1960, renewing the agreement on trade between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, concluded in Ottawa, on February 29, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce: Mr. Speaker, on April 25 of this year I announced the signing of a protocol renewing the trade agreement of 1956 between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I stated at that time that an opportunity would be provided for a debate on this protocol in advance of its ratification.
The protocol renews for a further three years the 1956 agreement, with the exception of article IX, and the letters which the two parties exchanged at that time concerning the right of the Canadian government to fix under the Canadian Customs Act values of goods for ordinary and special duty. The house approved ratification of this agreement on April 18, 1956, and the other place gave its approval on April 26 of that year.
Article IX of the 1956 agreement, which is not renewed, provided for signature and ratification at that time. It also stipulated that negotiations may be held to renew the agreement. These negotiations were success-
[Stage Direction]

fully completed with the signing of the protocol in Moscow on April 18 of this year.
The main features of the agreement may be outlined as follows. Provision is made in it for the exchange of most favoured nation treatment between the two governments, and the term "most favoured nation treatment" refers to tariffs and related matters in the field of commerce. It has the effect of placing Canadian commercial relations with the U.S.S.R. on a basis similar to our relations with most other countries. Most favoured nation treatment does not involve the extension of the British preferential rates of duty to imports from the U.S.S.R. Article VII specifically provides that most favoured nation treatment shall not apply to exclusive advantages accorded by Canada to members of the British commonwealth of nations and the republic of Ireland.
When I announced the signing of the protocol I made it clear that it would not affect our strategic export controls. A provision is included in the agreement which permits either government to apply prohibitions or restrictions of any kind for the protection of its essential security interests.
Another clause which I outlined refers to the treatment of merchant ships of either country in the seaports of the other, assuring them of as favourable treatment as the merchant vessels of other countries. This simply confirms the situation which existed previously with regard to ships of U.S.S.R. registry. The provision does not apply to the performance of harbour services or to coastal shipping.
There are also provisions which refer to the legal status of persons, access to courts and arbitration. These clauses do not establish any new procedure for settling disputes arising in the conduct of trade between Canada and the U.S.S.R. They merely indicate the facilities available if such disputes should arise. Canadians are free to choose between Canadian or Soviet courts, and they are not bound to enter arbitration.
From the Canadian point of view the most important part of the renewed agreement is an exchange of letters between myself and the minister of foreign trade of U.S.S.R., Mr. N. S. Patolichev. The letters provide that in each year of the renewed agreement the Soviet foreign trade organization will purchase Canadian goods to a value of $25 million, including not less than 200,000 metric tons of Canadian wheat, which in bushels is approximately 7.5 million, provided the total annual value of Canadian purchases from the U.S.S.R. is not less than $12.5 million. Should the total value of Canadian purchases from the U.S.S.R. be less than $12.5 million in any one year, the Soviet undertaking to

purchase from Canada would be reduced and would be determined on a two to one basis; that is, the Soviet union would purchase twice as much from Canada as Canada imported from the Soviet union. Wheat will constitute not less than half the amount of such annual Soviet purchases.
It will be noted that Canada does not give any undertaking in this agreement to purchase from the U.S.S.R. The major commitment made by Canada is to allow imports from the Soviet union to compete on equal terms with imports from other countries receiving most favoured nation treatment.
The letters also provide that the authorities of the two countries will consult periodically concerning the implementation of the agreement and any other matters affecting trade relations between the two countries. Under the earlier agreement the consultation provision and the undertaking of both parties to give sympathetic consideration to each other's representations were limited to matters concerning the implementation of the agreement. The broadening of these to include other matters affecting trade relations would permit Canada, for example, to take up with the Soviet government problems arising out of Soviet selling practices in world markets that may be unfair and harmful to our export interests. Consultations will take place annually, and should permit the development of closer co-operation and understanding with the Soviet authorities concerned with trade.
To conclude the description of the arrangements to be ratified by the government, I might mention that the protocol will terminate three years from the date of signature and consequently a further renewal, if it should then be desired, would be a matter for negotiation.
As I stated earlier, 200,000 tons of wheat will be purchased annually from Canada under the terms of the new agreement if our annual imports reach a value of $12.5 million. In the previous agreement the total Soviet purchase commitment was for 400,000 tons of wheat a year. It will be appreciated that the situation has changed markedly since 1956. The Soviet union has greatly enlarged its production of wheat and is now a regular exporter. Moreover, the level of sales achieved by the Russians under the previous agreement did not come up to expectations, and they were not prepared to continue trading on the previous basis. In addition, since 1956 the Soviet union has concluded a number of trade agreements with non-communist countries in which they have avoided making unilateral and unconditional purchase commitments.
79951-0-385J
Trade Agreement with Russia
As a result of these new conditions they were not willing to renew the previous purchase commitment without modifications. However, the arrangements that have been made for trade on a two to one ratio do involve a purchase commitment on the Soviet side, and the terms of the arrangement are better than those offered by the U.S.S.R. to any other country. Provided the businessmen and traders of the two countries take advantage of the sales opportunities which exist, we may expect that under the new agreement substantial quantities of Canadian commodities, including wheat, will again be sold.
I am sure the house is aware of the vast differences between the methods of conducting foreign trade in this country and in the Soviet union. In Canada most trade is in private hands, and decisions to purchase and sell goods abroad are made by private persons. Against this, Soviet foreign trade transactions are made within the framework of government policy by officials of monopolistic state trading organizations. A variety of problems result from these differences in the way of doing business.
A characteristic of the Soviet state trading system is a strong inclination toward bilateral arrangements, including barter transactions. Many of their trade agreements involve mutual undertakings to purchase specified amounts of listed goods. In other cases, targets for the exchange of goods are established which the Soviet authorities are able to implement as regards their foreign purchases through control over imports. With regard to exports, different but related considerations apply. The experience of the Soviet union in selling in open competitive markets, such as that of Canada, is relatively limited by comparison with many of our trading partners whose sales are promoted by private businessmen. On the Canadian side, our exporters have in general had little experience in dealing with the complex state trading organizations which have responsibility for executing the import programs of the Soviet union.
The new arrangements provide a favourable framework for the traders and trading organizations of the two countries to establish and expand their business relationships. The success of the agreement from the standpoint of Canada's trade will hinge upon the results achieved by the Canadian business community in its dealing with Soviet trading corporations. Canadian exporters interested in sales to the U.S.S.R. will need to find out how best to develop the Soviet market, both from the point of view of the products to be sold and the ways and means
[Stage Direction]
Trade Agreement with Russia of encouraging the Soviet import organizations to buy. For their part the Soviet export organizations, if they wish to expand their sales in Canada, will have to make the necessary effort to ascertain what Soviet products may be saleable in the Canadian market and how these sales can be developed on an orderly basis.
Several steps have been taken to promote the development of trade between our two countries. Canadian businessmen may have an opportunity to discuss their trade interests with a Soviet trade mission which may come to Canada later this year. Soviet authorities informed me that they would welcome a comparable visit of Canadian businessmen to the Soviet union. As a service to the business community interested in trade with the U.S.S.R., a commercial counsellor has been assigned to the Canadian embassy in Moscow. Numerous firms are already exploring the Soviet market with his assistance. For their part, the Soviet union have expressed an interest in stepping up their efforts to develop sales in the Canadian market. The conditions for trade have been established and a spirit of good will and co-operation in the commercial field has been initiated. It is the hope of the government that the envisaged levels of trade will be realized and that we may look forward to a flow of commerce beyond these levels.
I trust that the resolution which is before us will find approval with all members of the house.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has pointed out this resolution would give approval to a protocol between Canada and the Soviet union. Parliamentary approval, according to the convention although not of course the law of our constitution, is now required before any agreement between Canada and any other country can appropriately be ratified, that is any agreement of any substance or any agreement which imposes any obligations of any kind on the government and parliament of Canada. It would be interesting in this connection to know-perhaps the minister will be able to inform the house when he concludes the debate-whether the Soviet union has ratified this protocol. Ratification by the Soviet certainly does not involve the kind of .parliamentary consideration which we give here. The agreement was signed on April 25 of this year and it would be interesting, therefore, to know whether or not it has already been ratified by Russia.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to read the resolution in order to ascertain

exactly what we are being asked to approve. The resolution reads as follows:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification by Canada of the protocol, signed at Moscow, on April IS, 1960, renewing the agreement on trade between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, concluded in Ottawa, on February 29, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.
There is in this resolution mention of the protocol alone. That is what we are being asked to approve and nothing else. If you read the protocol, Mr. Speaker-and the minister has referred to it-you will find that all it does is extend the agreement of 1956, with the exception of one article, namely article IX, which is the formal article at the end dealing with the coming into effect, the term of the agreement and that kind of thing. All we are being asked to do is extend the agreement of 1956, and to extend also the understanding set out in the letters which the two parties exchanged on the same date as the earlier agreement regarding the establishment of methods for valuing goods for duty.
We are asked to extend this former agreement and this particular exchange of letters between the two governments for another three years. No mention is made in this protocol of any other exchange of letters laying down the terms of trade between the two countries. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house could not possibly object to the extension of the earlier agreement. It was an agreement that we negotiated. I think it is a satisfactory agreement so far as it goes in laying down the conditions of commercial relationships between the two countries. Naturally, then, we approve of its extension.
We also entirely approve of the extension of the exchange of letters which lay down the rules for valuation, an extremely important part-indeed an essential part-of any agreement dealing with trade with the Soviet union. But this new exchange of letters which lay down the terms of trade which are to prevail for three years after the date of the signature of the letters and which is not mentioned in the protocol is something else again. While we are not asked in this resolution to deal with or to approve or to disapprove of it, naturally, as the minister has made reference to it, it is not possible to talk about the protocol or approval of the protocol without discussing at the same time this other exchange which is not mentioned in the protocol but which does indeed deal with the terms of trade which are to exist between Canada and the Soviet union, if this agreement is ratified for the next three years.

When last April the minister announced in the house the signing of the agreement, he said that the arrangements set out in this exchange of letters were satisfactory to the government and he went on to add, and he repeated it today "taking into account changed trade conditions". The only change which the minister mentioned then, and I think I am right in saying this, was the change in the position of Russia as a wheat producer and exporter. Since 1956, when the earlier agreement was signed, there has been great development of agricultural production, particularly wheat production, in Russia. Acreage has greatly increased, and as a result Russia has become a potential exporter of wheat.
Of course Russia had been an exporter throughout this century. Even at the time when famine in Russia interfered with exports of wheat in the normal way, Russia was still exporting wheat. Indeed Russian imports and exports of wheat over the years have not always been determined by economic considerations. So the only change in trade conditions in that respect is perhaps, because of the new acreage brought under cultivation, that Russia may have more wheat to export in normal circumstances. But Russia, when it suits her economic or her political purposes, will import wheat, especially across the Pacific into the eastern provinces of Russia. It is more convenient and more economical at times for Russia to import wheat into those Pacific provinces than to move it from the European areas across Siberia.
The minister expressed the hope that this exchange of letters and of course the protocol would result in fruitful co-operation in trade between the two countries. He thought this exchange would make such fruitful co-operation possible. We have grave doubts whether this particular exchange of notes which is not, as I repeat, mentioned in the protocol will make possible the kind of fruitful cooperation which we would all like to see brought about.
The previous arrangement, as the minister has pointed out, came into effect on February 29, 1956 and lasted for three years. I had something to do with the negotiation of that arrangement. It was an interesting negotiation. It did not take very long. It was not too difficult. There was a meeting of a few days in Moscow, and Russian trade delegates came to Ottawa. There was some hard bargaining on both sides and the agreement was drawn up, signed and later approved in the House of Commons. There was quite an interesting debate in the house on that occasion.
The particular arrangement in the exchange of letters at that time was a far better one, as we see it, from the Canadian point of
Trade Agreement with Russia view than is the present arrangement in the exchange of letters which appear attached to the protocol. The minister has pointed out that under the earlier agreement, which was the basis of the trade relations, established, we gave Russia most favoured nation treatment. In doing so we put our commercial relationships with that country on a treaty basis. That, of course, is being continued in this new protocol.
There is, I think only one substantial change from the protocol from the earlier agreement. Section 2 of the protocol reads as follows:
Each of the two governments hereby affirms that it will give sympathetic consideration to any representations which the other government may make in respect to the implementation of this protocol and of other matters affecting their commercial relations.
In the earlier agreement those last words were not included, and the consultation that was provided for in the earlier agreement was limited to the implementation of the agreement itself. We on this side of the house certainly have no objection to that extension in paragraph 2. Perhaps a broadening of the basis of consultation at this time may be a good thing. Then the other paragraph of the protocol merely includes the section IX of the old agreement.
In the earlier exchange of letters which accompanied the 1956 agreement and to which the minister referred-I wish to refer to them, too, because I want to draw the contrast between the arrangement made then and the arrangement made in 1960, a contrast which I think is all to the disadvantage of Canada-the Soviet union agreed to buy, according to the exchange of letters on February 29, 1956, from Canada-
-during the three years dating from the signature of this agreement, between 1,200,000 and
1.500.000	metric tons of wheat in annual amounts of between 400,000 and 500,000 tons. The quantity of wheat between 400,000 and 500,000 tons purchased by the Soviet union during each of the second and third years of the validity of the agreement shall be finally determined with due account being taken of the volume of sales of Soviet goods in Canada and Canadian purchases thereof.
Mr. Speaker, it is on the record, and the minister has mentioned it, that over the term of the agreement the Soviet government failed to meet these objectives except in the first year of the agreement. I think when the agreement lapsed they were about
200.000	tons, some 8 million bushels, short. One would have thought that shortage on the part of the Soviet union would have given us something to bargain with when we were negotiating an extension of the arrangement and a new exchange of letters. This negotiation took a long time. I understand it took over a year; therefore there must have been some bargaining going on.

Trade Agreement with Russia But the result of that negotiation and that bargaining from our point of view on this side is very unsastisfactory in its effect on the possibility of extending Canadian trade, especially trade in wheat, with the Soviet union.
The figures for exports to Russia in the years of the agreement and subsequently are quite interesting. The year before the agreement was signed, in 1955, we exported to Russia $2,680,000 worth of commodities, all of which in that year was wheat. In 1956, after the agreement was signed, that figure went up from $2,680,000 to $24,605,000 and included almost $1 million of commodities other than wheat and 15 million bushels of wheat. In 1957 the figures went down, although still considerably above 1955, to $10,657,000, of which $9,057,000 was wheat. In 1958 wheat purchases from Canada by Russia amounted to $11,658,000 and there were other purchases of $7,209,000, which was mostly barley, making a total of nearly $19 million.
Last year, 1959, the wheat purchases were $10,787,000 and other purchases $1,953,000, making a total of $12,740,000 of Canadian exports to Russia. The commodities apart from wheat included in these figures were barley, which I have mentioned and which was very significant in 1958, some steel goods, some drugs and some chemicals. However, the fact remains that while after the first year the Russians did not meet their agreed purchases, the terms of trade during the three years of this agreement were four or five to one in our favour, and that is a fact which should be remembered when we consider the new exchange of letters.
The new protocol does not touch this situation, but the new exchange of letters certainly does. The minister has already read, and I will repeat, the really operative part of this letter of April 18, even though it is not, as I have said, part of the protocol or part of the documents referred to in the resolution of approval. Paragraph 3 of this letter signed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and addressed to the minister of foreign trade of the U.S.S.R. reads:
It is further understood that the ministry of foreign trade of the U.S.S.R., in accordance with its customary procedures, will see to it that Soviet foreign trade organizations each year during the three-year period from this date purchase in Canada, under normal commercial conditions, Canadian goods of their choice and which may be exported by Canada to a total value of 25 million Canadian dollars, including not less than 200,000 tons of Canadian wheat, provided-[DOT]
This proviso is the most important change between this exchange of letters and the other.
-the total annual value of Canadian purchases from the U.S.S.R. is not less than 12J million Canadian dollars. Should the total value of Canadian

purchases from the U.S.S.R. be less than 122 million Canadian dollars in any one year, the relationship between the value of such Canadian purchases and the value of those of the Soviet Union shall be in the ratio of 1 to 2; wheat will constitute not less than half of the value of the annual Soviet purchases.
It should be clear, Mr. Speaker, that in this exchange of letters there is no commitment on the part of the Soviet union to purchase any wheat in default under the earlier agreement, but there is a mathematical formula laying down the relationship, unless the maximum figures are realized as they have never been realized in the past, of exports to imports.
I do not know of any other case, although the minister will correct me if I am wrong, where we have accepted a trade arrangement with any foreign country on that basis, where we have limited ourselves in any way to any mathematical formula of exports versus imports. This was suggested to us in 1956 when we negotiated the earlier agreement with the Russians, and we would have no part of it.
How will this particular arrangement work out? Last year-and these were not abnormal figures-Canada bought from Russia only about $2J million worth of goods; furs, pig iron and some chrome were I think the main commodities. If this agreement is approved now, and if this exchange of letters becomes operative and if the figure for this year becomes more or less the same figure for last year, we would be able to export under this arrangement only $5 million worth of goods, of which half would be wheat. But even last year, the figures for which were well below the figures for 1957, as I have pointed out, we exported $12,750,000 worth of goods to Russia.
Therefore, in the light of past experience where are we going to get the Russian imports which would make possible under this arrangement our reaching even the figure we reached last year? To reach last year's figure alone we have to import $6 million worth of Russian goods. If we do not do that, under this exchange of letters we are practically inviting the Soviet union to reduce its purchases in Canada, especially purchases of wheat.
That is one very weak point indeed in this arrangement, this exchange of notes. I am not now talking about the protocol. Furthermore, the question arises as to how and when Russia will determine its purchases under the two for one provision. Is that going to be done at the end of each year and applied to the subsequent year? Is it going to be done in the middle of the year, or how is it going to be done? This kind of arrangement with a mathematical formula and without precise

details as to how it will be carried out will give rise to every opportunity for misunderstanding.
Surely it is particularly important when you are making an arrangement with a communist country, with a state-trading country, that everything should be perfectly clear in the documents you are signing. We have had lots of experience during the last 15 years in the political and economic fields; I am not thinking especially of Canada, but of other countries. We have much experience in the danger and disillusion and recrimination which arise as a result of signing documents with communist countries which mean one thing to them and another to us, and which because of their imprecise language can be interpreted in its own interest by the communist country during the course of the arrangements.
Notwithstanding this, however, the protocol says in its preamble that its purpose is to extend and diversify trade between the two countries. That is, of course, a purpose which we all support, but it is a purpose which we do not think will be realized in view of the exchange of letters about which I have been talking.
Are there any restrictions on our exports under this new arrangement? Well, yes. The security clause of the earlier arrangement has been retained, and it is most desirable that it should have been retained. Among other things it would prevent our exporting uranium to the Soviet union in case any minister of the crown should attempt to send Canadian uranium to that country. Are there any restrictions on our imports under this arrangement? We have not heard of any, except again, I suppose, in the security clause; there would have to be some limitation on imports if they were in any way prejudicial to the security of the country. It is not easy to see how that could arise in the case of imports, though they certainly might be prejudicial to the economic security of some of our manufacturing companies, and I am thinking particularly of the motor car manufacturing companies.
When the debate took place in this house on the earlier agreement in 1956, the present Minister of Finance was very much worried about the lack of restriction or limitation of any kind on imports, and in his contribution to the debate in 1956, as reported on page 3045 of Hansard, the hon. gentleman had this to say:
I think it is to be deplored that there is no guarantee in this agreement that Canada shall not be asked to import goods manufactured by forced labour behind the iron curtain. By this agreement-
Trade Agreement with Russia
That is the earlier agreement.
-it is entirely left to Canadian purchasers to assure themselves if they choose to do so that the goods they are purchasing from Russia are not goods manufactured by forced labour.
The Minister of Finance was very preoccupied with that question at that time. Well, he had an opportunity in the course of the negotiations preceding this agreement to put something along those lines into the new protocol, if he desired to do so, but there is no indication that any steps were taken to that end.
The present Minister of Finance was also very worried at that time about the danger of espionage as a result of signing an agreement at that time and he said, further, on page 3046:
The fourth matter to which I draw attention, in trying to bring about a sound and fair understanding of the agreement and what it contains, as well as its limitations, is the danger that wherever Russian trade organizations go there is always the danger of espionage.
I do not know whether that danger worried the minister when he was considering this particular agreement. My hon. friend from Essex East recalls also the statement made by the Minister of Finance at that time concerning the treatment of the merchant marine, which is covered in one of the paragraphs of the present protocol extending the same provision in the earlier agreement. None of the matters which caused so much anxiety to the Minister of Finance at that time-an anxiety which he expressed in strong terms in this House of Commons-seems to have worried him in connection with the extension of the agreement in the form we have before us.
To sum up, naturally we support the protocol and the exchange of notes dealing with valuation, which are the only two things we are asked to support in this resolution; but, as it has been brought into the discussion, we must say that we do not think that the exchange of notes which lays down the terms of trade between the two countries is a satisfactory one from the Canadian point of view.
This is a bad bargain. We would be in favour of any agreement which would extend Canadian trade, because nothing is much more important to our economic prosperity, our stability and even our existence than an expanding external trade. We would be particularly anxious to support an agreement which would open up new markets for our wheat exports, but we object to this particular exchange of notes, this two to one formula, both because of the principle of accepting a formula of this kind, which we think is undesirable, and also because we think the result of this exchange of notes is

Trade Agreement with Russia likely to be not an expansion but a limitation of our exports, particularly of our wheat exports.
Therefore, though the protocol is satisfactory and the exchange of notes mentioned in the resolution is satisfactory, this particular exchange lays down an undesirable principle of two to one by which we shall be bound during the currency of this agreement. That particular exchange cannot be approved on this side of the house because, instead of expanding, it is more likely to limit trade.


Hazen Robert Argue: The resolution before the house to approve the terms of the new trade agreement betweeen Canada and the U.S.S.R. deserves, of course, serious consideration. Canada's trade generally in recent years has been posing many problems for our most important industries. Many of the export industries of this country are finding it more difficult to obtain markets, and more difficult to hold the markets they have had in the past. It is exceedingly necessary that the Canadian government should do everything possible to improve and expand Canada's trade.
It is true that written into this agreement is a two to one formula which binds the U.S.S.R. to buy from us a maximum of $25 million worth of goods in a year but only if we purchase from the Soviet union goods equal in value to 50 per cent of that amount. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken for the Liberal party, and he has said that this is a bad bargain. It may not, on the face of it, be a bargain as good as the 1956 agreement appeared to be on its face, but I think it is very unrealistic to think we can go on exporting to any country in the world on the basis of four times as much as we buy, or to export six or seven times as much as we are prepared to buy from that country. On the basis of the ratio of trade and, I think, on the basis of absolute trade, it seems to me that our position vis-a-vis the United States is a much worse bargain than the formula contained in the agreement now under consideration. Our imports from the United States for the year ending December, 1959 amounted to $3.8 billion, but our exports in that year fell short of this amount by some $700 million, being just in excess of $3.1 billion.
No one can compare the value and size of Canada's trade with the United States with the trade we have had with the U.S.S.R., but I think it is a little far fetched to say that a two to one ratio in Canada's favour is, on the face of it, a bad bargain. I do not think we should attempt to say that an agreement with the U.S.S.R. or any communist nation is on


the face of it a bad bargain, but I wonder if that is not the stand taken by the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that of course is not the stand I take. I am objecting to the mathematical formula and the establishment of such a formula in trade arrangements, particularly those with state-trading nations.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was about to say that the Leader of the Opposition went on to elaborate by saying that you had to be extremely careful in interpreting the language that went into any trade agreement with a communist country because they were so inclined to interpret clauses differently than we do.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right.


Hazen Robert Argue: 
Lester Bowles Pearson: I made it perfectly clear
that this agreement is not even mentioned in the resolution which we are being asked to approve.

Trade Agreement with Russia


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to know whether the official opposition is going to approve the resolution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of -course we are going to approve the resolution. I said that two or three times in my statement, but it does not even mention the agreement.


Hazen Robert Argue: I listened very carefully and I did not gather from the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that his party was going to approve the resolution now before us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said that at the very beginning and at the very end of my statement.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is a strange position for them to take, to say that they are going to vote for the resolution but that the thing the resolution will implement is bad and that this is a bad bargain.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It does not implement the agreement at all. It has nothing to do with it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course it does.
Mr Pearson: Read the resolution.
Mr Argue: I will.
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification by Canada of the protocol, signed at Moscow, on April 18, 1960, renewing the agreement on trade between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, concluded in Ottawa, on February 29, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read the protocol. It does not mention the agreement.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Leader of the Opposition can quibble if he likes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quibble?


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no doubt in my mind that what we are being asked to do now is to approve the agreement in its entirety. The Leader of the Opposition shakes his head.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read the protocol.


Hazen Robert Argue: He is entitled to do that, but I do not understand the attitude of a political party which says that everything contained in the agreement makes it a bad bargain, that they are against the formula, do not like the limitations and think this is a backward step, yet they are going to vote for it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not in the protocol. Read the protocol.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to see them take a more consistent stand. We are going to vote for the resolution because while along with other Canadians we naturally would like to


see a better formula and more exports covered by the agreement, we think the agreement itself is a valuable one and should be supported. We think it is in the interests of Canada. We also think that one of the reasons this kind of formula has been written into the agreement is the complete failure of Canada under this and preceding administrations to bring about a more equitable trading balance with the U.S.S.R. I am not talking about absolute equality, but I think it is a perfectly ridiculous position to take, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, that the ratio of from four to one up to eleven to one in Canada's favour is something that can be maintained as a practical proposition in trading with a great country like the U.S.S.R. If we were able to have a two to one formula and bring about a two to one result in our trade with other important countries, then the talk about an adverse trade balance would be forgotten and this problem would be solved.
The reduction in the amount of wheat that will be sold under this agreement is serious, but in spite of the fact that the agreement does not hold out the possibility of the same kind of large exports of this commodity as under the former agreement we say that if this is the best bargain the Canadian government could obtain, we are pleased that the government has agreed to the agreement subject to parliamentary approval, and we are pleased to lend our support to that approval.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, trade happens to be one of the fields in which I am very much interested. I never thought I would hear an entire speech by the hon. member for Assiniboia with which I could agree, but I can agree wholeheartedly with what he has just said.


Hazen Robert Argue: Somebody is slipping.


Erhart Regier: You always were with us anyway.


Ernest James Broome: I am rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition should take the stand he has taken because, as the hon. member for Assiniboia has pointed out, what happened was that the U.S.S.R. entered into a trade agreement with the former administration under which they got badly burned to the tune of four or five to one and in certain years ten to twelve to one. In the light of that experience, when they came to sign the new agreement they said they must have a better deal, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce has done a good job in getting this two for one agreement. I cannot see that a two for one agreement is not good.

I should like to put on the record a few trading figures which indicate a much worse situation than that mentioned by the hon. member for Assiniboia. What do hon. members think of a trading arrangement whereby in 1959 Canada imported crude oil from Arabia to the value of $70 million whereas our total exports were under $3 million? This is a ratio of $1 of imports to 4 cents of sales. In 1959 we had imports from the Netherlands Antilles amounting to $47 million, almost all of which comprised petroleum products, while total exports were slightly over $1 million, or a ratio of $1 of imports to a little over 2 cents in sales. If you take Venezuela you will find that the ratio was $1 of imports to 22 cents of sales. These make the discrepancies talked about in the trade agreement with the U.S.S.R. look like chicken feed.
With regard to whether, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we are going to make a success of this trade agreement, what are we going to import? I read in one of the Toronto newspapers that an importer of motor cars had cancelled an order for some 500 automobiles. I can imagine what our automobile manufacturers and their employees would say if we started importing motor cars from a state-trading nation. We hear a lot of talk today about importing motor cars from low wage countries. What are the costs of manufacture in a state-trading nation? What would happen to the shoe manufacturers if we imported shoes? What would happen to the oil industry if we imported gasoline? We had an instance of that.
It appears that about the only thing we can import from the Russians is raw or semi-processed material of which we happen to be short in this country or which could be landed in geographical areas of the country to which our own production could not be transported economically. One item which was mentioned was chrome, and another item starting with "c" which might be mentioned would be caviar. I think we could soon exhaust the list of things which might be imported under this trading agreement. However, there is one commodity, and that is oil. This oil might be imported into areas which are not now served by western crude but which are served solely by imported crude. I have given illustrations of our imbalance of trade with various countries. If we only transferred 10 per cent of our oil imports from Saudi Arabia to the Russians we would not be displacing one barrel of western crude, and this move would immediately ensure the success of this agreement.
However, we cannot do this because no matter at what price oil is offered, there is 79951-0-386J
Trade Agreement with Russia no such thing as a free market in so far as oil is concerned. There is such a thing as commercial preference. When the oil companies are importing from foreign countries they only import oil which they own themselves. These companies will not import other oil unless they are told to do so by the government, as they are in every other country except Canada. I say it is time we took a look at the oil industry. It is time that we, as a government, imposed quotas. The imposition of quotas would help our western production. This would also make it possible to assign quotas to the U.S.S.R. or any other nation with which we wanted to promote trade.
As the hon. member for Assiniboia said, the export of wheat is a major part of the activity of the harbour of Vancouver. We have noticed during the last year a lessening of activity as a result of the dropping off of our transpacific trade. There will be exports of pulp because the Russians are not yet selfsustaining in pulp, as well as other products which come from our exporting industries of the west. It is very difficult for a nation such as Canada, dedicated to the proposition that trade shall be in private hands and that only in very restricted areas shall the government intervene, to trade with a state-trading nation. As I pointed out earlier, any trade in consumer goods will rouse a storm of protest from whatever industrial areas might be affected.
However, we do have this area in which we could move and in which we could make this trading agreement a 100 per cent success. Incidentally, we could show the major world oil companies that the government of this country is greater than they are. The method by which these companies operate is international in scope and has no regard for the over-all welfare or economic well-being of this country. The other day in the house, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Calgary South, the minister said he was going to take a look at the oil industry now that we have the final report of the Borden commission. This government deserves credit for having set up the Borden commission and the energy board. There was no movement in this area under the previous regime. The movement in this area which would ensure the success of this trade treaty, which would have value to the U.S.S.R. as well as to ourselves, was not taken by the previous administration. They hooked the Russians and the Russians have reacted in a typical manner, even though their reactions are still in our favour.
I say therefore, Mr. Speaker, that if any of the oil companies would like to show some public spirit, without government intervention, they could, by reducing their imports

Trade Agreement with Russia of oil from Saudi Arabia by 10 per cent and diverting this to the U.S.S.R., ensure the success of this treaty.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I was not at all surprised to hear the hon. member for Vancouver South announce that he was in wholehearted agreement with the contentions of my leader, the hon. member for Assiniboia. All of us in this group have realized over a considerable number of years that he really ought to be one of us, that at heart he really is one of us.


Ernest James Broome: 1 think this is the first time, and I suspect it will be the only time.


Erhart Regier: It is nothing new to hear the hon. member announce that he is in wholehearted agreement with the contentions of the hon. member for Assiniboia, who is the leader of the group. However, I do not at all understand the reasoning that was pursued by the leader of the official opposition. He does not like the terms of the agreement, yet he is going to vote for it. May I point out that this is the only occasion on which this house will be able to express its opinion of the terms of the agreement. In the words of the motion:
-it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification by Canada of the protocol, signed at Moscow, on April 18, 1960, renewing the agreement-
If in the renewal of the agreement there are amendments which the official opposition does not like, and if the official opposition maintains that these amendments are harmful to Canadian interests, then this will be the only occasion on which they can express their opposition. However, they are going to vote, as they have announced, to approve the ratification of this renewed agreement, in spite of the fact they believe that the manner in which the renewal has taken place is very bad and that the terms of the renewal are bad and are harmful to Canadian interests.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have not read the protocol.


Erhart Regier: The Leader of the Opposition now claims I have not read the protocol. May I assure him that I have done my homework. I have to agree with him that there are matters in the protocol that I should like to amend. However, I believe that on the whole it is a good thing that we have reached an agreement with the U.S.S.R.
I am willing to support the renewal of the agreement. He does not like the agreement, but he is going to vote for it. I do not know where, except on the political platform, he is going to express his utter disagreement with what has been done. I believe the electors will realize, at that time, just what his argument is. It is merely for political reasons
fMr. Broome.]

that the official opposition is expressing its opposition. However, when it comes down to brass tacks they are going to vote in favour of the motion.
I have never been overly optimistic about the possibilities of Canadian prosperity being enhanced by trading relationships with nations whose natural resources and enterprises are so much like ours. I have always maintained that the welfare of the Canadian economy is not primarily dependent upon our trading relationships with either the United States of America or the U.S.S.R. Those nations have a great deal of pulp and paper, plenty of wheat and plenty of all those things that we should like to export.
I feel it is wrong for the Canadian economy to be so dependent upon nations whose natural resources are so much like our own. I believe that our future economic welfare would be more enhanced if we had more active trading relationships with nations such as the West Indies federation, India, China, the United Kingdom or the countries of western Europe, in other words countries which are not our natural competitors with regard to the products we may have in excess supply and available for export.
I do not place any undue optimism on the results of the agreement now before us. However, to say that this is a bad bargain raises another issue. I realize that it may well be a bad bargain in comparison with the old agreement. However, I believe all of us are adult enough and have at our disposal information enough that we ought to realize that we could not expect the old agreement to be continued indefinitely with any beneficial results to the Canadian economy. After all, whenever any other government offers to buy $2 worth of goods from us if we will buy $1 worth from them, according to my way of looking at things that is a good bargain; it is basically a good bargain, even though it may not be as excellent a bargain as that which we may have had previously.
My real reason for participating in this debate is that I know of a number of Canadian enterprises that are very much involved in and very much concerned with the success of this agreement, notably the wheat producers. To be willing to brush aside the sale of millions of bushels of Canadian wheat merely because we are no longer getting the bargain we used to enjoy is, I feel, rather irresponsible action. However, when the government undertook to agree to this new deal with the U.S.S.R., I hope it also realized its own responsibility.
The agreement makes it plain that the U.S.S.R. is obligated to buy only $2 worth of goods for every $1 worth of goods that we

buy. I should like to hear that the government realizes its responsibilities in this regard. I feel it is rather vain to hope that Canadian private enterprise is going to make any unusual move toward an increase in our imports from the U.S.S.R. The only way in which we can increase or even hold the level of our exports is if we are to import a considerable volume of goods from the U.S.S.R.
I should like to recommend to the minister that he not resort to wishful thinking in this regard, and that he not rely overly much on making a number of pious appeals in meetings that he may hold with Canadian importers. I should like to advocate that he use remedies that are at hand, that he use the export and import permits legislation and also the facilities of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. If he uses the Export and Import Permits Act and the Canadian Commercial Corporation, I feel he will be able to realize a level of imports that will help Canadian exporters to maintain or even to enhance the level of exports that we have had hitherto.
In other words, I am asking him not to rely for results once again, as has so often occurred in the past, on platitudes and pious appeals in addressing chambers of commerce and the like across the nation. I am asking that the government realize that it has undertaken an obligation. I am saying that if it intends to implement not only the letter but the spirit of this agreement the government has a direct responsibility in this regard, and that the government, if necessary, ought to resort to the legislative authority it now has in order that we may be assured of an adequate level of imports from the U.S.S.R. to the end that Canadian exporters and especially Canadian wheat producers may not be obliged to suffer the penalties of the new agreement.


Mr. Benidickson:: May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but I was following it very closely this morning and I could not understand why there seemed to be the desire on the part of the two members of the C.C.F. who spoke to misinterpret what I thought had been so clearly stated by the Leader of the Opposition in his analysis of the protocol which is before us, and the position of this party thereon. The Leader of
Trade Agreement with Russia the Opposition pointed out that in substance the new protocol is simply bringing back into force a protocol of a trade agreement that was negotiated by the previous administration, and consequently it would be difficult to quarrel with that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make very clear what it is that we are being asked to vote upon. The resolution is very short and simple, as is the protocol, and I think both should be on the record in view of what was said just before the adjournment. The resolution simply states:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification by Canada of the protocol, signed at Moscow, on April 18, 1960, renewing the agreement on trade between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, concluded in Ottawa, on February 29, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.
There is nothing there whatever about letters, or a two for one formula, or anything of that nature. The hon. member for Assini-boia and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam were both challenged by the Leader of the Opposition and asked to read the formula. They would not do so, but I will do so because again it is a very short and very clear document. It reads as follows:
In connection with the expiration of the Canadian-Soviet trade agreement concluded in Ottawa on February 29, 1956, for a period of three years, the government of Canada and the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, desiring to expand and diversify further the trade between the two countries on the basis of mutual advantage, have agreed as follows:
Then this is the pertinent section which is before us:
With the exception of article IX, the trade agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of February 29, 1956, as well as the understanding set out in the letters which the two parties exchanged on the same date regarding the establishment of values of goods for duty, are hereby extended for a period of three years from the date of signature of this protocol.
Mr. Speaker, let me refer to these words "as well as the understanding". The understanding with respect to values for duty was something which had relation to the exchange of letters in 1956. If it were part of the protocol it would certainly not be necessary specifically to bring back in this language a reference to agreement on a continuance of this understanding.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister is not considering amending the resolution before us if he wants to make clear what this house is approving, because it simply says that we are being asked to approve this protocol. This protocol has nothing to do with letters, and the one in 1956 has nothing to do with letters, or we would not be specifically asked to bring back not.

Trade Agreement with Russia all the letters which refer to the 1956 agreement but only letters on one subject. The resolution differs from the resolution in 1956 because then, instead of being asked to approve a protocol, we were asked to approve an agreement on trade.
That, I think, for the record sets out the position of this party. We have no quarrel with the bringing back of the agreement in so far as it is part of a protocol such as was negotiated in 1956. This party does feel that the two for one formula is unique and undesirable. However, in our opinion that is not what we are being asked to approve in the language of the resolution before us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that there is general approval of the resolution now before the house, with some minor criticisms on the part of members of the opposition, and full approval by the C.C.F. representatives.
The Leader of the Opposition started off by asking whether the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had ratified the agreement. This question did not bother him four years ago when he was discussing the trade agreement with the U.S.S.R., on April 18, 1956. As reported on page 3055 of Hansard for that date he said:
For instance, we are today asking in the House of Commons to approve ratification of this treaty. In Soviet practice no such approval is, of course, required and, indeed, legally and constitutionally under our own system no such approval is required because ratification is an executive act.
Then he went on to explain the difference between our two systems of government.
The hon. member for Eglinton, who was spokesman for the opposition of that day, was also aware of the practice and as reported on page 3042 of Hansard for April 18, 1956 he said:
We are told that under the Russian practice the signing of the agreement by their authorized officers itself constitutes ratification on the part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
So perhaps we are clear on that point. There will be, as stated in the protocol itself, an exchange of instruments of ratification. The third article of the protocol reads in this way:
This protocol shall be ratified by both contracting parties as soon as possible and shall enter into force provisionally on the date of its signature and definitively on the date of exchange of the instruments of ratification which shall take place in Ottawa.
There was some discussion about the nature of the resolution which is before us. The

word "protocol" was used because this is a renewal of an agreement on trade between Canada and the U.S.S.R. I do not see that we could have written that this was an agreement renewing an agreement without some question arising as to the use of language. Let us look at the resolution which was before the House of Commons in 1956. It read:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the ratification by Canada of the agreement on trade between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, signed at Ottawa, on February 29, 1956, and that this house do approve the same.
There was no mention there of any letters which were exchanged at that time. On this occasion there were two such letters, one from Mr. N. S. Patolichev to me and one from me to him. On that other occasion four letters were exchanged, but they were not mentioned in the resolution subsequently placed before the house. When the spokesman for the opposition of that day, the hon. member for Eglinton, was speaking he said:
In approaching the resolution now under debate I take it that we are entitled to look at all five documents, for certainly the letters have extremely high importance for us in our approach to the question of ratification and approval of the treaty.
So today we may look at all three documents, or if you like at all four-the letters I have mentioned, the protocol and the agreement of 1956-and it is reasonable to expect that the house, in looking at all the documents, will be expressing its approval of all the documents when the debate is concluded.
In criticizing the change which has been made in the amount of wheat which is to be purchased by Russia the Leader of the Opposition said in effect that the only change which had taken place in the four years was a change in Russia's own wheat position, that Russia had now become an exporter of wheat. I mentioned some other changes. I said in the course of my remarks this morning that since 1956 the Soviet union has concluded a number of trade agreements with non-communist countries under which they have avoided giving unilateral and unconditional purchase commitments. The Soviet Republic, as I understand it, has enlarged its trading obligations throughout the world and has signed a great many agreements with various countries; and it is interesting to note, as I think was pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia, that Canada is the only country with which Russia has made an agreement of this nature on a two to one basis.
This two to one basis was subjected to criticism by the Leader of the Opposition, but none of the other Soviet trade agreements of which I am aware are on that basis at all;

they are on a one for one basis, and when I was talking to the Russian ministers they informed me that their objective was to balance their trade with other countries. We talked about the advantages of multi lateral trading and balancing a surplus with one country against a deficit with another. On a world-wide basis that proves to be satisfactory in many instances. However, they said that their plan, at least for the time being, was to attempt to get a balance country by country. When that is their method of doing business with other countries, to offer a two to one ratio is a concession which goes considerably beyond what Russia is doing elsewhere.
The Leader of the Opposition called it a bargain. It was a bad bargain, he said, because the amount of wheat to be purchased by Russia is not as great as it was under the former agreement. It is true that it is not as great. It is half the size of the annual purchase agreed upon under the former arrangement, but conditions have changed since then. Russia has had greater success in the production of wheat in the last four years and is now, as has been mentioned, an exporter of wheat; she does not rely upon Canadian wheat from the standpoint of her existence. As was pointed out in 1956, and as has been pointed out again by the hon. member for Assiniboia, it is just cheaper economically to get wheat from Vancouver and ship it to Vladivostok than it is to rail wheat from the Ukraine and transport it by way of the Trans-Siberian railway.
The Russian minister said exactly that to me. They do not really require our wheat. It is not that they are suffering from a shortage of food. It is just a matter of convenience; it is a little easier on some occasions to get wheat by water than by rail, just as two years ago Australia purchased wheat from Canada at a time when they had a partial crop failure. It was easier to take it by sea from Vancouver to the northern part of Australia than it was to transport it from southern Australia to the areas that needed it.
Although there has been a reduction in the amount of wheat to be sold to Russia under this agreement, the amount involved is nevertheless an important quantity. As has been mentioned, with the competitive position of Canada in the world wheat trade being challenged, seven and a half million bushels is important in our total exports of wheat. I suggest to the hon. member for Assiniboia that when he calls Canada the second exporter of wheat in the world he should revise that phrase and state, as is the fact, that Canada is the first, the leading,
Trade Agreement with Russia world exporter of wheat in commercial markets. The export of wheat by the United States is to a very large extent not on a commercial basis. Non-commercial exports amount this year to over 70 per cent. In many instances the wheat is given away as an outright gift or under long term arrangements, or it is sold for local currency. Canada is still the world's leading exporter of wheat in commercial markets. Russia may be creeping up as a competitor in that field, because the Russian need for wheat is not as great as it may have appeared several years ago, hence the reduction in the amount of wheat which that country has suggested she would take under this new agreement.
There is a misunderstanding, I think, with regard to the two to one formula. That is the minimum figure. It is not a restriction. Once trade between the two countries is in ratio- $12.5 million on the one side and $25 million on the other side-it will be on a one to one basis. It does not continue on a two to one basis indefinitely in total figures. It does not cause a restriction in trade simply because Russia suggests that she will measure her imports from Canada on the basis of her exports to Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. member permit a question? Would the minister tell us whether the dollars spent by Canadian tourists in Russia count in this two to one arrangement?


Gordon Minto Churchill: And the member is asking if the dollars spent by Russian tourists in Canada will also come in the two to one arrangement. Those particulars might be considered during the course of the consultations that will be held annually between officials of the two countries. I was informed that there were about 500 or more Canadian tourists in Russia last year. I do not know what the figure will be for this year. We did not discuss that matter in the course of the conversations we had.
I should like to point out this factor. Some question was raised as to whether it would have been wiser to have required Russia to complete her purchases of wheat for the year 1959, when her purchases fell short by about 7 million bushels, prior to signing the trade agreement. I did consider that, and thought it might not be wise to insist at that particular time on the fulfillment of that former agreement; but I took the opportunity to press the point that it would be advisable to complete that agreement of 1959 so we could move on into this new agreement with each party having confidence in the other.
I observe that in 1956 the Leader of the Opposition, who was then secretary of state

Trade Agreement with Russia for external affairs, looked forward to that point concerning whether or not the obligations would be fulfilled by each country. These are his words, as reported at page 3056 of Hansard of April 18, 1956:
It may be asked-whether the Soviet union will carry out the obligation which it has undertaken to Canada with respect to wheat purchases. I think we may have confidence that it will do so. Selfinterest, if no other reason, would dictate that it should do so. Apart from its need for wheat, a failure to do so would damage its international reputation in trade matters-
I used somewhat similar words in talking this over with the Russian representatives. I thought it would be good business on their part to pick up very quickly that balance of 7 million bushels which we had hoped they would take last year. Had they taken it last year we would have reached the 300 million bushels of exports which were our target. I feel reasonably certain that when we complete the ratification of this protocol the Russians will make up that deficiency. I could not have received more firm assurances in that respect without actually having a document written and signed. I did not think it was necessary to go to that extreme, of putting everything down in writing.
The Leader of the Opposition has spoken of the necessity of having documents very carefully written and examined for phraseology because of misunderstanding, particularly in dealing with some countries. In this instance we feel that the agreement of 1956 together with the protocol and letters accompanying it were explicit. I have left it to the good will of the Russian representatives with whom I talked to make up that slight drop in the agreement for the purchase of wheat over the preceding three years. I am inclined to place reliance on the word they gave me. I would also be inclined to judge the value of the present extension of the agreement by whether or not that former agreement is fulfilled to its limit.
Seven million bushels of wheat is not a very large amount in terms of Russian trade nor in terms of Canadian trade. It is interesting to note that Canadian total trade, exports and imports, running over $10 billion a year are just about the same as Russian total trade, exports and imports, running over $10 billion a year. As I recall it the Russians look with some surprise and perhaps a little envy at a country of 18 million people having an export and import trade equal in dollar value and volume to that of Russia, a country of 200 million people.
Whether the agreement is as good as the one of 1956 remains to be seen. I think we have moved a little way along the road toward expanding trade with Russia. Here is an incentive. Dollar purchases on the part


of Canadian businessmen will be met on the part of Russian businessmen with two dollar purchases from Canada. It is up to the businessmen of both countries to see what they can do to expand trade.
Mr. Patolichev told me in our conversation, "We know you have things to sell other than wheat, but that is all we hear about". We did not name specific articles. He spoke about the development of their country and what other foreign importers were doing with regard to establishing manufacturing plants in Russia and things of that nature. He said, "I am familiar with most of the leading businessmen of Sweden, for example, which of course is quite close. I do not, however, know any Canadian businessmen, certainly not on the same terms". We agreed that there had not been that intermingling of businessmen between our two countries that is essential if trade is to expand. This then led to the suggestion that there should be an exchange of trade missions of businessmen between both countries, and that may well happen during the course of this year. It is through the activity of businessmen on both sides that business will develop.
The state trading organization in Russia has to be understood by Canadian businessmen. We have stationed in Moscow now a trade commissioner who is making himself familiar with Russian trading practices and will pass on that information to Canadian businessmen. I was informed that once a year the Russians set up their quotas and objectives with regard to trade with each country for the year, and then the books are more or less closed so you have to strike while the iron is hot if trade is to be accomplished. I do not know to what extent that situation prevails, or whether there is a modification during the course of the year; nevertheless the methods used by a statetrading nation differ from those of a private enterprise country.
I cannot go along with the representatives of the C.C.F. in suggesting, as I understood them to suggest, that the government might do more and that the government's responsibility was greater than it is concerning trade with Russia or any other state-trading country. The government cannot do more than lay the framework and the basis for trade, get the treaties negotiated and signed, open offices where commercial counsellors are available, and assist businessmen as they travel back and forth by passing on information to the businessmen. That is a function of government, but it is up to the businessmen themselves to form their own judgment as to what articles they are going to export or what articles they are going to import. It is not a

responsibility of the government to do that. It is a government responsibility to protect the trading community from the dumping of goods and things of that nature, but other than that not much more can be done in a private enterprise country with regard to trading relations with a state-trading country. It is up to the businessmen of both countries to become active and to enlarge our trade.
Similar words to these were spoken in 1956 by Mr. Howe, who was then minister of trade and commerce. He did not hold out too much hope with regard to trade with Russia, but he certainly put the emphasis and responsibility on the businessmen if that trade was going to expand. I cannot find the reference at this moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Page 3041. That is where he made his speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As found on page 3040 of Hansard for April 18, 1956 he said:
Aside from the effects of the tariff-
He was referring to whether or not articles could be imported.
-such matters are not in general subject to governmental regulation. Canada does not undertake in this agreement, therefore, to purchase any specific goods from the U.S.S.R. The major undertaking given by Canada is that imports from the U.S.S.R. may compete on equal terms with imports from other countries in the most favoured nation category.
That is precisely the stand we take here. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that in 1956 the spokesman for the opposition of that day was not hesitant about supporting the trade agreement. These are his words, as found on page 3043 Hansard:
May I say, sir, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to support the present motion for ratification of the agreement.
Then he went on to list the grounds on which we were prepared to support it. The same attitude could have been taken today by the Leader of the Opposition. The resolution involves the continuation of an agreement for which the Liberals naturally took credit in 1956; and the modification in the agreement, as stated by the letters, is only a modification due to changed conditions. As the hon. member for Assiniboia said, this is a realistic approach to the problem.
I should like to thank other hon. members for their contributions to the debate, the hon. member for Vancouver South, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member of Kenora-Rainy River. I judge that the house is prepared to give unanimous support to the continuation of the trade agreement with Russia; consequently I will now give you, sir, the opportunity to ask for that opinion.
Trade Agreement with Russia


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the minister sits down, would he deal with the very interesting suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South regarding diversion of some of our oil imports to Russian sources in order to maintain this balance of trade between the two countries; which he talked about as being desirable?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Without the figures in front of me I doubt very much whether I could deal with that matter on this occasion. The hon. member for Vancouver South made a useful contribution to the debate. Other commodities could perhaps be mentioned in connection with trade with Russia, but I doubt very much whether we could examine the situation commodity by commodity under these circumstances. As a matter of fact we did not do so in the course of our negotiations. It was a general trade agreement, as it was in 1956, without mention of specific commodities except wheat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister a question before he concludes. This is in no way a reflection on the minister, and I hope he will not regard my question in that light. Apart altogether from its economic aspects, the treaty has important consequences with respect to international relations which we trust will be in the interests of all nations concerned as well as the two signatories. In this second treaty there does not seem to be any participation whatever by the Department of External Affairs. The treaty was not signed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as in the first treaty. It was signed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister anything to say in this regard?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The first treaty was signed by the then minister of trade and commerce, Mr. Howe, and a second signature was attached by the then secretary of state for external affairs.


Ernest James Broome: I should like to ask the minister a question. If a tanker load of Russian crude oil were to arrive at the port of Montreal at a price comparable with the laid-down price of Venezuelan crude, does the minister believe that under our free trade economy some refinery in Montreal would buy that tanker load of crude?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not able to answer that question, because it is a matter that would have to be determined by the judgment of businessmen. As to the question of valuation for duty, that is the responsibility of the Department of National Revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code CRIMINAL CODE

Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-36, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very short bill of only three clauses, and it has come to this house from the Senate. I do not think, therefore, that very much by way of explanation is necessary or called for on moving second reading. I observe that in a moment of inadvertence I did comply with the request of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to explain the bill when it was read the first time in this house. I say a moment of inadvertence, because I believe our custom is not to explain bills that come from the Senate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not our custom, but there is no rule against it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In any event, whether or not there be a rule against it, I take it that with that short explanation plus the fact that the bill has been discussed in the Senate, plus the additional fact that the intent of the first provision was explained in a press release issued on December 23, 1959, there is not really any need to go into a long explanation at least with respect to the first provision of the bill. That is the provision which will make it illegal to possess a Hornet rifle.
Hon. members will observe that although the Hornet rifle is not referred to by name in the bill, the definition which has been worked out is one which is applicable strictly, and I believe only, to that particular weapon.
The other provisions of the bill are those designed to make it possible in criminal proceedings, where provincial legislation has authorized the use of sound recording apparatus for the taking of evidence or recording of addresses, to use such machinery for the taking of evidence and recording of appropriate addresses in all criminal proceedings in that province. This has been requested by a number of provinces and is, I believe, a logical and sensible step to take.
(Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks on this bill.
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) said, the first section of the bill is necessary mostly on account of the fact that the government has allowed the sale to the general public of 22-inch guns commonly called "Hornet Survival Rifles".
According to the press release issued by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), 3,648

rifles or guns of that type were put on sale by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, 1,577 were reportedly sold by dealers to the public at large, while 1,224 were still, at the time, in the hands of the dealers. In other words, 847 of those guns were still in the hands of crown assets.
Here is something which appeared in the November 22, 1958 issue of the Montreal Star, and I quote:
Halt Distribution
Crown Assets at any rate stopped distribution of the rifles. The declarations of surplus were sent back to the defence department last February 13.
Then the air force decided it thought the rifles dangerous but couldn't classify them as defective.
Crown Assets, on the other hand, wouldn't ban them from public sale unless they were classified to be scrapped.
A little further down, the article went on to say:
When on March 31 they got the declarations back classifying the rifles as either "new" or "used" but all "serviceable", the corporation went ahead with distribution.
But not without a backward glance at those warning letters: It got dealers to accept the rifles on condition that the corporation not be held liable for their condition or their safety;-
And further down still:
-and that the rifles be sold only "for sporting purposes".
(Translation):
If there was a possibility that those rifles or shotguns could be dangerous, apart from being inefficient, I wonder why the department concerned allowed their being sold to the public, thus making necessary this bill which otherwise could have been dispensed with.
There has certainly been a mistake, either in the Department of National Defence, or in the Department of Defence Production.
If those guns were not dangerous, but just useless for regular service, I think the Department of Defence might have kept them as equipment for the Royal Canadian Air Force, army or navy cadets, for drilling purposes.
If some foresight had been shown, those shotguns would not have been put in the hands of people who like to play with firearms and endanger peoples' lives.
May I recall that my fellow member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) asked some questions in this regard, on January 20 and 22 as well as on February 3. An answer was put on the order paper, indicating all the figures I quoted a few moments ago.
Something puzzles me somewhat however. When those shotguns were bought by the public, it was not then a criminal offence to acquire them or to own them.
Today, after this legislation is passed, owners of such weapons will be subject to

the law, and it will become illegal to own such items.
Therefore, there is a certain measure of retroactivity in this bill, and it seems to me that we should do all we can to avoid that.
However, despite this retroactive feature, we in the opposition will certainly support that part of the bill, because obviously we have a duty to protect the public against people who might make improper use of the weapons.
I have been reading an article by Mr. McCreery, to the effect that the Minister of Justice has made arrangements to ensure that in the future, the distribution of those or any other weapons is considered by a special committee.
I hope the minister will be able to tell us where that committee now stands, and what it has done to prevent the recurrence of such mistakes.
As to the second part of the bill, we will obviously support it. We must keep pace with progress, and it is most important that court employees be allowed to use tape recorders so as to be in a better position to deal with cases brought before criminal courts.
We shall therefore support both the main principles set out in this bill.
(Text):


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few comments to make indicating our endorsation of the bill before us. I do not want to reiterate what has been said already by my hon. friend from Megantic, but we feel there was a gross error committed in the first instance by selling these particular rifles and then later discovering that they could be used for criminal purposes because they would be easy to carry and easy to hide underneath an overcoat or something of that nature, just as a sawed-off rifle or sawed-off shotgun could be.
We believe also that for one government agency to sell a person such a weapon in good faith, then later on discover it should not have been sold and retroactively determine that possession of such a weapon is a crime, is something which under normal circumstances should not be countenanced. However, in this case, as was said earlier, we do have a responsibility to society to assure that all possible steps are taken to protect society against persons who may use such weapons in bank robberies or other crimes against society.
For these reasons we do feel it is necessary to enact this legislation. We hope that in future the Department of National Defence,
Criminal Code
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation or whatever body is in the process of disposing of surplus or unusable army equipment such as this will be a bit more careful in determining whether such articles should or should not be sold.
In so far as the use of sound recording equipment, tape recorders, is concerned in judicial proceedings under the Criminal Code, may I say that as science advances we become more amenable to accepting tape recorders in areas in which they have not normally been accepted. There is one thing that should be said in connection with the use of tape recorders, though I am not suggesting that this will occur if such recorders are used in proceedings before a justice. That is the possibility of a tape being cut, certain sections of a conversation removed, and then the tape spliced so that when it is replayed an entirely different purport is given to that conversation.
I am not suggesting this would be done or could be done with the use of such equipment in court, but if we are thinking in terms of extending the use of tape recorders and accepting what is on tape recorders when it is taken outside of court and possibly used in evidence, I think we should draw the line very definitely and should not allow such things as the splicing that can be done and the editing and the distortion of comments of the individual in order to suit any particular purpose.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One
point that I think I should deal with, Mr. Speaker, was, if I understood the hon. member for Megantic correctly, the question as to what has been done to make certain that in future no sales or disposals of weapons will take place under circumstances where they might be regretted on the ground that they are subsequently regarded as unsuitable for possession by the general public.
I suppose to an extent this represents a locking of the stable door or the barn door after the horse has been stolen. However, the matter was the subject of discussion between myself and my colleague the Minister of Defence Production, and it has been arranged between us that in addition to any normal consultation which will be worked out on a routine basis between officials of his department, of the Department of National Defence and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, there will be direct notification by the Minister of Defence Production himself to myself as Minister of Justice, of

Criminal Code
all projected disposals of weapons in the future, so that in addition to the committee of officials steps will be taken to make certain that there is direct notification from one minister's office to the other.
This, of course, applies not only between those who at present have these portfolios but unless and until instructions should be changed, will apply between all those holding these two positions. While no one is infallible, I trust that this measure will ensure that in future no embarrassing and undesirable mistakes can occur.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short barrel shotgun or rifle.
Gabriel Roberge: Earlier I gave the figures I found in the press release of the minister. I should like to know now how many rifles are still in the hands of dealers and how many rifles are still in the hands of the public.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member referred to the press release Which I issued, in which it was stated that it had been ascertained that 1,224 rifles had been sold to the public and
1.577	were still in the hands of dealers. I am not certain whether there was a mistake of the translating apparatus, but I think I heard the hon. member use the figure of 577 still in the hands of dealers. The actual figure was
1.577	still in the hands of dealers.
The present situation, based on advice as of June 28, is that the total number sold by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to dealers was 2,820. The quantity of those so issued and not sold by dealers and returned by dealers to R.C.A.F. depots is 1,524; the quantity sold to the public by dealers is 1,296; the quantity returned by the public through dealers to R.C.A.F. depots is 94; and the number therefore still in the hands of the public as of June 28, 1960 is 1,202.
With respect to arrangements for the return of these rifles I might give the following summary. Immediately after the press release regarding the intent of the government to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the possession by the public of the Hornet survival rifle, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation arranged to accept return and make reimbursement for all Hornet rifles held by dealers or returned to dealers by the public. Unsold quantities of Hornet rifles in the hands of dealers were authorized to be returned to R.C.A.F. depots on the basis that the dealers would be reimbursed for the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sales price to them plus handling charges. Likewise, C.A.D.C. notified all dealers that any rifles returned to them

by the public were to the shipped to R.C.A.F. depots and the dealers would be reimbursed the retail selling price refunded by dealers to the public plus the cost of shipping to R.C.A.F. depots.
With regard to those rifles still in the hands of the public, arrangements have also been made that if the public does not prefer to return them through the dealers, they may be returned direct to R.C.A.F. depots by the individual holders and these rifles will be accepted and Crown Assets Disposal Corporation will reimburse such individuals for the full retail purchase price paid by those individuals to the dealers from whom they bought them.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Taking of evidence.
Paul Joseph James Martin: The section of the bill does not really cover what I am going to say, but the explanation of the section does cover it. It is proposed to permit the evidence of each witness at a preliminary inquiry to be taken by this particular medium. Why is that limitation provided? If it is satisfactory for a preliminary inquiry, why is it not satisfactory for a trial? It is already provided for, I suppose.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. If my hon. friend reads the next subsection of clause 2 he will find that it provides that where a record is taken in any proceeding under this act by a sound recording apparatus, the record so taken shall be dealt with and transcribed and the transcription certified and used in accordance with the provincial legislation mutatis mutandis mentioned in subsection 1. That makes the provision applicable to all proceedings under the Criminal Code. We had to amend paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section 453 because it has already been provided for in preliminary proceedings, and we had to make the amendment there.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to understand this matter clearly. The transcription, as a transcription, would not be used at any time? In an appeal court, for instance, the transcription would not be used? It would be the copy taken from the transcription of the record?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The full answer to that question would depend upon the provisions of the provincial legislation in each case. Normally speaking the hon. member is quite right. It is not the tape itself which would be played and used in court; it is the transcript from that tape which forms the typewritten record. If, however, there were any dispute as to the accuracy of the typed record, then subject to the terms and provisions of provincial legislation the tape might be

played back to ascertain or verify the accuracy of any portion of the transcript.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The point I want to bring up is perhaps a theoretical one, but it is always what I understood happened in appeal proceedings when the court was considering a transcript of the evidence. I have always had grave doubt about the fairness of such a transcript as compared with a recording. I think it is obvious in this House of Commons that a speech as given and the same speech as read are two different things, and it is possible to form a judgment of evidence of witnesses from a recording which one cannot get from a printed record.
I know this is perhaps a new interpretation to put on the matter, but I wonder if this might not be a step along the way finally to giving consideration, especially in appeal hearings, to a recording of the proceedings, because to me it gives a much more complete picture of what took place in the court room than does just the bare, flat record. I realize that this might introduce something completely new into the consideration of appeals, but I wondered whether anything like that was in the mind of the minister. It seems to me that it might begin to open the way toward that end, which I think might have some merit.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hardly think this could be described as a step in that direction, because that certainly is not the intent with which it is introduced. It is introduced as a matter in part of convenience and as a matter in part of making for greater accuracy in the recording of evidence or the addresses delivered in court. It is after all the function of the trial court to form an impression and make a finding based on their belief as to the veracity of a witness. They have the witnesses before them and that is one of the functions of the trial judge and/or the jury, the trial court in general.
Then again, in general but not exclusively, appeals to courts of appeal are usually taken on questions of law, although there may be questions of mixed fact and law. But it is not the function of the court of appeal as a general matter to come to an opinion as to the veracity of witnesses, because they always take the view, and rightly, that the trial court is in a much better position to come to that conclusion having had the witnesses before them. So in that sense the hearing of a sound impression of the whole proceeding is not as important to the court of appeal as it is to the trial court.
What is important to the court of appeal is an accurate record of what was said by witnesses and counsel, and indeed by the
Canada Elections Act
judge himself in giving his summing up, because they have to look at that from the point of view, generally speaking, of whether there are any errors in procedure or in points of law which would warrant their reversing the verdict below or the ordering of a new trial.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What I am curious about is whether consideration has been given to the extra influences which come to bear from a sound recording. I quite agree they are accurate, but they do bring in the question of accent and mood. You can make a judgment from a person's voice in the way you cannot from a stenographic record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am told that Nova Scotia legislation, for instance, provides for the playing of a recording as well as the production of a transcript based thereon. One of the other very real and sensible reasons for making this provision is that there is a growing shortage of adequate court stenographers in a number of places, including Saskatchewan, from which one or more pressing requests have been received for legislation of this type.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secrelary of Slate) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to consolidate the Canada Elections Act, chapter 23 oi the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952; and to amend the said act by incorporating therein the amendments recommended by the standing committee on privileges and elections in the third report of the said committee presented to the House of Commons on the 13th June, 1960, more particularly with respect to advance polls and generally for the purpose of facilitating the administration of the act; and further by including provision for payment out of unappropriated moneys of a salary for the chief electoral officer and other expenses.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I have only a very short statement to make at this stage. All I want to say is that all the amendments recommended by the standing committee on privileges and elections in their report to the House of Commons on Monday, June 13, 1960, have been accepted by the government

Canada Elections Act
and incorporated in this bill. Such amendments and the changes suggested by the resolution now before the house constitute the only changes in the Canada Elections Act which will be consummated by this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the minister has given us the assurance that the bill corresponds to the committee's report, because I think it ought to limit the debate a good deal in the committee, that in fact the bill the government is going to introduce does not deviate in any respect whatsoever from the report of the committee, which was unanimous, as some reports have not been in this parliament.
The fact that it was unanimous, of course, does not mean that the committee was unanimous about some of the things that some of us thought ought to be in the elections act and are not. While I am arguing that it is expedient as a half loaf to accept what the minister is now recommending to us, speaking for myself, and in one or two respects also I think for my party-but in some respects I do not feel I am authorized to speak for anyone but myself, and I will try to indicate when I do and when I do not-I do not think we can regard this as any more than a relatively good job of tinkering.
There is one respect in which we in the Liberal party feel that we have a definite grievance. We did put forward a suggestion which was previously put forward by hon. members now supporting the government, as well as some hon. members who were in opposition in other days but who are no longer here. I admit at once that the amendment that was suggested in previous committees by the Conservatives was not accepted by the majority of that day; but as I have said, there are some Liberals who have the capacity to learn and we think we have learned something in this and other respects.
We think that the suggestion which was put forward by some very distinguished Conservatives in the past was a sound one. We were astonished, to put it mildly, that they should decide that they did not want to go on with what they had advocated over the years. What I refer to is the proposal that just as urban enumerators are nominated, one by the successful candidate and the other by the person who was the runner up in the election, so at rural polls should deputy returning officers be nominated by the successful candidate and the poll clerks by the unsuccessful candidate.
The reason this suggestion was put forward is that there are a good many parts of Canada in the rural areas, and especially the outlying areas such as exist in some of the constituencies in Newfoundland, in the constituency

of the hon. member for Kenora-iRainy River, no doubt in the constituency of the hon. member for Port Arthur, of the hon. member for Gatineau and a good many others, where it is difficult to get local people to be scrutineers for reasons into which I do not think it is necessary to enter at this time.
We felt that in order to remove any suggestion that the election machinery was controlled by any one party or group, this would be an improvement right in line with the spirit of the act as it now stands; and right in line, too, with the policy which has been followed for many years by the Conservative party. If it were possible to persuade the Acting Secretary of State even at this late date to see the light which was seen in the past by the members of his party and include this change, we think it would be a good thing; because it would be another assurance, of which we can never have too many, that our election machinery is in every respect above reproach.
I think most of us in the committee agreed that the federal election machinery, whatever some of us may think about some other jurisdictions, and that is not the business of this house, is on the whole not only very efficient but also, when properly carried out, very fair indeed. This is one way in which an additional assurance can be given.
There is another reason for doing this which should commend itself to every hon. member of this house who is concerned, as I know many of us are, with the steady increase in legitimate election expenses. It does seem to me that if we are going to preserve truly representative government, something much more serious and much more fundamental than has been done up to now will have to be done about the steadily mounting cost of elections, a large part of which is, of course, competitive; one party is forced to do it because another party does it.


Mr. Crestohl:: Throw some light on the subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not referring to some of those deeds of darkness which it is sometimes said are performed during election. I am happy to say that I have no personal knowledge of any such happenings, because the elections in the constituency of Bona-vista-Twillingate are conducted by all the candidates in a most admirable manner.
There is no question but that in a good many cases candidates are put to considerable expense in order to arrange to have scrutineers, often flown in by chartered planes, to have the polls properly manned as they should be under the law as it stands. I would appeal to the government to consider this matter once again.

Beyond this, there is no other suggestion that I intend to make at this stage, at any rate, about any amendments to the existing bill. I cannot refrain from expressing regret and disappointment that the committee did not find it possible to write into the election act something which seems to me very desirable, and that is concrete and clearly defined regulations governing the use of radio and television broadcasting during election campaigns. I am really not blaming anyone for this, because it was a big new field which the committee was considering.
I may say that so far as the Liberal party is concerned, we believe that such regulations should be in the act itself; that the apportionment of time and probably the total amount of time to be allowed should be laid down in the law, together with any other necessary provisions; and that this function should not be given, as it is now, to a body such as the board of broadcast governors which was set up for an entirely different purpose and which does not seem to possess any special qualifications for performing this particular function any more than did the former board of the Canadian Broadcasing Corporation.
Speaking for myself, I hope the day will come, and come soon, when broadcasting both by radio and television during election campaigns will be an entirely public matter and it will no longer be possible for anyone to purchase time for such broadcasts. So long as the purchase of time is permitted, the advantage, providing the person is a good broadcaster, is simply given to whoever has the longest purse. It does not seem to me that this is the way in which we should do things, regardless of who is in the office or out of office.
There is one other subject upon which I should like to make one or two comments. I certainly hesitate, in the light of the experience of the last few weeks, to suggest another parliamentary committee-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, my gosh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but I should like to see some kind of inquiry into the possibility of doing two things. One is to reduce the total cost of elections by making a great many of the present expenditures illegal and the other is to put a ceiling on expenditure not only by candidate but, what is more important, by political parties. I think unless this is done and unless this problem is tackled seriously and soon, this country is going to be turned from a democracy into a plutocracy.
I should also like to see all those expenditures which are really necessary, which must be made in order that candidates can put their viewpoints before the electorate,
Canada Elections Act
which they must do if we are to have informed electors, defrayed not out of campaign funds but out of the national treasury of the country. I feel that the greater part of such expenditures as need to be made for this purpose should be defrayed in this way.
Here again in both these suggestions I am expressing my own view as a member of parliament. This is not something that has been considered by the caucus of our party. It is a view that personally I hold very strongly. I feel it is one of those things that simply must be done if we are going to maintain in this country truly representative government. It is certainly not something that could be done hastily or in the ordinary way by a committee such as the committee we have had up to now.
In concluding what I have to say I should like to point out that in our view we had a very good committee, and in the junior member for Queens we had a very good chairman who was informed, impartial and considerate. I should like him to know that those of us who sit on this side of the chamber appreciated that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Skeena, who was this group's representative on the committee, is forced to be absent at a committee meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Speak up; we cannot hear you.


Azellus Denis: The lights have come on. This is the result of the speech made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member for Skeena indicated to me that it was a good committee and had a good chairman, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said. In fact the hon. member for Skeena went so far as to contrast to me this particular chairman and some other chairmen we have had in the committees of this house.
The dissatisfaction that exists about the Canada Elections Act is always sharpest right after the election. It is good to know that we will have changes made in the event that we have to gear for another election pretty soon. I think elections are on the minds of all of us, and especially those who like the Prime Minister find the Gallup poll very significant.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indicated that the act requires tinkering and advanced a number of suggestions. The C.C.F. has always been very willing to tinker with the Canada Elections Act, if you judge by the number of public bills put on the order paper by private members of this group over the years. We are pleased to note that

Canada Elections Act
some of the changes made in connection with advance polling are along the lines suggested in those bills in the past, and especially those brought in by Mr. Stanley Knowles who for many years was a member of this house.
I was interested in the fact that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate expressed his personal views about the cost of elections. This interested me particularly, because we all are aware of the rumours circulating at the present time about how easy it is for the Liberals to collect money for electioneering purposes. We are glad to have this indication that things may be a little tougher than the rumours indicate. We feel that the principle put forward by the hon. member is something we can square with. If election campaign costs keep going up it is going to be more and more difficult to find the money for the purposes of political parties.
In recent months the Globe and Mail has been campaigning that the major parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, should extend their membership at the grass roots level. In doing this they could increase membership fees and derive from their own party membership the money required for political wars rather than get this money from such mysterious sources as banks, manufacturers, insurance companies and other agencies which allegedly have supported them.


Mr. Chambers:: Do you want to join?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not hear that interjection.


Egan Chambers: I was wondering if you
want to join.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We are looking forward to
having the opportunity of fighting future elections with somewhat more funds than we have had in the past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Without strings attached?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Without strings attached. Every hon. member is aware of how much it costs to fight an election. One hon. member recently told me he still owes money from the 1957 election. I know the situation in Port Arthur. One will never vouch for the expenses of anyone else, but I do know that our group has had to raise its sights for federal elections as between 1945 and 1960 from approximately $2,000 to approximately $6,000. Since our organization has never paid scrutineers or people to work in committee rooms I suppose you could estimate that the actual cost if these people were paid would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10,000 for our candidate. This seems to be a fairly average figure that would apply in most constituencies, at least in English speaking Canada.
I agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that much of the expense of election candidates is created by competition. As the election approaches the poor citizen reaches the saturation point. He gets fed up with spot announcements on the radio, big blurbs in the newspapers, sound trucks blaring and posters strung all over the place. Much of the competition between candidates tends to cancel itself out, and the citizens become fed up as election day nears. It is for this reason that I think the British have set a good example for us.
I am always glad to remind the Prime Minister of something about which he is fond of telling us, his love and respect for British institutions and the way the British do things. In Great Britain they have set definite limits on campaign expenses, and on the whole it seems to have worked out very well. The two major parties there, although I do not think one could say they trust each other, tend to have a respect for the various expenses declared. I cannot see why we could not do something like that in Canada.
The suggestion has been made that we might find it easier to meet this problem of restraint on the national level than on the local level so far as the national parties are concerned. It seems to me it will be some years before you can restrain in any constituency the natural enthusiasm of the candidate. One way it could be restrained would be to put something in the Canada Elections Act that would introduce a rather severe punishment for candidates who do not pay their election bills. This has always been a sore point in our part of the country. I do not know if it is a sore point in the rest of Canada. After the election the newspapers, radio stations, printers and people like that are always dunning candidates and complaining about their failure to pay up.
Many think it unfair that during an election campaign a candidate has to pay the national rate for advertising in any newspaper in Canada even though the candidate is advertising within the local framework. I have been told that the reason for this is the failure of candidates to pay their bills promptly. This has always seemed particularly vicious to me, but it has been caused by the fact that some of us have not been good at paying our bills promptly. Perhaps we might get some adjustment there and emerge from an election financially ahead. The situation where we are paying up to two or two and a half times for local advertising seems to me to be most unfair especially when the setting up of political advertising, as done by a candidate at the constituency level, is not a difficult proposition for the newspapers. The same situation

tends to apply so far as radio is concerned. Television is a somewhat different matter. I assume that the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with respect to the division of radio time not being done by the board of broadcast governors but under a provision in the act is a party proposition.


An hon. Member:: You have put the lights out again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the Ontario Hydro.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A good socialist enterprise. The difficulty when you provide for the division of something under statute is that it tends to be based upon the status quo. I can envisage that in the future we will have a different type of candidacy. Personally I expect that in the future, 15 or 20 years from now, and having in mind a certain trend that I see taking place, it is quite possible that we will have more independent candidates. I do not see how you could provide for them by legislation. I also see a continuation of a trend toward parties that are provincial or cover several provinces. How do you fit them into a statute? I should like to hear from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as to the kind of formula that he thinks will be possible and fair.
As a party we have no particular complaint as to the arrangements in the last several elections made by the C.B.C. and the board of broadcast governors. I should like to know from the hon. member whether his desire to have a provision in the statute is based upon past experiences which he thinks were unfair to his party when they formed the government or when in the opposition or unfair to any of the other parties involved.
There is one aspect of fighting elections that was not covered by the committee in its study of the act and which seems to me to be fundamentally important. I refer to the whole question of redistribution. I know this is not a matter that comes under this act but it certainly seems to me it would be a question that would have relation to this particular committee. I should like to have from the minister who is sponsoring the resolution some indication of the views of the government so far as this other aspect of	electioneering-redistribution-is	concerned. What are the plans of the government with respect to the next election? Are they going to fight it upon the present distribution or upon a new one?
I think we are all very interested in knowing whether there is any intention of introducing a basic floor such as we now have for the maritimes in order to protect the province of Saskatchewan and one or two
Canada Elections Act
other provinces against further loss of representation. You may feel, Mr. Chairman, that this is outside the scope of this legislation so I will not go into the matter further. However, it seems to me that this is as important an aspect of electioneering as the Canada Elections Act itself.
The hon. member for Skeena indicated that the changes mooted so far as advance polls are concerned are ones that he found quite agreeable. We think the doubts and hesitations with respect to extending advance poll provisions were unfounded. While the experience in Ontario has been a fairly expensive one in terms of the use made of advance polls by people voting in advance of the regular election day, and I would imagine that the per capita cost of such votes is very high, the fact that the service has been available has been very much appreciated. It was noticeable immediately after the last federal election that there were many people who felt they would have voted if they had had the opportunity to go to an advance poll. This provision is something about which we are quite enthusiastic.
I should also like to put forward our view that the fairest kind of arrangement for elections is the use of a permanent register. In that way you can hold an election much more quickly and have a shorter campaign. That is something the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did not go into.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree with you.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Our election campaigns are not nearly as long as those in the United States, although we know the reason why they have to do so much shuffling. However, in Britain election campaigns are only three weeks in length. Ours tend to go on much longer and the expenses build up to a crescendo. If we could have some way of shortening the period between the time an election is called and the actual election day I think we would seriously curb the rather harsh expenses of elections. The best way to do this, of course, is through some kind of permanent electoral register. It is very difficult in a country such as Canada with so much space and with a mobile population but eventually I think we will have to come to it.
With respect to the matter of rural polls, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggested that the deputy returning officer should be a member or representative of the victorious party in the previous election and the poll clerk should be a member of the next party in line in that election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The next candidate, not party.

Canada Elections Act


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am sorry. I can certainly support that recommendation. Let me give an example of one poll in Port Arthur constituency, Winisk. In the 1957 election there were 800 electors on the rolls and the only way you could get into Winisk was to go to Val d'Or, Quebec. I understand that none of the three parties campaigning at the time was able to get any scrutineers into the place and we were in complete doubt as to just what took place up there. If provision could be made not only for the kind of arrangement suggested but for the payment of expenses in such cases, I think we would all feel much better about distant polls of this kind.
Under the system of enumeration in the cities representatives from the two parties take part and in our experience this has worked very well. At least, we have not had a great many complaints about it. But on the rural side of one's constituency there are always very grave doubts. It is often argued that people are deliberately left off the list because the single enumerator is quite aware of party affiliations and his party affiliation has tended to triumph over the fact that every time he gets a name on the list he gets more money. There are two principles here, the principle of cash in the pocket and the principle of party advantage. I like to think that the cash principle usually wins out, but in order to remove doubts on that score I cannot see why we could not go as far as to have dual enumeration in the rural areas.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member not say that was rather two conflicting interests than two conflicting principles?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I quite agree. I was assuming that not all parties were like our party, a party of principle.


An hon. Member:: Where is your halo?
Another hon. Member: You spoiled a good speech.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Someone said something about a halo. I think we can all be very selfrighteous about election matters except when we have been defeated. In summary, we think these changes are of great advantage and we will strongly support them. As a matter of fact, we like to think that, aside from redistribution, this parliament is now ready and geared for another election and we will be following the Gallup polls closely in the months ahead to see whether they will give us any indication of when the Prime Minister is going to jump.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I was privileged to be a member of the privileges and elections committee which considered the Canada Elections Act and the Canadian forces voting

regulations in their entirety. I was quite pleased with the manner in which the committee was conducted and I should like to pay my respects to the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Queens, in addition to those which have already been expressed. I found something unusual in this committee. There was a great degree of harmony and attempts to come to fair conclusions in connection with all the sections that were considered. In a good many instances in which amendments were proposed to sections of the act, it was not unusual to find a member of one party moving the amendment and a member of another party seconding it, and then having it passed with unanimous approval.
As the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate has stated, there were some cases in which differences of opinion arose. These were usually resolved and, in my opinion, the committee served a very useful function. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate stated that he felt the proposals amounted to no more than a tinkering with the act. I feel that the proposals amount to more than that. The committee dealt with each section of the act and a good deal of consideration was given to each section. There were many amendments made. I do not know, offhand, how many sections were amended, but I believe that approximately 50 sections were amended as well as many of the schedules. If the act, as amended in committee, is brought forward now it will be a much more workable act, and I hope that it will meet with the approval of all hon. members.
There are just two things I should like to mention about which I was quite pleased. The first one is the proposal for advance polls. This has been a difficult subject for a good many years. The proposed amendment would extend the advance poll so that anyone who expected to be out of his usual polling division on polling day would be able to vote, if the recommendation introduced by the committee is accepted. There were some amendments suggested which made the provisions for advance polls more acceptable than those in the act. It was recommended that advance polls be held on the Saturday and Monday, the ninth and seventh days respectively before polling day. I think this is an excellent proposal. The Saturday is a day on which a good many people who travel during the week are home, and on that occasion they would be able to vote. The following Monday is a day on which those people who are at their normal place of residence, but who may be away the following week, will be able to vote at an advance poll. I feel

that these two days are most satisfactory. They are sufficiently in advance of polling day that the returning officer will be able to exchange with deputy returning officers the names of the persons who voted at advance polls, thus preventing any attempt on the part of any person to vote twice.
The other provision with which I was particularly pleased concerned the appointment of revising agents in urban polls. There have been many complaints in years past about people being left off the list, in fact whole apartment buildings which may have been the starting point between two groups of enumerators and whole sections of streets have been omitted in some cases. In so far as the rural polls are concerned, it is very easy for a voter who has been left off the list to be sworn in on voting day. However, as we all know, if a mistake in an urban poll were not discovered until polling day the voter would have no vote. The provision for revising agents will certainly be a measure to prevent a situation of that kind arising.
The standing committee went into this whole matter carefully and I do not wish to take any more of the time of this committee. I feel the bill, as it will be introduced, embodying the main recommendations of the committee, will be acceptable to the members of the house.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to say on this resolution. All members of this house agree that the elections act should be enforced in such a way that franchise is respected and freely exercised.
I wholeheartedly support the proposed amendment to the act in order that the smallest possible number of people be disfranchised.
There is nevertheless a point I wish to emphasize, and I refer to the difference between the federal elections act and the provincial act. They are opposed to each other.
Here is a proof of this. Under the federal act, deputy returning officers have to initial each and every ballot at the very start, even before the voting takes place.
On the other hand, in the provinces-or perhaps should I say in the province of Quebec-ballots have to be initialed as each voter comes along and is recognized as being entitled to vote.
Those two methods are bound to be confusing. That is why I ask if it would not be possible for the chief electoral officer to come to an agreement in this regard with the various electoral officers of the provinces, for the sake of uniformity.
Canada Elections Act
Once again, under one system, the ballots are initialed at the beginning, while under the other, they are initialed as the voting takes place. Hence the confusion which sometimes occurs.
When an election takes place the polling box attendants receive instructions. Under the federal act, they are told that the ballots must be initialed before the beginning of the vote.
On the other hand, under the provincial act, the opposite is done.
The difficulty can even extend to the counting of the ballots. In fact, under the federal act, once the polls are closed, a deputy returning officer who failed to initial a ballot may do so, provided he does not see for whom the ballot has been cast.
In Quebec the returning officer is strictly prohibited from initialing a ballot he had forgotten to initial earlier.
The difference is therefore substantial and creates confusion. But where there is a risk of even greater confusion is when a federal election is held, say in April, followed by a provincial election a month later.
Let us suppose for a moment that the political parties hire the same election officers, the same partisans or else the most experienced ones. I realize that they are given instructions, but while such agents are fairly well educated, being usually chosen among people best able to understand the act, they must nevertheless be rather astonished to be told at one point: "You must initial every ballot before the vote" and then a month later: "You must not initial ballots in advance, you must initial them as the vote goes on."
Furthermore, in the first case, deputy returning officers are told: "If you have forgotten to initial a ballot, you may initial it provided that you do not see in whose favour the ballot has been cast.
On the other hand, it is the opposite in provincial elections.
For all those reasons, I think there is an urgent need for uniformity. I therefore suggest that the chief electoral officer in Ottawa get in touch with the various provincial electoral officers and that, after considering the matter they reach an agreement. It is of little consequence whether the federal or the provincial system prevails, so long as there is agreement.
Those are two cases I wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman. I think this type of amendment should promote the orderly conduct of elections.
613D

Canada Elections Act
Mention was made a moment ago of representatives. Here again, there is a change with regard to representatives.
Under the federal legislation, a candidate is entitled to two representatives, whereas in a provincial election, he can only have one. This too is a bit confusing. In fact under provincial legislation, if a candidate is found to have been represented at a poll by two representatives, not only must one of them get out, but he is liable to a fine. I think this has happened recently and that the second representative had to pay a fine.
I submit that, there too, we should have some uniformity in order to avoid confusion.
A few moments ago, reference was made to enumerators. I cannot see why, even if it would cost a bit more, we should not have two enumerators throughout the country, especially in small municipalities. I would not say that it necessarily happens in rural ridings, but, today, with summer residences and work being carried on all over the country, when an enumerator has more freedom and is appointed by only one party, he is sometimes tempted to drive on and not come back to list some family whose political affiliations do not seem to coincide with his own. We are familar with single enumerators in the province of Quebec; needless to say, having been appointed by the government in power, and being on their own in a city of about a million people, they acted just about as they pleased. They would take down names, in good or bad faith. Some of those people, of course, are more zealous than others. Some even said:	"When I call
at a home-I shall not say of Liberal or Conservative affiliation-but when I call at a Conservative, let us say, or a Liberal home, I call only once, I do not knock very loudly, and I do not come back. That is so true that- just to illustrate the point-during the last provincial election, it was decided, in the city of Montreal, to appoint two enumerators instead of one. Now, in the riding of Laurier, for instance, where a single enumerator was appointed by the Union Nationale, it was noted that 9,000 people of Italian origin had been registered, whereas this year, with two enumerators-I don't know what happened- but instead of 9,000 there were only 3,500. That is why it is always important to have an enumerator on each side. I submit that this is the only way to do it, if you want the enumeration to be as honest as possible.
The important point, therefore, is not how much it will cost this country. Indeed, even if it were to cost a few million dollars, never would an amount of money be more equitably

distributed, because each of the few thousand additional enumerators needed would earn $25, $30 or $35, as the case may be. Consequently, I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that the two enumerator system should be adopted throughout the country.
I do not think it would impoverish the country too much. At all events, if such were the case, at least a few thousand families would have $25, $30 or $35 extra income. Therefore, I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that this system of two enumerators should apply throughout the country.
As far as representatives are concerned, last year I took up this matter with the predecessor of the secretary of state, the one whose services have been duly rewarded and who is now comfortably seated in the Senate. I do not bear him any grudge for it; I congratulate him. However, he had promised me then that certain parts of the act concerning the representatives would be amended.
At present, under the Canada Elections Act, a candidate may not hire more than one person for every 500 electors. In certain cases, this sets a limit of 90 on the number of persons a candidate may legally hire. Now it happens that, on election day, you have to muster from 200 to 400 representatives. Normally, under the act, those 200 or 400 representatives cannot be paid. Now, I do not think it is immoral, clandestine or irregular to pay someone who spends a whole day in a poll. At any rate, it cannot be claimed to be irregular to the point where it is punishable by a fine. Therefore, I submit that, in any discussion of amendments to the Canada Elections Act, there should be established a rate at which a candidate may pay his representatives at the polls. Another anomaly I wish to point out-and it is something that might have been done by the Liberals too- is the imposture which consists in getting persons bearing the same name as candidates to run against the latter, in order to take votes away from them. For instance, one Rene Levesque, an unknown artist, was a candidate in Laurier where the official Liberal candidate, who is very well known, had the same name. We went to the supposed address of that socalled Rene Levesque, and were told that there was no one there by that name. I think the law should be more strict in that regard, and that the returning officer should have greater responsibility with regard to the authenticity of various candidates bearing the same name. Such a stituation can have serious consequences. To give only one example, in

the constituency of Verdun, during the last election, a colleague, Mr. Yves Leduc, who was known to all here, was defeated by 1,700 votes, when his opponents brought in as a rival candidate a namesake who was completely unknown. Because the initials of the latter's given name came before those of Mr. Yves Leduc, his name was printed on the ballot before that of the official Liberal candidate. He got exactly 1,800 votes, that normally should have gone to Mr. Leduc, had it not been for that confusion which caused the Liberal candidate's defeat.
The same thing happened in Laurier where a certain Rene Levesque was made to run against the other. Fortunately, in this case, his name appeared after the name of Mr. Rene Levesque, the official Liberal candidate, and he didn't obtain enough votes to defeat the official candidate. But, Mr. Chairman, that famous Rene Levesque, of whom no one had ever heard before, who did not hold any meetings, managed all the same to get 900 votes by mistake. That is how some people claim to run honest elections and to be fair to all who have a right to vote. Bona fide candidates should be better protected under the act. For that purpose another amendment should be introduced.
In Quebec, the names of candidates representing the party in power and the opposition appear at the top of the ballot in alphabetical order, followed by the names of the other candidates, also in alphabetical order. The situation is different in regard to federal elections. I think amendments of this type should be considered, as they would help correct such abnormal and unfair situations.
It is a good thing that the name of that famous Rene Levesque, who was unknown in the constituency of Montreal-Laurier, appeared after the name of the official candidate; otherwise I think the unknown man might have been elected.


An hon. Member:: The other one is no better known.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I submit that such suggestions should receive serious consideration from the Solicitor General, so that voters might be protected when they exercise their franchise, and also to prevent confusion.
The Canada Elections Act should, to the greatest possible extent, be similar to the provincial elections legislation, or vice versa. I feel there should be an agreement between the provinces and the federal government in
Canada Elections Act
this regard. The matter should be considered at a federal-provincial conference, particularly in view of the fact that some provinces are now under premiers who are more willing than ever before to co-operate with Ottawa. Such an agreement would be helpful, and I think the matter should be raised at a federal-provincial conference, in order to solve that problem, to achieve uniformity in election laws, and to eliminate any danger of confusion in regard to the initials of candidates, party representatives, ballot counting, etc.
I think it does not make sense when two elections are held in the same province within a six-month period, and the procedures followed are different. It would also be necessary to put a stop to terrorism exercised by goons cruising in automobiles, especially when it is known that police are part of such caravans. It is time, I am sure, to settle this problem.
I glanced at the proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act, as regards the carrying of weapons. In the last election campaign, provincial police who were members of a political organization were seen carrying arms and moving about freely in the riding. Several of those policemen were in uniform; and those who were in plain clothes were carrying arms too, though, normally, they were not entitled to do so, since they were not electoral agents and the city police were affording citizens the normal protection.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Solicitor General to be good enough to consider those few suggestions, which we shall have an opportunity to bring up again when the different sections are examined.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I have but one suggestion to make, and it is in the interest of national unity.
Would it not be possible to post bilingual election briefs in all provinces as is now done in the provinces of Manitoba and Quebec?
That is the suggestion I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.
(Text):


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I go along with the hon. members who have suggested that a great deal of good can flow from a conference between the chief electoral officer of Canada and the chief electoral officers of all the provinces. I think that if they met and drafted so far as is possible procedural regulations which would be acceptable to the various provinces as well as to the dominion it would be a wise and helpful

Canada Elections Act
thing in an attempt to obtain from an election that which a democratic election is intended to provide.
I find, and so does perhaps every hon. member of the house, most astonishing and disturbing news items appearing in the press concerning bold frauds which are being perpetrated during election time which are robbing people-and I use the word "robbing" with its fullest implications-of what I consider to be the most precious right and privilege which they have.
We have had prosecutions but I feel that the judiciary should perhaps regard these things a little more seriously than they do. Without mentioning a specific name there was the case of one man who was found guilty of having committed almost every offence against the elections act. He was guilty of every election practice of a corrupt nature. He pleaded guilty to the offences after a judicial inquiry presided over by one of the most eminent jurists in the province of Quebec and was ordered to be prosecuted. He was prosecuted and certainly one would have expected that for those offences he would have been sent to the penitentiary for at least five years. How shocking and disturbing it was that when he came before the magistrate he was sentenced to 30 days.
To me that was an act which did not discourage corrupt election practices but which treated them very lightly. I think our judiciary ought to be told that the theft of a vote is certainly as serious as the theft of vast sums of money, because vast sums of money sometimes are not as precious as the right to vote. I think we are all unanimous about the fact that the House of Commons is deeply concerned with seeing that these corrupt practices are stopped, particularly those which make it possible for one man to walk into a poll and say "I am Mr. Jones" when in fact he is not Mr. Jones. That is an impersonation which unfortunately is heard of during election times.
I want to suggest to the committee, and this is not a new suggestion but I think we should look at it more seriously than we have in the past, that we should have some means of identification by which a voter can walk into a poll and present his certificate of identification to the returning officer and say "Here is my certificate of identification and this is my photograph on it". Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a miniature certificate of naturalization which is my identity card anywhere in this country or elsewhere. It is perhaps the proudest possession I have and I say that no one can challenge me if

I walk into a poll, lay down my naturalization certificate with my photograph on it, and say "This is my identification; give me my ballot".
Of course, it can be done either with a birth certificate or with a simple certificate of identity which I suggest every voter should be armed with. If we can introduce that I say that there will be absolute certainty that there will be no impersonations at the polls.
I would like to pay tribute to two gentlemen of the cloth in the province of Quebec, Abbe Dion and Abbe O'Neil, who have virtually launched a crusade not only for the province of Quebec but for the whole of Canada and every municipality or where anyone has a right to vote for the elimination of corrupt practices. I think the House of Commons and its members should likewise form part of that crusade.
It is the most valuable thing we have, and if we evade or avoid this issue I do not think we are doing our duty as citizens or as legislators. I have heard some opposition to the suggestion that certificates of identity should be provided. As to the mechanics of the thing, I imagine it could be arranged without too much difficulty that six months, say, before an eleotion, citizens having the right to vote should go and obtain a certificate of identity. That would certainly not be as expensive as an enumeration. I have heard opposition expressed to the provision of certificates of identity with photographs attached to them on the grounds that this would make Canada into a police state. In what way? I have in the past regarded, and I would at this moment regard with grave suspicion anyone who believes that voters should not have a certificate with their photograph on them for presentation at the polls. What could be the purpose of opposing such a clear-cut method of identification? It would lead to our having the cleanest and finest expression of opinion by voters that it is possible to have.
I do not want to deal with all the unfortunate things which have happened in connection with elections, but can hon. members imagine the possibility that while the ballots are being counted someone should be able to walk off with a handful of ballots in his possession, to walk off and disappear. I think that is disgraceful. It is robbing the people and it is robbing the country of basic democratic rights, yet such offences are not treated as seriously as they should be. I think the theft of a ballot box, for example, should be regarded with extreme seriousness; the thief should be tracked down by the police or by officials and punished, when apprehended, with extreme rigour.

Speaking generally, it is possible that in rural areas that certificates of identity may not be so urgently needed, because there, I am told, the returning officer, the poll clerks and the scrutineers know the voters personally. That may be so, though I have no personal experience of elections in rural areas. However, in the urban centres it is not possible to know the voters personally. The secretary of state has access to his colleagues in the cabinet and I hope he will recommend to them that a system of certificates with photographs should be introduced at least in the urban centres.
That would reduce much of the hooliganism which we hear about and which is now a disgrace to our elections. I think such behaviour is a blot on the escutcheon of decency for which our country is noted. I do not want to recite the frightful things that happen in elections. To my mind such incidents are a disgraceful blot on our reputation and I urge the secretary of state to do everything in his power to see that they are eliminated. I defy anyone to tell me of a better means of identifying a voter when he comes into the poll than by providing him with a certificate containing his photograph properly sealed. This certificate of naturalization which I hold in my hand is perhaps the most precious thing I have. I am proud, too, that this happens to be signed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate. This is something that any man would be proud to possess, and certainly any Canadian who walks into a poll in order to exercise his rights to the franchise should be armed with a certificate of identity issued by the chief returning officer.
(Translation):


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, may I add just a few words to what has just been said. I would like, in particular, to make some remarks following the suggestions made by the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis). In fact they seemed so sensible that I had trouble recognizing the hon. member. But, when he later gave instances of what had happened in some constituencies, he took the opportunity of playing politics to some extent and then I saw him under his true colours.
However, his suggestions are designed to prevent recurrence of certain things that happened in the last provincial election, not only in the constituency of Laurier, but also in another constituency where there was a Union Nationale candidate named McDuff. Well, there too an opponent also named McDuff was found and nominated. It is to
Canada Elections Act
avoid the repetition of similar incidents that the hon. member for St. Denis made his suggestion. Therefore, I, in turn would like to make a similar suggestion. We could adopt a measure which would change the present procedure to some extent, and instead of placing at the top of the ballot the name of the government candidate followed by that of the official opposition candidate, we would place at the top of the list the names of the candidates of parties which had representatives in the House of Commons during the last parliament, including those of C.C.F. representatives. In addition, to avoid fraud-for fraud is not restricted to one party only-I would put all those names in alphabetical order. I believe this would eliminate many unpleasant incidents.
The hon. member for St. Denis also said a moment ago that he had found a man named Rene Levesque, had gone to his home and, in short, had tried very hard to find that man. This identification would therefore eliminate all such confusion.
There might be another suggestion that I could make, because I agree also to what was said by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). In the province of Quebec a form that looks like an invoice is handed to us at the time of the enumeration. It seems extraordinary that one should be able to walk into a poll and vote without producing that form.
I think that the suggestion of the hon. member for Cartier makes a lot of sense. No doubt, it would come very handy on election day because it would eliminate impersonations or attempted impersonations and it would be very handy for everyone.
I think that the secretary of state should make a note of those suggestions for the next election. I believe they would be of tremendous help to the returning officers and the deputy returning officers, and especially for those who, having to cast their votes late in the day, arrive at the poll and find that somebody else voted in their place.
In my opinion, the main purpose of this resolution is making it easier for someone to vote who cannot do so on election day. Mr. Chairman, I may say that at the last election, I met many people who were finding it physically impossible to go out and vote. Now, it is a sacred right to vote; I would even add that it is our most important right and that we must protect it more and more. That is why we should take the proper steps so that every one may exercise that right.

Canada Elections Act
In closing, I should like to congratulate the secretary of state for introducing this piece of legislation. Furthermore, I must add that there has been no parliament which, at one time or another, did not have to amend the Canada Elections Act. In fact, the act has to be reviewed in the light of experience and of our developing population, and even in relation to new centres, because it is becoming more and more difficult for certain people in the newer communities to exercise their franchise. In short, the act should be periodically revised.
I am of the opinion that, as long as parliament considers the right to vote as most important, all the citizens will be guaranteed greater freedom.
In closing, I should like to insist on the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). Mr. Chairman, I frankly confess that I doubt if it was necessary to make such a suggestion. I feel this should have been done long ago. Who would suffer any harm if, in a country like Canada, election briefs were printed in both languages?
We are always eager to point out in our speeches that Canada is a bilingual country, and that it is necessary to achieve national unity. But when the time comes for concrete action, there are always some who refuse to go along.
Had I merely supported and seconded the suggestion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm I feel I would not have wasted my time.
I ask the secretary of state to look carefully into that suggestion so that those antiquated views that are uncalled for today may be put aside.
Let us take a step forward, however small it may be, toward national unity of all groups, not only of two races, but of all those that form our country. Let us publish election briefs in both official languages.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I had the pleasure of being a member of the committee which studied the Canada Elections Act and I may say, like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), that the committee functioned very well. Our suggestions were not all accepted, but just the same, the committee did an excellent job, so that all of us who were on it were convinced that, even if we did not fully agree, all of us sincerely wished to make elections easier for the voters and as honest as possible.

Our remarks were not made in a critical vein and there was no feeling of bitterness, even when someone did not see eye to eye with us.
However, I believe that we must further insist on certain changes being made.
First, I take the suggestion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), which was taken up by the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin).
That suggestion was not discussed with acrimony. Someone said that he did not see the necessity of having briefs in both languages. There was no malice on the part of the members who were opposed to it. Someone simply expressed this view: If it is not necessary to do so, why do it?
As the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet pointed out, I say it is time we proved that we have achieved a certain degree of maturity and that is by practising bilingualism that we will show that the whole of Canada is the business of the federal government.
I take up the argument of the member for Montmagny-L'Islet: What harm would it do to anyone to have election briefs issued in both languages?
Those who cannot read French can read English, and vice versa.
The same applies to bilingual cheques. They would be good even if they were printed in both languages. That proposal could be accepted throughout the country. That is how nationalism develops. There is certainly nothing dangerous in having both on the same piece of paper.
Were it only to emphasize that suggestion of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, I think I was justified in rising to support that proposal.
Let us forget the old tags like: "We must not talk French there, otherwise we will get crucified: we must not talk English there, otherwise we will get crucified."
It is time Quebec people knew that English is one of the two official languages in this country; and that people in the other provinces realized that French is one of the official languages in Canada.
In short, I wholeheartedly support the suggestion. Unfortunately we were unable to get action on it. Perhaps the acting minister will convince his colleagues that such action would be a good thing.
Anyhow, there is no reason for despair. Canada is developing over the years. In the

life of a nation, ten, 15 or 20 years are little enough, even if they represent a long time in the life of man.
By submitting the same suggestions over and over again, the day will come when all the people, knowing one another better, will And out that the suggestions were justified.
I shall make a digression and tell the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) that one of his suggestions at least has been accepted.
Formerly, a candidate was entitled to one representative for each 500 voters. Now we can employ the number of persons reasonably required to represent the interests of a candidate during an election. Of course, those people will have to be compensated.
There has been reference to the initialing of ballots. As previously pointed out I think it is important that ballots be initialed as suggested.
An election took place recently in Quebec. There were some ballots which had obviously been initialed during the day, but at different hours and in different ways. Consequently, the judges found it extremely difficult to decide whether those ballots should be rejected or not.
The suggestion made earlier should be carried out: A few minutes before the polls open, the representatives of the various candidates should see to it that all ballots are initialed right at the start.
Mistakes occasionally happen. For instance, a scrutineer will inadvertently pick up two ballots at a time. At the end of the day, one lacks a signature. What is to be done?
With regard to this matter the federal legislation is good, and allows that lapse to be corrected. Anyhow, I think that the federal act is superior to the provincial legislation in this field. When I speak of the provincial legislation, I obviously mean the Quebec laws, because they are the only ones with which I am familiar, apart from the Canada Elections Act. On the other hand, the provincial elections act is better than the federal legislation with regard to the appointment of the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk.
According to federal law, the appointment of the deputy returning officer and of the clerk is made by the returning officer. That responsibility, which is imposed upon him often gives rise to criticism. There are candidates who express wishes, or have whims, and who, when they are not satisfied, are harshly critical.
It can also happen that the returning officer is more friendly towards this or that person.
79951-0-387
Canada Elections Act
Personal feeling may come into play. In other words, as it is, the Canada Elections Act, on this particular point, is deficient.
Let us follow the Quebec act. It is clear and easy to apply.
I think the minister might listen to my suggestion, and resume his conversation later with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).
Here is my suggestion. I was saying that the Quebec act, in this field, is superior to the federal act. There is no danger of errors being made. Even the returning officer, conscious of doing his duty, is sometimes subject to criticism. He is given considerable responsibility, which he would no doubt like to avoid.
Returning officers would rather not have to appoint deputy returning officers or poll employees.
Now here is what the Quebec act says in section 171, about the persons to be appointed in each voting section of the whole electoral district:
The returning officer shall appoint as scrutineer the person recommended therefor by the government candidate, and as poll clerk the person recommended therefor by the candidate of the opposition party.
We could probably change this formula as follows: the scrutineer would be appointed by the candidate having polled the most votes at the last election; and the poll clerk by the candidate having polled the second heaviest vote at the last election.
So would the act decree. We would thus know beforehand who would be appointing the deputy returning officer, and who would appoint the poll clerk. This would at the same time eliminate malevolent criticism directed against the returning officer.
The recommendations would be made by the Prime Minister to the returning officer, and by the Leader of the Opposition, who would recognize their representative by means of letters.
So, I suggest that section 26 of the Canada Elections Act be replaced by section 171 of the Quebec act. That would do the trick.
I recall that, at the committee, an hon. member said that such procedure introduced politics in the electoral field. Now, now, let us come to some agreement-
If the person is appointed according to the provisions of the act, we avoid the delicate situation in which only one party would be represented at the poll.
The suggestion has even more weight when the polling takes place in remote communities.
Today, Indians have the right to vote. In some cases they may have to travel distances up to 100 miles in order to cast their ballots.

Canada Elections Act
I know, lor instance, that the member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) has some polls at 100 or even 300 miles from population centres. If a representative has to be sent by plane or helicopter, it adds substantially to the cost of the election. However, there is a continuing demand for lower election costs.
If, as I suggest, there were for instance a representative of the Conservative party and of the C.C.F. party, both would have a representative, and there would be no danger of any fraud.
Sometimes, a representative may be overly enthusiastic without being dishonest. He may do things that are not entirely commendable. My suggestion would help him in the discharge of his duties.
I made the same point in the committee, and I would ask the secretary of state to suggest to his colleagues that the provision I have quoted from section 171 of the Quebec elections act be substituted for section 26 of the federal elections act. That, I think, would be a substantial improvement.
Reference was made to election costs. In my view, they are too heavy. However, the point is rather delicate. In such cases, if there are too many restrictions, the results are just opposite of what was expertion.
I remember a few years ago that the Hon. Mr. Powers, then a private member of the house and now a senator, was looking for a way to improve the act insofar as election expenses were concerned. He thought expenses were too high and tried to remedy the situation.
What happened? In some ridings, people disregarded the act, and money was spent as though nothing had happened.
Personally, I should like the act to be strictly and honestly enforced.
I think there are certain provisions in our statutes which only confuse things and for which we have no need. What is the use of keeping useless provisions in force?
A word about the identity card. It has been a long time since that card was abolished; it was issued to us during the last war, as a war measure. I think it could be of great service in peacetime. It would be a help to very honest citizen in Canada. It would include his name, address and photograph.
I might quote an example to show its usefulness. Suppose you want to cross the American border. There is no need for a passport. All you need is an identity card which you carry in your wallet. It saves time and gets you across the border without trouble.

At election time, it could prove most useful. At this point, I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl)-who is himself an immigrant and therefore holds a Canadian citizenship card -that native Canadians also be provided with a similar card.
It would also be useful in places where people under 21 or under 16 are not allowed, because that card would show the date of birth. It would therefore be easy to establish whether there is voluntary or involuntary error.
Mr. Chairman, I think that, on the whole, the Canada Elections Act is not _ bad. But many changes could be made which would enable us to improve it.
It might be appropriate to take that part of the Quebec elections act which stipulates that the enumerator shall be selected by the party in office or by the group which polled most votes at the last election, while the group which received the second highest number of votes shall appoint the second enumerator. Thus, the act would be almost perfect and I know that everybody in this country would benefit by it.
(Text):


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the election act committee. I was a member of the committee and spent much time at its meetings. I thought the committee did a very good job. We had a wonderful chairman, and thank heaven that the last speaker and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate were not allowed full play. We had a very good representation on the committee.
There is one other thing I wish to say with respect to getting the vote out in rural areas. At Dawson Creek the junior chamber of commerce got people out to vote and the only bloomer made was made by the returning officer or a deputy returning officer. Seven hundred people were left off the voters' list, and this man had been appointed by the Liberal government. I think the committee did a wonderful job thanks to my colleague who was there to look after things. That is all I have to say.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the passage of the resolution but I should like to add something to what has been said by the hon. member for St. Denis, not with respect to provincial but rather federal elections and with relation to my own constituency of Laurier. I feel that the committee should have some knowledge of what transpired in that constituency in

1957, and I believe I can impart that information in just a few moments. I think it would be of interest to the committee to know some of the things that took place so that the committee could take into consideration the suggestions that have beeen made from time to time by those who are responsible for the holding of such elections, as well as by the committee itself. I am glad that the secretary of state is in his seat and responsible for this measure, because I am sure that when he listens to what I have to put on the record he will be as surprised as many of us were when these incidents took place.
I hold in my hand now the report of the returning officer for the electoral district of Laurier for the federal election of 1957. I am only going to read three or four paragraphs from this report to bring them to the attention of the committee. I will not read all of it because it would be too lengthy. It begins this way:
(Translation):
The moment the polls opened, 225 ballots were stolen from poll No. 82 (at 482V Henrl-Jullen). I immediately advised the R.C.M.P. and went on the spot to investigate and replace the stolen ballots.
Soon after the theft at poll 82, 275 ballots were stolen from poll 62 located at 4730 Delaroche street. The R.C.M.P. was immediately advised and the municipal police were already on the spot to investigate. I gave new ballots to the deputy returning officer.
Around 11 a.m., at poll 103 (located at 5210 Chambord street) goons stuffed into the ballot box some papers looking like ballots. Eye-witnesses took down the licence number of the car used by the intruders for their getaway.
From 11 a.m. until closing time (7 p.m.), from all parts of Laurier riding came complaints and requests for help from deputy returning officers who were being threatened, annoyed, molested and even injured by goons who forced papers looking like ballots into ballot boxes and took advantage of their visit to steal ballots from the desk of poll officers.
Early in the afternoon, at poll 58 (located at 4600 Boyer street), the deputy returning officer managed to snatch from the hands of an intruder who was trying to stuff them into the box a bundle of those papers which had been circulating from poll to poll since the opening of the polls.
The deputy returning officer handed me those papers. They were ballots, twenty of them; at first sight they looked like genuine ballots.
After close inspection, with the help of two experts, I can state that they were counterfeit ballots.
(Text):
There were hundreds of false ballots that circulated in the constituency. I saw them. I have no right to have them in my possession, and they were turned over to the chief electoral officer, but the situation continued during the whole of that day.
Here is the last but one sentence of consequence in the report, and it states:
79951-0-387J
Canada Elections Act (Translation):
I have reason to believe that at least half the polls in the electoral district of Laurier were visited by election thieves.
Moreover, I am advising them that a large number of counterfeit ballots are circulating in the Laurier electoral district.
(Text):
More than that, in one constituency there were two gentlemen who entered with pistols in their hands, lined up four people in the poll against the wall and did succeed in taking the box from the poll. It was afterwards recovered. I am happy to say that thanks to the efforts of the chief electoral officer these incidents were not repeated in 1958. All I want to do is to bring to the attention of the minister the recommendation which was made by the returning officer, and it is contained in this short paragraph:
(Translation):
In closing, I should like to point out that we have great difficulty in getting people to act as deputy returning officer or clerk.
In the face of such a situation, I think it would be advisable to group the polls in schools or public halls.
In that way, there could be 8, 10 or 12 polls under the supervision of a police officer.
Thus election thieves could not take advantage of a woman's physical weakness to commit their crimes.
(Text):
I know that while that is an excellent recommendation, namely that in those areas where there have been difficulties and assaults consideration should be given to putting a number of polls, eight, ten or twelve as is suggested, in schools, I realize to do that one must obtain permission of the school board and that is not always an easy matter. I do feel consideration should be given to this matter because it is something which the committee, the house, the minister and all the members of parliament would not want to see repeated either in this particular constituency or in any other constituency.
I may add that because of the manner in which the returning officer in the constituency of Laurier conducted himself he was afterwards assaulted on the streets of the city of Montreal while returning from a medical call. He is a doctor. He had to spend more than a month in the hospital and it took months and months before the culprit was apprehended. I do hope, therefore, the minister will be able to give consideration to these suggestions. I am sure, too, that the chief electoral officer has the matter well in hand and has made recommendations, not only to the committee but to the minister, which I trust will be given consideration.


Mr. Lambert:: There is only one small point that I should like to draw to the attention

Canada Elections Act
of the minister in this connection and that is to make a plea for serious consideration being given to granting the right to vote to people who are confined to hospitals, not just sanatoria or chronic hospitals referred to in the act now. These patients in active treatment hospitals are permitted to vote under the electoral law of the province of Alberta, and I am sure some means could be devised, although I recognize there are certain difficulties, whereby patients in hospitals could be granted the same privileges as those who now vote at advance polls.
I have four hospitals within my own riding and I am sure there are thousands of citizens right within the city of Edmonton who lose their right to vote as a result of being confined to these hospitals on polling days. As I indicated, I know there are difficulties but I certainly feel that since we have gone a considerable distance in enlarging the voting privileges in connection with advance polls we could now also look after this very large group of people who by reason of illnesses are confined in a hospital but who should, and could, exercise their right to vote.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the remarks made in this house by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) and others concerning bilingual election briefs. I think we can accept the principle, since we have so far made considerable progress in that connection. The same thing could be done here.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I also would like to make a few remarks regarding unfortunate incidents which happened in my constituency during the general election of 1957 and, like the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), I would ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), to take the necessary steps to avoid repetition of similar incidents.
On June 10, 1957, election day, a few thugs from Montreal who had been hired by my opponent, came to a poll and pushed the poll officers against the wall, with the result that when the ballots were counted at night it was found that those gentlemen had made a mistake: instead of using an ordinary lead pencil to mark the ballots they had used a ball-point pen, so that all those ballots, which had been marked for my opponent, were cancelled.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Solicitor General to make the provisions of the

elections act strict enough to prevent the repetition of similar situations, for in a parish like Ste. Helene de Bagot, where all the people know one another, such incidents cause much flurry and fear among the people and this does not help promote a favourable view of our elections in Canada.
Like the hon. member for Laurier, I urge the Solicitor General to see that such incidents do not happen again.
(Text):


William Moore Benidickson: I was not a member of this committee or of any of the previous election committees that have sat during my membership in this house. I just rise to commend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate particularly on one point, namely that perhaps the secretary of state even yet could have another look at the suggestion that deputy returning officers and poll clerks could be selected in a manner similar to that in which we select enumerators in urban polls, where one is selected by one party representative and one by the other.
Reference was made to my constituency as being one of half a dozen or so that embrace a great deal of territory. As a result of other amendments that are being made to the act and as to which I do not want to make a detailed explanation, the committee will recognize that a number of locations where polls have not been set up in the past will now require polls. I can think of perhaps a dozen such polls that will now be necessary but that have not been necessary in federal elections in the past in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River. They are similar to the one used for purposes of illustration by the hon. member for Port Arthur. They can be reached only by aeroplane and frequently only by chartered aeroplane. In consequence, hon. members will realize that it is simply out of the question for candidates to send in their representatives to such polls.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate indicated that he thought this form of poll operation should be applied to rural polls. That procedure, of course, would be a fine thing in itself. However, I differ with my hon. friend in this respect. I have examined the records of the proceedings of previous house committees examining the elections act and I find that the distinguished members of the Conservative party who in those days made these recommendations were for the most part representatives of urban ridings. I think this suggestion should appeal equally to members from urban ridings.
If this system were adopted I think we would find that in the near future we would


I960
[Stage Direction]
be eliminating as a long time practice the sending to these polls of inside scrutineers. I think the suggestion should appeal to all members of committee in that this elimination in a very short time would tremendously reduce the concern or the organization's responsibility and perhaps considerable expense for the candidates, and it could be adapted not only with advantage to rural ridings but indeed with equal advantage to those who live in city ridings.
I was pleased to hear that the committee had presented a report on a unanimous basis. I think this procedure has been the aim of elections act committees for many years. While there was not an open disagreement on this particular point, I would hope that it might have new consideration. I may say that I have been talking, even while this debate has been taking place, with one or two members of parliament who represent some of our largest urban riding; and they agree with me that the suggestion for the elimination of inside scrutineers would have as much merit in their case as it would have for other reasons in areas that perhaps can be reached only by expensive transport for which only the government can pay and in which it is impossible for candidates to send representatives to the polls.
I just want to indicate that in provincial elections where we probably will have polls now federally, we had last year an experience in perhaps six, seven or eight polls where the result was 100 to zero, 89 to 3, 75 to 2 and other figures of that kind. I think this experience aroused great doubts in the minds of the public at large on the question of whether we have the best election machinery at work under these circumstances and caused them to feel that a better system could be provided. I think one is that of selecting a balanced team to look after the polls, namely returning officer and clerk, with a basis of selection similar to that by which we arrange to provide enumerators in urban polls.
Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, in introducing his remarks a moment ago, said he was going to follow in part what I had said. I was extremely careful in my remarks to charge no one with the offences which were committed in my riding. I have no proof. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot charged his opponent. I know his opponent to be an honest man and I greatly doubt that he would do the things with which the hon. member has charged him. Unless the hon. member has proof, 1 think perhaps on reflection he might feel that he has gone much too far, in casting aspersions without proofs.
Private Bills


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I could refer the hon. member to the number of the case. Unfortunately I have not it here with me; I have it in my office. The case has been before the courts. I could refer him to the number of the case. I could show it to my hon. friend if he wants to see it.


Lionel Chevrier: I should be glad to see it.


Mr. McGee:: I should like to interject for a moment in order to pay tribute to the chairman of the committee on privileges and elections for what I felt was an outstanding job, one of the best jobs that has been done by any chairman of committees under whom it has been my privilege to work since I have been a member of the House of Commons. Furthermore, the members of the committee from all parties contributed to the non-partisan approach which generally prevailed. While I do not think that every objective that each of us had in mind was achieved, in the main I think we came up with an excellent report which will result in improvement of the existing act.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Balcer thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-83, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Later today.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of this house-


Lionel Chevrier: Later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: -or later this day, as the case may be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Later this day. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Morton:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask consent of the house to deal with Bill No. S-24, item No. 2 on the order paper, before we proceed with item 1. Bill No. S-24 is an act respecting Wabush Lake Railway Company Limited and Arnaud Railway Company. In view of the fact that this bill has been delayed

Private Bills
for some time and an investment of a few hundred million dollars and possible employment of 2,000 people is involved, if possible I would like to get ahead with this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to order that item 2 be taken in priority to item 1, as suggested by the hon. member?


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I also understood that part of the arrangement which had been reached amongst the parties was that we would then proceed with item 3 before reverting to the earlier business under private bills.


Murray Douglas Morton: With regard to item No. 3 I understand a ruling is to be made by Mr. Speaker and therefore it will depend on that.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) is withholding his consent to the proposal.


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not withholding my consent.


WABUSH LAKE RAILWAY COMPANY AND ARNAUD RAILWAY COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-24, respecting Wabush Lake Railway Company and Arnaud Railway Company

Mr. Morton- Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Definition.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Davenport who the other evening was good enough to suggest that the bill be held up until I had an opportunity of expressing my opinion on it and discussing it. I do not want to do that other than briefly. I want to reiterate what was expressed by our side of the house in the first instance, that because this is a bill which will develop the natural resources, not only of the province of Newfoundland but also of the province of Quebec, we favour the bill now as we did formerly.
There are, however, in view of the evidence which was given before both the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines as well as a similar committee in the other house, some observations which I would ask the committee to listen to and to bear with me as I bring them before it.
The first which comes to my mind is that the Wabush-Carol (Agreement) act, 1959, which is set out in the preamble to Bill No. S-24, and again in clause 3 of the bill, provides for the Northern Land Company to grant to the Wabush running rights in perpetuity. This is found in section 3 of the Wabush railway and the Carol agreement granting the running rights in perpetuity.

This is found in section 3 of the Wabush-Carol (Agreement) act, 1959, which I would like to put on record. It reads:
Land company will grant to Wabush railway and to Carol company, respectively, in perpetuity,
(a)	the right to run trains and otherwise to operate the railway over, maintain and make connections with the tracks and facilities to be constructed by Land company on the joint section in accordance with clause 2 (the tracks and facilities to be constructed by Land company in, on and over the joint sections being hereinafter called the "joint facilities''), provided, however, that except by agreement with Land company, neither Wabush railway nor Carol company may use the joint facilities to an extent greater than fifty per centum of the capacity thereof, and provided further that such use shall be upon the payment of an equitable share of all expenses, depreciation, taxes and other charges applicable to the joint facilities and the joint section; and
(b)	the right to use and enjoy such rights, benefits and privileges granted to Land company under clause 1 and to use any additional lands conveyed or agreed to be conveyed to Land company by reason of the railway grant as may be reasonably necessary for the operation of a railway over the joint facilities or otherwise, provided, however, that neither Wabush railway nor Carol company shall construct stations, freight sheds, sidings or other railway facilities on the joint section or on said additional lands where the same would interfere unreasonably with the constructions and operation of the joint facilities.
Section 10 of the Wabush-Carol (Agreement) act refers to agreements contemplated by the act and prohibits any assignment or transfer without the consent of all parties. It is a short section and perhaps I may be allowed to put it on the record:
This agreement and any agreement contemplated hereby-
And I lay stress on the word "contemplated".
-shall not be assigned by Wabush railway, Land company and Carol company, or by any of them, in whole or in part, except pursuant to an agreement or agreements by and between the said companies and which said agreement or agreements may on the terms and conditions therein specified permit an assignment, in whole or in part. An assignment or proposed assignment or other transfer of this agreement or the rights hereunder, in whole or in part, in violation of this clause shall be void and of no force and effect.
It is common ground following what I have put on record that the running rights agreements contemplated by the Wabush-Carol (Agreement) act have not yet been signed, as the hon. sponsor knows and also most of those who listened to the evidence in the committee. They are now in the process of negotiation. At page 1355 of the report of the proceedings before the house committee on June 28, 1960, Mr. Pattillo is quoted as saying this in reply to my question:


Lionel Chevrier: Have you completed all of your agreements with the Carol Lake Railway Company?


Mr.   Pattillo@: No, we have not, Mr. Chevrier. We have had what I call, for lack of a better phrase,

a letter of intent. Some of the agreements contemplated by that letter of intent have been made; some have not yet been completed. But they will have to be a matter for negotiation in the future. But I cannot see how what we are seeking here in any way affects that.
The situation, therefore, at the present time, is that the Carol Lake company, which will remain under Newfoundland jurisdiction, will enter into an agreement with Northern Land Company for running rights in perpetuity, which agreement will include both the rights to Carol Lake company and the obligations of Carol Lake company.
Wabush Lake Railway Company, if the bill under consideration is enacted, might enter into a similar agreement, but the question would then arise as to possible conflict between clause 3 and clause 5 of the bill, and as to whether the provisions of the Newfoundland statute or of the Railway Act would apply. Under the Wabush-Carol (Agreement) act the running rights agreements would be in perpetuity. If the Railway Act applies, section 156, subsection 2 of that act would limit any such agreement to 21 years.
The proponents of this bill have consistently taken the position that, other than to secure the right to have rates fixed by the board of transport commissioners, they do not want in any way to change the picture that exists between the two companies authorized to enter into an agreement by the Wabush-Carol (Agreement) act, and they have so stated repeatedly not only in the house committee but in the committee of the other place.
Again I should like to quote from the report of the proceedings before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines of June 28, 1960. Mr. Pattillo, speaking on behalf of the proponents of the legislation, made the following statement as reported at page 1354;
We have examined the thing very carefully. We have studied all the documents in existence between the Iron Ore Corporation and ourselves. We know of no contractual obligation that is affected by the bill. But we are not the least adverse to giving this protection, and accordingly section 6 has been put in there. We do not want in any way to change the picture that exists between us except to give us the power, which they presently have, of going to the board of transport commissioners.
So it would appear that the main question in so far as the proponents of this bill are concerned is the tariff. On that there can be no disagreement. I think they are certainly within their rights in wanting to go before the board for that purpose. The same statement as I have quoted here from Mr. Pattillo was made on several occasions before the Senate and the Senate committee. I should like, if I may, to put on record what was
Private Bills
said in that committee by the Hon. Mr. Brunt, which can be found at page 724 of the proceedings, dated Tuesday, May 31, 1960:
May I point out to hon. senators that counsel for the two railways applying for the passing of this bill said in their statements that this was the furthest thing from their minds, and that if any contractual obligations actually existed at the time this bill was being passed there was no desire on their part to avoid any of them or to be relieved from carrying out all their contractual obligations. I think that nothing can be clearer than a statement which is to be found in the printed proceedings at page 68. This statement was made during the hearing which took place on May 12 by Mr. De Roche, one of the counsel appearing for the applicants, and it is as follows;
"We don't intend to be relieved of anything and we feel confident we have not relieved ourselves of anything."
So I say that the sponsors of this bill instantly consented to all the amendments which have been suggested, which would make it clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were not being relieved of any of their contractual obligations despite the act, and that they are liable for all their contractual obligations now existing, whether or not the bill is granted. The situation is, as I understand it, as follows, namely that the proponents of this bill have consistently taken the position that they do not wish to change the position that existed between the parties to agreements signed or contemplated other than to secure the right to have the rates fixed by the board of transport commissioners. Without going into the question of possible conflict between clauses 3 and 5 of the bill it would appear that the proponents would have no objection to the inclusion of an addition to clause 6 which I shall mention in a moment, which would only leave the parties in the situation in which they were prior to the adoption of the bill, and particularly as contemplated by the Wabush-Carol (Agreement) act and still leave the companies affected by the bill free to have their rates fixed by the board.
I said at the outset and I repeat now that here is a railway which extends some 350 miles or more, partly into the province of Newfoundland and partly into the province of Quebec, to each end of which there has been added a railway line, 40 miles in length at the north extremity and 20 miles or thereabouts in length at the southern extremity, and it seems to me that the chief concern of the proponents is to see to it that they are not unfairly treated in so far as the rate for moving their ore is concerned. They say they will be perfectly happy if they were placed within the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners so that the board could fix the rate. If the board fixed the rate they

Private Bills
would be perfectly happy even though it might be higher than the amount they thought it should be.
My only reason for rising at this time is to ask the sponsor of this bill if he would not, in view of what has been said by the proponents of this bill and their counsel both in the other place and in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, consent not only to protect the rights which have been consumated thus far but also to protect those that are in contemplation. Of course, the hon. sponsor will remember that Mr. Pattillo made it clear that clause 6 as it now stands can only apply to those agreements which have been completed and cannot apply to agreements that are in contemplation. So I ask the sponsor if he will not consent to amending clause 6, when we get to it, in order that it may read as follows:
Nothing in this act shall release either of the companies from any of its contractual obligations nor affect nor render inoperative the terms of any agreement contemplated by the provisions of the acts of the legislature of the province of Newfoundland referred to in the preamble.
If this were done I think there could certainly be no objection taken by those who opposed the bill in committee, and I now ask the page if he will give one of these copies to the clerk and one to the sponsor of the bill.
The Depuiy Chairman: I assume this will affect clause 6 when we reach it.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Contracts.


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make the following comment so that I can explain the position I must take. In respect to clause 5, the contention is that this clause is not meant in any way to permit the company to do that which it has agreed not to do, but merely gives the company a capacity that it might not otherwise have. I have not the evidence at hand, but Mr. Pattillo states that although clause 5 might apply and give this capacity the company will still be bound by the agreement made, in spite of clause 5. That leaves us, in effect, with the suggestion about agreements to be made and these are contained in what are known as letters of intent. The only reason they cannot legally be covered by the act is that the agreements have not advanced to a stage at which they could be called completed agreements.
I understand that in the discussions in the other place the sponsor of the bill made it clear that he was quite prepared at that time to make any changes which in the opinion
[Mr. Chevrier.I
of Mr. O'Brien, the counsel, would legally ensure these rights which the sponsor intends to carry out but no wording at that time could be devised that would have this effect. The same problem was discussed in the committee. Mr. Pattillo said he did not want to go on record as saying that they could legally be bound by the letter of intent but it was the consensus that they wished to negotiate and complete the agreement to the letter and thus follow their original intention. No wording could be arrived at to cover an agreement in intention. It is rather awkward to make such an amendment, as was found in the other place.
At this stage I feel that undue delay would result from this amendment. I understand that every possible combination was tried to satisfy Mr. O'Brien when the matter was before the other place. We thought that having passed the other place, the measure having met their objections, the question having been raised in committee and Mr. O'Brien having no further suggestions to make, at this stage there must be dependence upon the good will of the parties concerned. As the hon. member for Laurier has said, Mr. Pattillo and other officials of the company clearly went on record as saying that they intend to carry out to the letter the contract that was in contemplation. The other place experienced difficulty in trying to arrive at acceptable wording to an amendment that would cover the thing not actually brought into the contract.
There may be opinions-and Mr. Pattillo did not want to stand on that-that even the letter of intent could be used as a basis of enforcement and agreement under the circumstances. Neither Mr. Pattillo nor I want to leave the committee with the impression that this could be done. However, there is a legal basis there that should the company attempt a breach of the agreement the companies would be protected through the wording of the letter of intention and the expression of intention already demonstrated in the proceedings to date.
I feel that an amendment is not necessary under the circumstances. If one could have been found when the matter was before the other place I am sure it would have been approved at that time. The feeling of the group in the other place was that such wording was not necessary. We feel that the matter as it stands protects all the interests of the parties according to the original intention. I have no authority to agree to an amendment at this stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on this. The hon. member

for Davenport has said that he does not feel the amendment proposed by my friend the hon. member for Laurier is necessary. It may be that it is not necessary. I do not think there is any particular point in arguing that. The fact is, however, that it certainly is not an amendment which could conceivably do the petitioners for this bill any harm if they are acting in good faith, because all it says is: -nor affect nor render inoperative the terms of any agreement contemplated by the provisions of the acts of the legislature of the province of Newfoundland referred to in the preamble.
It seems to me that in view of the fact that we are legislating about rights which without our legislation are rights within a province, we should be very careful to see that both parties affected are not inadvertently injured in any way. It is a principle of legislation which the hon. member's leader has often stressed-more often when the hon. gentleman was over here than he has more recently, I admit-that rights should not be left to good faith at all but should be nailed down in the statute beyond any shadow of doubt.
It is, after all, not a question of the petitioner's wishes in the matter. This bill, if it passes, will be a law of the parliament of Canada. It is for us in this chamber to exercise our own judgment about it. We should not consider ourselves as rubber stamps for any petitioner on either side. It seems to me that in the light of what my hon. friend has put forward as to the desirability of making sure that the undertakings the petitioners indicated they have every intention of carrying out will be carried out-and I do not doubt their goodwill in the matter at all; I am sure they intend to carry out these undertakings-and if we can give the matter an additional legal sanction we should do so.
I am not a lawyer but I listened very carefully to what my friend the hon. member for Laurier said. I feel that this amendment would appear to give additional protection in the matter. Since we are going to be here for some few days in any case and since it is perhaps desirable to give the hon. ladies and gentlemen in the other place employment part of the time, I cannot think that there would be any great difficulty about sending this back and asking for their concurrence in an amendment so obviously and palpably just as the amendment proposed by my hon. friend.


Murray Douglas Morton: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Chairman? Keeping in mind that the agreements that are made and that are affected are already protected how can a bill now be passed to enforce an agreement in contemplation that is in the minds of the two people concerned and that has not as yet been expressed in words?
79951-0-388
Private Bills


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the hon. member for Laurier will answer that question in a more professional way than I would but I wish to draw attention to one fact. These are agreements contemplated by the provisions of the act of the legislature which has, of course, jurisdiction in property and civil rights and they are not any kind of agreement that may be made in any circumstances. They are agreements that have already had boundaries drawn around them by the legislation of the body competent to legislate. I think that is a partial answer.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the sponsor of the amendment a question? Does the hon. gentleman not think that if the companies make agreements they will be bound by them in any case without having an expressed enactment to make them operative?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not think they necessarily will be because of the words Mr. Pattillo used in the committee. I asked him that very question and he made it quite clear to me that in so far as the signed agreements were concerned there was no doubt that clause 6 covered them but in so far as any future agreements contemplated in the letters of intention were concerned those would not be covered and that I as a lawyer should know that those would not be covered by clause 6.
I gathered from my conversation with Mr. Pattillo during the sittings and prior thereto that it is surely not his intention that these should not be covered. If that is the case, it seems to me there should be no objection to adding this amendment which would not affect nor render inoperative the terms of any agreement contemplated by the letter of intention mentioned by Mr. Pattillo and which brings into play the provisions of the acts of the Newfoundland legislature. In that case there could be no difficulty. If an agreement is reached in accordance with the letter of intent, they are protected by the amendment to clause 6.


William Joseph Browne: They are protected by the agreements themselves.


Lionel Chevrier: That is so if you refer to the agreements other than the ones I mentioned, but if you look to the letter of intent then the answer to that must of necessity be no, to use the words of Mr. Pattillo himself. That is why it is felt necessary that this amendment should be included. In any event, the object of the bill, as the sponsor has said and as all those who appeared with respect to the bill indicated, was to make sure that they would get a fair rate in the transportation of their ore. That is really the essence of this matter. We agree with that.

Private Bills
We say that our party supports the determination of the rate by the board of transport commissioners because there can then be no doubt about it. The only thing we ask is the addition of this clause which would then protect the agreements in contemplation contained in the letter which have not yet been made an agreement.


Murray Douglas Morton: Could I ask the hon. member for Laurier a question on a point which is bothering me with respect to this matter? The very reasons for which Mr. Pattillo gave his opinion that the letter of intent could not be enforced in court were based on the fact that it was merely a letter of intention, that the contract as such had not been completed and the court could not enforce something that was in the minds of the parties. Following the same analogy, I cannot see how the House of Commons can reasonably be expected to pass an act to put into effect intentions that are still in the minds of the parties. If it were a case of something written down from which we could designate agreements A, B and C as what we wanted to have enforced, we would have no objection, but to me it seems a little ridiculous to ask the house to make law an intention that is in the minds of the two parties, for how are we going to determine these intentions? That is the point I am trying to get across. Could the hon. member help me in that regard?


Lionel Chevrier: To the extent that I can I will be glad to do so. The hon. member asks how this is going to help to put these intentions into effect. My reply is that it is not so much that we are seeking to protect the intentions by this amendment as that we are seeking to safeguard what is contained in the letter of intent. For instance, take the rights which have been granted under the agreement to which I have referred and of which I have a photostatic copy in my hand. The Carol agreement provides for certain running rights in perpetuity. If this bill passes in its present form then, as the hon. member knows, the Railway Act provides for rights for a period of 21 years. It would seem to me that the two companies which have made an agreement providing for running rights in perpetuity should have that agreement protected other than by the Railway Act. Under the Railway Act, the moment the bill comes into force the 21-year period will apply.
If you rely on the good faith of the individuals concerned, that will happen? Eventually this will happen. The proponents of the bill will say that the Railway Act provides for an agreement for 21 years and therefore the Wabush-Carol agreement is superseded. To

that extent it would seem to me that, if not an injustice, there would at least be a breach of the agreement that had been entered into. That is really the only purpose of the amendment and I had hoped that the sponsor would agree to it after the explanation that I and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate have attempted to make.


Murray Douglas Morton: Mr. Chairman, taking what the hon. members have stated, we feel that these rights are protected here. It is not a case of trying to deprive any of the parties of any of their rights. We believe that clause 3 (1) covers these rights. I know there is some difficulty about the 21-year period under the Railway Act but I am wondering whether we can amend the Railway Act by a private act. I think we would be on safer ground to leave the clause as it is. The rights have been very well defined and clause 6 was added by the Senate with the thought and hope that it would cover all the tag ends that could possibly be covered legally. Therefore, under the circumstances I feel I cannot agree to the amendment.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to add one word. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that it is a most impractical thing to do to ask the company to proceed to amend the Railway Act so as to fit the situation as it then exists. First, it means another bill. Next, it means additional expenses. Here we have a bill before us now and the situation can be remedied by a simple amendment to that bill. It would seem to me it would be most iniquitous to ask the company to come back to have the Railway Act amended. Once this bill goes through the perpetual rights covered in the Carol lake agreement then become rights for 21 years only, and to that extent the true nature of the agreement made between the parties is not being carried out. I still hope that the hon. member will see fit to accept the amendment which, on the face of it, is certainly innocuous and cannot hurt the parties in any way in view of what was said by those who gave evidence. Once again, without taking an undue length of time, I plead with the sponsor to consider the amendment and accept it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before the question is put, I should like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for Laurier. The sponsor suggested there were some reasons why he felt this amendment was unnecessary but he has not suggested that the amendment could conceivably do the slightest harm to the petitioners. In the opinion of some of us at least it looks as though the amendment might protect the other interest involved. If it cannot

possibly do any harm whatsoever to the petitioners, and in view of the very limited amount of time available for private bills legislation, does the sponsor not think it would be desirable to accept the amendment and have something that is going to satisfy both sides?
Amendment (Mr. Chevrier) negatived: Yeas, 16; nays, 41.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Frank Howard: I wonder if I might ask for the consent of the house to proceed with order No. 3 on today's order paper, which is resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the hon. member for Halifax for the second reading of Bill No. SD-320.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ELSA FAIGA MANACE GROSSMAN
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCleave for the second reading of Bill No. SD-320, for the relief of Elsa Faiga Manace Grossman.
Frank Howard: There is an amendment to this motion moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). I have discussed this with the hon. member and have his consent, and on his behalf, to request the consent of the house to the withdrawal of the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has the express consent of the mover of the amendment, then it would be in order for the house to permit the amendment to be withdrawn. Is it agreed that the amendment be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Robert Jardine McCleave: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot get agreement to consider the divorce cases en bloc, pass them, and perhaps we could resume the business interrupted at five o'clock on the Canada Elections Act. I think all parties are in agreement to proceed with it as quickly as possible today.
79951-0-388^
Canada Elections Act


Mr. Speaker:: It is proposed by the hon. member for Halifax that the house waive the balance of the hour reserved for private and public bills and proceed with the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.


Mr. Peters:: I presume we have no objection to that course, but I think consideration should be given to the fact that we have a lot of these bills to debate and time is getting short.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-83, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I should like to return to the proposal I made in committee, and which I repeated during the debate on the resolution stage this afternoon, namely that we could improve the bill being presented now by an amendment to section 26, subsections 1 and 4 by having the nomination of the deputy returning officer by the candidate who had the highest vote in the preceding election and the nomination of the clerk by the candidate who had the second highest vote in the preceding election. As the law stands now, these nominations are made by the returning officer. Whatever he does, he is subject to criticism from one side or the other.
I believe this suggestion would help the candidates when they have a poll in a remote part of the country to which they have to send a representative. This may cost the candidate a great deal of money. Sometimes he has to charter a plane to send the gentleman to this poll, pay his expenses, pay his loss of salary and all this tends to increase the electoral expenses of candidates. I therefore, take advantage of the motion for second reading of the bill to move two amendments, seconded by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget). The first one is to section 26, subsection 1, and reads:
Such deputy returning officer be selected in the same manner as urban enumerators by the candidate who received the highest vote at the last preceding election.
The second amendment is to section 26, subsection 4, and reads:
Such clerks be selected by the candidate who received the second highest vote at the last preceding election.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this one of the sections being amended now?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes, it is.

Canada Elections Act


Mr. Speaker:: Then, I believe the hon. member should hold his amendment until we are dealing with the individual clauses in committee.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I thought I would try it here and then if it was not satisfactory, I could come back to it in committee.


Mr. Speaker:: At the second reading stage amendments relating to principle of the bill are in order, but amendments which could be made in committee cannot be accepted on the motion for second reading. This seems to be a specific amendment to a clause which will be coming before the committee and, therefore, it is not in order at this stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, perhaps, the hon. gentleman merely wanted to give notice he intended to move it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: As a matter of fact, I did not intend to give notice. I thought I could bring it up now, but I am willing to accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I will reintroduce my amendment during the committee stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Alexis Pierre Caron: Before we proceed, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think we should have the bill in front of us. It was not distributed. Those are only the amendments. We should have the bill before the amendments.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I would suggest that we go very slowly because the amendments are separate from the bill and we sometimes have to hunt for them.


Léon Balcer: My information is that only a few copies of the bill are available at the present time. I do not think there are enough for the whole committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the Acting Secretary of State thinks it would be possible to have a sufficient number of copies available at eight o'clock and whether, in view of the time at present, the committee could not rise and resume at eight o'clock? I think we would make better progress if we proceeded in that way.


Léon Balcer: I will make inquiry right away. I will do everything possible to have copies of the bill available at eight o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister ask that we rise?


Charles Edward Rea: Is it the wish of the committee to call it six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Charles Edward Rea: House in committee on Bill No. C-83. Shall clause 1 carry?
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Before we start on a detailed study of the bill, I wish to point out to the house that the words "Dominion of Canada" appear on ballot boxes. I wonder whether it would not be better to have only the word "Canada" such as on postal boxes and postal trucks.
I should like to get an answer from the minister.


Léon Balcer: Pardon me, could you say that again?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to know whether it would not be advisable that only the word "Canada", instead of "Dominion of Canada", appear on ballot boxes as is the case for postal boxes and postal trucks?


Léon Balcer: I am informed that in the province of Quebec, following a recent change, the wording is "Dominion du Canada", whereas in other provinces it is "Dominion of Canada".


Louis Fortin: Does the Dominion of Canada still exist?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would it not be possible to write only the word "Canada"?


Léon Balcer: I shall look into the hon. member's suggestion.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I think that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has just made an excellent suggestion. It would save paint, if nothing else. Thus, those ballot boxes could be used throughout Canada. Besides, I think that railway companies have struck out the word "railway", for no other reason than to save paint.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, this matter does not concern the bill itself but is rather a matter of policy that could be left to the discretion of the chief electoral officer.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, could the minister submit this suggestion to the chief electoral officer, in order that ballot boxes used across the country bear only the word "Canada"?

(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
(Translation):
Mr. Foriin:: With regard to section 2, in the French version would the minister explain that paragraph to me, because, having read and reread it, I am unable to understand what it means.


Léon Balcer: Could you tell me what section it is?


André-Gilles Fortin: Paragraph 2, subparagraph 8 of the French version which concludes as follows:
...other person having any duty to perform pursuant to this act, to the faithful performance of which duty he may be sworn;
I am unable to make out the meaning of that sentence.


Léon Balcer: If I understood rightly, it is section 2, paragraph 8?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, section 2, the whole section.


Léon Balcer: I am sorry, but I think the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet does not have the bill which is now before the house; I think he is drawing his reference from the report of the committee.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Special powers and duties of chief electoral officer.
(Translation):
Alexis Pierre Caron: Is this an addition to section 5? It is an addition to section 5(2), is it not? (Text):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, this new section includes the old section 99 which had very close relation to section 5. Now both sections are consolidated together and there are no changes in substances.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 21-Polling day.
(Translation):
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, with regard to section 21, would it be possible, as I suggested at the resolution stage, to have the writs printed in both languages? If possible, I should like to know the views of the Solicitor General on the matter.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I think the remarks of the hon. member are rather directed to section 25.
Canada Elections Act


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, section 21 reads as follows:
The governor In council shall fix the day upon which the poll shall be held at any election, and such day shall be named in the writ of election; at a general election the writs for all the electoral districts shall be dated on the same day, and shall name the same day, for the poll.


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member kindly repeat his question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, when the resolution was considered in committee, I suggested that the house consider the possibility of having the writs of election printed in both languages. I therefore think section 21 is related to the subject, and would ask the Solicitor General to give us his views on the matter.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, unless I am mistaken, the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm relate to sections 18 and 25.
Section 18 provides that the chief electoral officer shall issue proclamations in the English and French languages in every electoral district in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, and in the English language only in other electoral districts.
As to section 25, the same rule is provided in relation to the description of the various constituencies or polling divisions.
Is that what the hon. member has in mind?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister of the opinion that it would be advisable for election writs to be printed in both languages?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, that question was raised in committee. That is a technical problem which does not apply to the same extent in all constituencies of Canada. As you know, there are two forms printed locally; now, in electoral districts where the services of a translator may be readily obtained, there is no problem. But in the constituency where it is difficult to have printed texts in a language other than that of the majority, well, it is obviously more difficult to find translators. That is one of the reasons why the provisions of the elections act have not required, up to now, that all those texts be translated in both languages for all electoral districts of Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, all forms prepared by the chief electoral officer, all documents that he issues are in both languages, and he makes sure generally that returning officers

Canada Elections Act
get all the required forms in order that elec- I think this also takes into account the tors of both languages may have the texts objections of a technical nature which the they need.	minister raised-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I thank the Solicitor
General, but I would point out to him that there are constituencies outside Quebec and Manitoba, for instance in New Brunswick and eastern Ontario, where the bilingual population is rather numerous. I do not know whether that applies also to all provinces, but I wonder whether it would not be possible to issue election writs in both languages.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, according to my information and in all cases that were brought up so far, forms printed in either language have always been sent out upon request.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member for Carleton would like to assist the minister in explaining this point.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I think I have to agree with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon)-


Gabriel Roberge: It does not often happen.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It does not often happen, but it can happen just the same.
Are not the forms sent out for issuing writs of election standard forms, to which are merely added the date and electoral district?


Léon Balcer: As to the notification with regard to the issue of a writ of election, there is no problem. Yet, the administration of section 25 gives rise to some difficulties, because, in that case, the returning officer has to give a complete description of each polling district, and because of that description, it is, in some cases, rather difficult to find the required translators for carrying out the work in the required time, because the period is rather short, barely 48 hours. If we have to find a translator and there is none to be had, we run the risk of delaying the polling day.


Mr. Morissette:: Mr. Chairman, we might perhaps, while considering the objections just expressed by the secretary of state, give everybody some satisfaction.
I am coming to section 18 and I wonder if, at the third line, the word "and" could not be replaced by a comma and, the following phrase added after the word "Manitoba" "and New Brunswick and all electoral districts where it is necessary to do so, in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer."

(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We are on clause 21 on page 46.


Alexis Pierre Caron: But these are connected matters -this relates to three clauses in the bill. This is related to clause 18 and I think the hon. member should be allowed to go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was about to suggest that we revert to clause 18 which apparently was passed by inadvertence. The hon. member would then be perfectly in order.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give permission to revert to clause 18?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 18-Proclamation by returning
officer.
(Translation):


Émilien Morissette: Mr. Chairman, if I may come back to article 18, I shall formally move the amendment I just mentioned.
With the permission of the house I shall read it again.
I move that article 18 be amended, by replacing, in the third line the word "and" by a comma and adding the following phrase after the word "Manitoba": "and New Brunswick and in all electoral districts where it is necessary to do so, in the opinion of the chief electoral officer."


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Morissette moves that article 18 be amended by replacing the word "and" by a comma and, adding the following phrase after the word "Manitoba": "and New Brunswick and in all electoral districts where it is necessary to do so, in the opinion of the chief electoral officer."
I think there is a mistake here, it is on line 7-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I think, Mr. Chairman, that if you gave a translation of that amendment to the house, it would be enough. I do not see how it could be out of order.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: As the amendment is written in French, it is perfectly legal that it be put in French. It will eventually appear in French anyway. Does the committee wish to wait until we have a translation made?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee wish me to give my translation?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Jacques Flynn: As I roughly translate it, the amendment reads:
That clause 18 be amended by replacing in the seventh line the word "and" b,y a comma and by adding after the word "Manitoba" the following words:	"and New Brunswick and any other
electoral district where in the opinion of the chief electoral officer it is convenient to do it."


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I just bring to your attention the fact that if the words "New Brunswick" were taken out it would mean exactly the same thing and it might cover all other provinces too. I wonder if the hon. member would give consideration to such a change.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I call the committee's attention to the fact, that as the Acting Secretary of State said, I of course, favour in principle all writs being bilingual throughout the country, as they are already in Manitoba and Quebec. On the other hand, the secretary of state says that, in some constituencies, it is difficult to find interpreters or translators to translate the writs within 48 hours. Therefore, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) suggested this more concise amendment but, on the whole, he maintained the principle.
( Text):


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall we revert now to clause 21? Do I understand that clauses 19 and 20 have been agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 21 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 25-Granting of a poll.
Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, for the sake of uniformity I think the amendment we have just passed in relation to clause 18 must be moved in relation to clause 25 because it has great importance in relation to clause 25. That is where the technical problem arises. We are faced with a real technical problem here, not so much in relation to clause 18 as in relation to clause 25 subclause (2).


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member for Carleton would move the amendment.
Canada Elections Act (Translation):


Émilien Morissette: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to move an amendment worded exactly like the one which has just been passed. In the third line the word "and" should be replaced by a comma while adding, after the word "Manitoba" the following phrase: "and New Brunswick and all electoral districts where it is required in the opinion of the chief electoral officer".
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Do I understand that the same amendment is moved by the hon. member for Rimouski?
(Translation):
Is it the same as earlier?


Émilien Morissette: It is exactly the same wording.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, for many years, the expression "electoral district" has always been used instead of "constituency" in the elections act. I ask the hon. member for Rimouski whether he would agree to a correction in his amendment in order to replace the word "constituency" by the words "electoral district".


Alexis Pierre Caron: Which is better French?


Jacques Flynn: Does the hon. member for Rimouski accept that the word "constituency" be replaced by the word "district"?


Émilien Morissette: I have no objection.


Jacques Flynn: It is moved by Mr. Morissette that clause 25 be amended by removing in the third line on page 51, the word "and" and by adding in the third line, after the word Manitoba, the following words: "and New Brunswick and any other electoral district where it is required in the opinion of the chief electoral officer."
(Text):
Does the committee want a translation?


Mr. Starr:: On a point of order, we have no copy of the amendment.


Jacques Flynn: I have only one copy myself. It is not a question of order but a matter of practice. I will try to translate this if it is the wish of the committee.


William Joseph Browne: Might I suggest that we go on, and then come back to this and have it translated in the meantime.


Jacques Flynn: If we allowed it to stand I suppose we could have it translated and copied.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If you were to translate, it would be enough.

Canada Elections Act


Jacques Flynn: The amendment is in the same words as the amendment previously adopted in relation to clause 18. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 26-Deputy returning officers.
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, earlier in my remarks on second reading I explained the purpose of the amendment I will propose in relation to this clause. As it is now, the nomination of the deputy returning officer is the responsibility of the returning officer. In certain cases difficulties arise from this fact. In some instances the returning officer may be friendlier toward one candidate than he is toward the other and one candidate may be hated by the person who is the returning officer. This may result in an individual suffering from his decisions. Even if a returning officer acts according to the law and his oath of office he is always criticized because always one will not be satisfied with his decision.
Furthermore in remote districts it costs a large sum of money for candidates to send someone to represent them. Now that Indians will be voting we will have people voting in districts more remote than the districts where voting has taken place heretofore. If the candidate has to charter a plane or helicopter to send a man to supervise it will be extremely costly and it may mean an exorbitant expense for a candidate who is poorer than his rival candidate.
In the provisions governing elections in the province of Quebec we have an arrangement which has worked very well. In Quebec the deputy returning officer is nominated by the candidate of the government and the clerk is nominated by the opposition candidate. But in the federal parliament we have more than two parties and therefore under my proposal the deputy returning officer would be nominated by the candidate or the party which had the most votes at the previous election and the clerk would be recommended by the candidate or party with the second largest number of votes at the preceding election. In that way candidates would be able to rely on their own man to supervise in remote parts of ridings and would know that everything was all right.
There would always be representatives of at least two parties in the remote settlements and as a result everyone would be satisfied. It would ensure perfect safety to the candidates through the fact that there would be representatives of two parties there, whether a Conservative and a C.C.F. in certain regions,

a Liberal and a C.C.F. in another region or a Liberal and a Conservative in another region. There would always be two persons to supervise and to see that everything was done according to the law. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Levis, these two amendments to subclauses 1 and
4.	I move this amendment to subclause 1 of clause 26:
Such deputy returning officer be selected in the same manner as urban enumerators by the candidate who received the highest vote at the last preceding election.
To subclause 4 of clause 26 I move this amendment:
Such clerks be selected by the candidate who received the second highest vote at the last preceding election.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether copies of these proceedings are available. It is difficult to follow the amendments or, indeed, to follow the bill. We only have issue No. 101 of Votes and Proceedings. That is the only document we can lay our hands on unless there are others on the table.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member is not speaking to the amendment just moved by the hon. member for Hull?


Leon David Crestohl: Yes, I wanted to be able to follow the amendment and I do not have the document in front of me.


Jacques Flynn: I was wondering whether the hon. member was asking for a copy of the amendment.


Leon David Crestohl: No, for a copy of the bill.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The amendment was sent to the different parties before the adjournment.


Jacques Flynn: Would the hon. member explain whether his amendment would have the effect of deleting subclause 1 of clause 26?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Clause 26, subclause 1, reads as follows:
As soon as convenient after the issue of the writ of election, the returning officer shall, by writing in form No. 31 executed under his hand, appoint one deputy returning officer for each polling station established in his electoral district; every deputy returning officer shall before acting as such take an oath in form No. 32.
The amendment is an addition to clause 26, subclause 1.


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Caron moves:
That clause 26, subclause 1, be amended by adding at the end the following words:
Such deputy returning officer be selected in the same manner as urban enumerators by the candidate who received the highest vote at the last preceding election.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, first of all I must say it is really refreshing to hear from members on the other side of the house words

of praise for the Quebec elections act. For years and years we have been used to hearing them, especially the hon. member for Hull, trying to take the elections act of the province of Quebec to pieces. Of the ten provincial elections acts in Canada the hon. member for Hull is now using as support for his proposition the elections act of Quebec. I must say this is refreshing.
Unfortunately I think the hon. member is a little bit off the track with this amendment. He wants the public of Canada to pay for the electoral expenses of the candidates of the two large parties of Canada. That is precisely what his amendment means. His big argument is to plead for the candidates and he wants us to insert such an amendment in the act so that candidates will be able to save money at public expense because he thinks it is too expensive for candidates to send scrutineers or representatives to outlying areas.
Under the Canada Elections Act it has been decided very wisely that the deputy returning officers and the poll clerk shall both be election officers and as such they are the officers who are in charge of the application of the Canada Elections Act and the regulations under that act at the poll on the day of the election. For that purpose both of them have to be sworn in. The deputy returning officer has to take an oath which reads as follows:
I, the undersigned, appointed deputy returning officer for polling station No.-of the electoral district of-do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I am qualified as an elector in the said electoral district, that I will act faithfully in my said capacity of deputy returning officer, without partiality, fear, favour or affection, and that I will keep secret the name of the candidate for whom the ballot paper of any elector is marked in my presence at the pending election. So help me God.
The oath that the clerk takes is in the following words:
I, the undersigned, appointed poll clerk for the above mentioned polling station, do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I am qualified as an elector in the said electoral district, that I will act faithfully in my capacity of poll clerk, or in that of deputy returning officer, if required to act as such, without partiality, fear, favour or affection, and that I will keep secret the name of the candidate for whom the ballot paper of any elector is marked in my presence at the pending election. So help me God.
I think this indicates very clearly that these persons are both election officers and as such they are there to serve the public and not to serve a political party. They are not there to save money for candidates of any party. I think we can have confidence in the Canadians who are chosen to carry out such offices, and for my own part I believe, and I think the committee will agree, that any Canadian who takes such an oath
Canada Elections Act
will not try to show any partiality or anything like that and take it upon himself to carry out the instructions of the law and the regulations under the Canada Elections Act.


Frank Howard: I should like to make a few comments. I should like to say that it is unfortunate the Acting Secretary of State had to inject into a debate of this nature, especially in view of the record of the committee itself, some reference to partisan politics and the attitude of Quebec. I feel that was an unfair and unkind thing to do. I say it is unfortunate, but we all know that the Acting Secretary of State has had a close relationship with one of the parties in Quebec. Perhaps this is why he felt it necessary to make these comments. I do not know whether or not the hon. member is really on lend-lease from the Union Nationale, but that may well be.
I only want to say that in so far as this proposed amendment is concerned it does not matter to us one way or the other whether it is in or out. I do not think it adds or detracts from the act. For these reasons, I just wondered why it was necessary for the Acting Secretary of State to get involved in that sort of argument.


Alexis Pierre Caron: When the Acting Secretary of State rose he started to explain that he was surprised to hear some Quebec members praise the Quebec legislation. I never praised bill 34, but it was recalled before the last election. Even if I do not like that legislation, I would say there is nothing perfect and there is nothing so perfect that it cannot be improved. I really believe that in general the Quebec legislation is good. There might be things in it that we do not like. When the Acting Secretary of State says that the two great parties want to have the people of Canada pay for the electoral expenses, I do not understand how a lawyer can say such a thing.
According to the law now the deputy returning officer is paid by the country. According to the law now the clerk is paid by the country. Whether or not we change the method of nomination these officials are going to be paid by the country. I would never have thought the Acting Secretary of State, who is supposed to be a lawyer, would have made such an argument against what I have said. I said "supposed to be a lawyer", because I do not know whether he could prove by what he said that he is.


An hon. Member:: Cheap.


Alexis Pierre Caron: By listening to you, we know what cheapness is.


Léon Balcer: May I be permitted to ask a question?

Canada Elections Act


Alexis Pierre Caron: When the Acting Secretary of State says-


Léon Balcer: I should like to ask the hon. member whether, just prior to my speech, he did not say that the candidates' expenses would be reduced as a result of the poll clerk being appointed in this way?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Apparently the Acting Secretary of State did not understand, so I will say it in French so he can understand.
(Translation):
I said and I repeat-


Mr. Johnson:: Now, perhaps we can make it out a little better.


Alexis Pierre Caron: -that some members understand neither French nor English, because their mind is so obtuse they understand nothing. I said and I repeat that there are sections that are exceedingly remote precisely because often-


Mr. Parizeau:: What do you mean by sections?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I mean electoral districts, voting sections, polling sections if you prefer, which are so remote that the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk are both of the same party; the candidate is thus obliged to send, at his own costs and expenses, an enumerator and to rent a plane or a helicopter to send that man to such a place. Whereas if both officers represented the two different parties, the candidate would be spared those expenses, because those are paid by the state. Whether we like it or not and whether the secretary of state likes it or not, there must be a deputy returning officer and a clerk paid by the state, whether we want it or not.
I am not referring to the constituency of Hull, because it is very concentrated; but there are members in this parliament who, at the next election, will have to send people to very remote polls, whereas this amendment would spare them such expense.
All I ask is that we try to make things easier for the deputation. That is what I am asking, for, but the secretary of state seems to object. Is it because this suggestion comes from a Liberal or is it because his party spirit is so-


Louis Fortin: We already have a good reason.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That would perhaps be a reason out it would not be a good one, because when

drafting an elections act we should do so in such a way as to satisfy all elements of the country.
I know that objections were raised in committee for the same reasons as those just put forward by the Acting Secretary of State. Those are official functions, and those people are under oath. Is it not true that those who were appointed in the province of Quebec took the same oath to abide by the whole law? They have the same oath. Does the fact of being appointed by a party remove an obligation to an oath one is bound to take?
I submit that this is the only way to guarantee the security of all political parties in Canada; if we want well controlled elections, once this amendment is accepted there will be no grounds for constant criticism. That is what I want from the secretary of state and I hope that he has now understood what I meant.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the question is put, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word or two about it. I want, first of all, to express a little surprise at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Skeena. When I suggested this afternoon during the committee stage on the resolution that we felt this was the only actual grievance we had as a party, the hon. member for Port Arthur got up and supported me warmly. He gave instances from his own constituency to show how advantageous it would be to some members of his party. It is odd to find the hon. member for Skeena saying it does not matter whether or not it is done. He is, of course, entitled to his own opinion but he said "we", he did not say "I". I was just wondering who did speak for his party.
I wonder also who speaks for the Conservative party because I am informed by those who have done careful research on the matter that this amendment was supported by several members of this committee who are sitting here right now the last time the elections act was before the committee, and they were all Conservatives, one of whom represents a constituency quite near the constituency represented by the Solicitor General. What was quite fair, right and proper when the late Mr. J. R. MacNicol argued for it and when certain members from the island of Montreal, who can name themselves because I won't name them, argued for it, and when the whole party voted for it in committee, has suddenly become unpatriotic and dangerous. This is really a little odd. It seems to me that perhaps the minister ought to look a little into the past of his own

party or even to listen to the speeches that are made in the house because this was all pointed out this afternoon.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Would the hon. gentleman like to say what the secretary of state of that time had to say about the proposal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that this afternoon, but I will repeat it. This was opposed by the government of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course it was; that is what I said this afternoon. I said I thought they were wrong and that we now felt that this should be done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have already said that once today in this house. If hon. members get a little bit of emotional satisfaction out of that, heaven knows after the last two weeks they need it. But I hope that now that we have had this descent into party politics we can come back and consider objectively what it is that was really proposed objectively by my friend the hon. member for Hull. The injection of these other considerations came from the other side of the chamber and from the treasury benches.
What my friend the hon. member for Hull was saying was that just as the appointment of the two enumerators in urban polls, one selected not by the two great parties-the Solicitor General misrepresented my hon. friend's amendment because it does not say that; the law in Quebec says that but not the amendment of the hon. member for Hull- the hon. member for Hull says exactly what the present Canada Elections Act says regarding enumerators, that is to say that the deputy returning officer would be selected by the candidate having the highest number of votes at the last previous election whether he was C.C.F., Liberal, Conservative, an independent or whatever he was, and the clerk would be selected by the person having the second highest number of votes regardless of the party to which he belonged.
That is the way in which we select enumerators. Why? We select them in that way in order to guarantee to the people that a fair enumeration will be made. As a matter of fact, we know that there are many polls in remote parts of this country where candidates cannot afford to send scrutineers because of the great cost; and we know what will happen if the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk are both appointed by the returning officer who is appointed by political patronage as everybody knows and always has been, and anybody who wants to pretend to the contrary is pretending and doing
Canada Elections Act
nothing else. We know that there are suspicions in certain circumstances that these elections will not be conducted in the way we think they ought to be. We are saying that if two Canadian electors in the district are chosen, one by the candidate who will be the member of parliament because he obtained the largest number of votes, the other the person who obtained the second largest number of votes at the previous election, it is not likely that they will select people who are not Canadians because they must be electors; so that I do not understand why the Solicitor General used the word "Canadian" and suggested that the returning officer would select Canadians and apparently the representatives or candidates would select someone else. There did not seem to be any point in that suggestion.
I come back again and say that that is in our view-and that used to be in the view of hon. gentlemen opposite-the notion that if this amendment which the hon. member for Hull has put forward were adopted there would be one aditional safeguard of fair elections. That is the only reason we put it forward and that is why we are going to vote for it.


Leon David Crestohl: I should like to deal with the objections which the Acting Secretary of State has raised to the amendment. In theory the amendment appears to be a fair one and it aims at impartiality at the polls. That is what the amendment aims at.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Norman Platt Lambert: It has a contrary effect.


Leon David Crestohl: It cannot have a more contrary effect than when you appoint enumerators from the two different parties.


Norman Platt Lambert: The duties are different.


Leon David Crestohl: I want to deal with the objection purely as a lawyer would meet the arguments of another lawyer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Leon David Crestohl: Are hon. members opposite laughing at the fact that the Solicitor General is a lawyer?


An hon. Member:: No; at you.


Leon David Crestohl: What is objection No. 1? Objection No. 1 is this. The Solicitor General suggested that it would cost the country money and that the country does not want to save the expense of political candidates. That is an erroneous statement because the expense is already incurred and paid for by the country, as the hon. member for Hull has pointed out. Hence the question of the expense and the cost in money falls flat on its face.

Canada Elections Act
The second objection made by the Solicitor General is the question of pointing out that there will be no impartiality at the polls. There will be. Then there is this question of an oath. The Solicitor General has contended that because these two people take an oath they must be believed and we expect that they will be honourable in the discharge of their duties. But what is there to suggest that these other two people who take the same oath will not be honourable in the discharge of their duty? You can give both the same oath. This business of saying that the appointees at the polls are not interested politically is purely a fiction of politics, a fiction of law. The fact is that they are two Canadians, as the secretary of state points out. Give them the same oath. But what you are doing is that you are making it possible in the remote areas of the country where it is not possible to have scrutineers to have a sense of impartiality by having two representatives at the polls. It is a simple proposition. I can see no objection to it. The two objections which the minister has raised do not stand up in the face of logic.


Mr. Herridge:: Although I have apparently been demoted I want to say a word or two. I am rising to express my complete support of this amendment. I think there is no need to repeat the arguments of the hon. members who have previously spoken. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate exceeded himself this evening in giving his reasons. I think it is a common-sense amendment. It overcomes this difficulty of political appointments of deputy returning officers and election clerks which a good many people in the party in power, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives, find a distaste for. It will function exactly as the enumeration of the voters' list functions, something which has been very satisfactory-I know from personal experience of my own constituency-and has been carried on in the best spirit of fair play between the persons appointed who represent both parties and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.
If we extend that principle to the appointment of deputy returning officers and election clerks I think we shall be improving our election machinery. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, while we had a thorough going enumeration in my constituency we found certain advantages because of the close association with persons of our political faith, particularly in one or two cases, with those who had previously supported the Progressive Conservative party. Because of this close association over a week or so, later on they have joined the C.C.F. I am all for it.


Frank Howard: I did not intend to rise again, however, only the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate have occasioned my doing so. I do not see anything whatsoever inconsistent between the comments I had to make, namely that it does not make too much difference one way or another, and the comments of my hon. friend the hon. member for Port Arthur. Unfortunately I was not here when he spoke but I heard what my friend the hon. member for Kootenay West said and I do not see anything inconsistent in that sort of attitude.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is socialist logic.


Frank Howard: I can tell my friend, the hon. member for Trinity, if that is the correct riding, one thing. At least it is evident that we in the C.C.F. party do not belong to a party that believes in thought control, which is more than I can say for my hon. friends.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We do not belong to a party that believes in fog control, either.


Frank Howard: Furthermore, at least our approach here in the house is consistent with what it was in the committee. There the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate advanced the idea that this particular amendment which is before us now need have no application in urban polls but need apply only to rural polls. Now he comes along and says he supports it wholeheartedly because it should apply to everybody. That is an inconsistency between what the hon. member said in committee and what he says here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is not sure where he is going, that is his problem, not mine. Possibly it is an illustration of the thought control that exists within his party. He does not take time to assess the directions given to him but just runs off as he sees fit.
(Translation):


Mr. Habel:: It seems to me that the secretary of state should take this opportunity, just a few days after part of the sermon on the mount was given to us in this house, to draw the obvious conclusions and give justice to everybody.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Not to your Maurice, I hope.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: This is a wonderful opportunity for the secretary of state to show that the Canadian government, whatever party is in power, does not just talk about democracy but applies it fully and in actual fact.

He should allow those constituencies where polls are so remote that it is impossible for a candidate to send representatives-


Louis Fortin: There are representatives on the spot-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Thus in the riding I represent, there are at least three polls which are located about 600 miles away from all civilization.


Louis Fortin: There must be a Liberal in
those places.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: The franchise has just been granted to the Indians. They are probably not familiar with the political machinery. This is in no way intended to mean they are ignorant, but perhaps for some time yet they will be lacking some necessary information-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member is rather insulting.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Perhaps they will be lacking in information necessary to understand Canadian politics.
Thousands of Canadians are sent to various parts of the world to defend democracy-


Mr. Valade:: The Liberals did that.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Then why should we not give the word democracy its true sense, by granting to the elected representatives of the people not a privilege or a concession, but the opportunity of being represented in a democratic way in those remote and often inaccessible polls since the only means of transportation which is possible and quite costly, is the airplane.
The secretary of state said a moment ago that the candidates would thus have part of their election expenses paid by the government.
As the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) said, in each poll there must be a deputy returning officer and a clerk. It is obvious that the government must pay the transportation expenses and salaries of those poll officers.
The choice of the deputy returning officer and the clerk of each poll, if made according to the proposed amendment, would not cost one penny to the government which, once again, would show once and for all to the Canadian people that it understands the meaning of the word "democracy".
(Text):


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to support this amendment. I cannot see a thing wrong with it. I think it is very sound, but being a realist I am
Canada Elections Act
afraid it has not any more chance of passing now than it had when the Liberals were in power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Flynn: May I suggest to the hon. member for Hull that he has submitted here two amendments?


Alexis Pierre Caron: They are on the same clause.


Jacques Flynn: Yes, they are on the same clause. I think we can take them both at the same time as they are identical. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Before you put the amendments, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could suggest that perhaps it would not be too helpful to put both of them as one because the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate might find himself in the position of supporting one yet opposing the other.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I seem to have got the hon. member's goat.
Amendments negatived: Nays 94; yeas 29.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendments lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
On clause 28-Ballot papers and their form. (Translation):
Azellus Denis: Under the Quebec act, the ballot is different from the one we have here.
Under the provincial act, government candidates are listed in alphabetical order, then the opposition candidates, and finally the other candidates.
If you allow me Mr. Chairman, I shall move the following amendment: That clause 28, subclause 1, of the Canada Elections Act be amended by deleting in the fifth and sixth lines the words "alphabetically arranged in the order of their surnames" and by replacing those words by the following: "specifically describing first the names and occupations of the candidates of the government party and the official opposition, then those of the other candidates.


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Denis moves that clause 28, subclause 1, of Canada Elections Act be amended by deleting in the fifth and sixth lines the words "alphabetically arranged in the order of their surnames" and by replacing them by the following words: "specifically describing first the names and occupations

Canada Elections Act
of the candidates of the government party, and the official opposition, then those of the other candidates.
(Text):
Does the committee wish to have some kind of translation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be advisable if you gave a rough translation before you asked them to vote.


Jacques Flynn: I will do my best. It is that clause 28, subclause 1 of the Canada Elections Act be amended by deleting in the fifth and sixth lines the words "alphabetically arranged in the order of their surnames" and by replacing those words by the following: "specifically describing first the names and occupations of the candidates of the ministerial party and the official opposition, then those of the other candidates." (Translation):


Azellus Denis: It is the exact wording of the Quebec provincial act.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Perhaps I should rise and express my complete disapproval of this amendment. I am unalterably opposed to it. It misrepresents the thinking of members of the Liberal party who no doubt think they can gain a psychological advantage in that the names of their candidates would appear at the top of the ballot. It is true it would give the government members an even greater advantage, because their names would be first. One has only to read the comments made in the committee by members of the Liberal party to realize that this is a complete inconsistency and that it has nothing to do with the ideas advanced by the members of the party who were on that committee. This represents, in fact, the inborn desire of the Liberal party to advance themselves by hook or by crook.


Hazen Robert Argue: I hope the amendment which has been presented to the committee does not represent the official view of the official opposition, because I think it is a very bad amendment and not in keeping with the kind of fair play that we expect to have in our elections act. I think this amendment is a hare-brained one and I cannot conceive that a member of long standing who is also a student of democratic procedure and was a grey eminence in former years of power putting his stamp of approval on an amendment of this kind. Just imagine having a ballot with the government party first, the official opposition second, then other parties in some other order. This is not a banana republic, even if the official opposition would apparently like to have it that way by this
[The Chairman.]
ridiculous, foolish amendment which is being presented at this time. I hope that the Liberal party will show a measure of independence and a lack of thought control within the party by opposing, in a majority at any rate, this amendment.
I cannot conceive that this amendment is put forward as a substantial amendment to which thought has been given by the official opposition. I think this would be a very bad move. I cannot think the Liberal party has discussed this in caucus and approved it. I think it should be defeated by this committee, the greater degree of unanimity in that regard the better it will be for the house and for the country.


Léon Balcer: The hon. member for St. Denis explained this afternoon on the resolution why he intended to move such an amendment as this. I think he said he intended it to prevent two identical names appearing on the ballot paper. I can assure the hon. member that as far as I am concerned there is only one Azellus Denis; there will never be two of them.
I think this amendment is undemocratic, I do not think it is fair, and the government will certainly oppose it.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: If the Acting Secretary of State says that the amendment is not democratic, I would remind him that it is taken almost word for word from the provincial act adopted by his late friend. It is section 193 of the Quebec elections act:
(Text):
The ballot papers shall be printed papers on which shall be entered also in alphabetical order first the surnames of the candidates of the government parties and then of the official opposition and then those of the other candidates.
It is exactly the same word for word.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the vote is taken I am sure the hon. member for St. Denis has served the purpose he had in mind, which was to illustrate that there is a very great problem here, and I think many hon. members would agree with me, including the hon. member for St. Denis, that perhaps the best way of solving this problem would be to put on the ballot papers the political designation of the candidate so that the people would really know who they are voting for.


Mr. Bourgei:: I should just like to add one word, because I think the leader of the C.C.F. party has misunderstood the purpose of this amendment. He was not here this afternoon when the hon. member for St. Denis explained the situation and I think that probably all the members from the province of Quebec will agree with me that the

purpose of the amendment as explained by the hon. member for St. Denis was very clear. It was far from his mind to propose anything which was not democratic. His only purpose was to prevent the confusion which sometimes exists on the ballots that we have, particularly in the province of Quebec, and I think the Solicitor General explained the situation clearly in the remarks he made a few moments ago.
I want to say to the hon. member for Assiniboia that the purpose was not to cast aside the C.C.F. party or any party, but to prevent confusion in the ballots. It may be true that the amendment was not couched in legal phraseology, but the hon. member for Assiniboia should hardly take advantage of that. Once again, I say my hon. friend's only purpose was to avoid the confusion which is sometimes experienced, especially, as I say, in the province of Quebec where such incidents have happened in two or three elections-and I am not casting reflections on any party.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, far be it from us to wish to stop those phony names and phony candidates from coming in, because they will do so anyway. Now, I believe that a party which wants to use phony names or names of people who do not exist, will probably also have nomination papers signed, and that phony name will appear on the ballot. However, in that case, the party in power and the opposition party will at least have the privilege of having the names of their candidates placed on the ballot, which is not the case now under the federal act.
That was precisely what happened in Verdun-and I repeat what I said this afternoon-where a Mr. Leduc was the official candidate and a certain other Mr. Leduc was nominated, whose initial came before that of Mr. Yves Leduc. It happened that this man, this strawman, as he is called, got 1,800 votes by mistake and because of the prevailing confusion, with the result that the official Liberal candidate was beaten by 1,700 votes. Without that strawman whose name was placed before the name of the official Liberal candidate, the latter would undoubtedly have been elected.
This is quite as true of the Conservative candidates as of the Liberal candidates. I shall not pretend to have a monopoly, or rather that the Liberal party has a monopoly on honest people. Certain conditions might happen among the Conservatives as among the Liberals, but we should have at least the benefit of having the candidates names written in alphabetical order, for the party in power as well as for the opposition. If
Canada Elections Act
the organizers of the Liberal, or of the Conservative party want to bring in strawmen, well, the names of those strawmen will at least appear after those who were nominated in good faith and received the support, either of the leader of the opposition or of the leader of the party in power.
In the electoral district of Laurier-just to illustrate the point-well, in Montreal-Laurier, a so-called Rene Levesque, who, by the by was an artist, presented nomination papers and we were not even able to find out where he lived. He was completely unknown. However, it happened, thanks to that section in the provincial legislation, that the name of that famous Rene Levesque appeared on the ballot after the Rene Levesque who was the official opposition candidate. That, however, did not stop the famous mystery man, or the famous non-existent Rene Levesque, from obtaining 900 votes, in spite of the hundreds and hundreds of dollars that were spent to explain to the people that this Rene Levesque was not the candidate of the party which is now in power.
The situation did not occur on the federal level, but in the provincial election.
The object of this amendment-and I am, at least, ready to admit it-is to eliminate strawmen in some electoral districts.
Fictitious candidates were presented by friends or opponents, it is all one to me; but if such non-existent candidates are to be presented, at least their names will be listed after those of the official candidates. In other words, their names will no longer be printed at the best place on the ballot, because I need not tell you, Mr. Chairman, that when people want to be dishonest, as happened recently, they will find a Rene Levesque or some other namesake. Had it not been for the provincial act, a certain Albert Levesque would have been found and his name would have been placed before that of Mr. Rene Levesque, the official candidate of the Liberal party.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to prolong the debate but I should like to make a few remarks about the amendment.
First of all, I must say I disagree with the C.C.F. party leader. I do not think this amendment constitutes an antidemocratic measure, and that it is so unfavourable to the second opposition party. On the contrary, I think this amendment would help avoid confusion in some way, and for that reason, it seems acceptable to me.
In my particular case, it is doubly acceptable because I have precisely experienced the fear of having to face such confusion in the 1958 election. In fact, I was nervous until

Canada Elections Act
the last moment of the nomination, because, on the Liberal side, one Maurice Johnson, so it seems, had been arrayed as candidate. It was known that he existed and I was afraid he would be presented in order to confuse the electors. Fortunately, the Liberals repented just before the nomination, and I did not have to face that difficulty.
About the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Denis, I thought I could note some reference to the last provincial election. If he were a little less partisan, he would mention not only the case of Mr. Rene Levesque, but also that of the candidate in the constituency of Bourget, Mr. McDuff. There was, in that constituency, one Mr. Jean M'eunier who was accused of having promoted the candidacy of one Roland McDuff in order to confuse the electors and to take away votes from the official candidate, Mr. Romeo McDuff.
Consequently, if the hon. member for St. Denis wants to discuss a problem, I would ask him to do so in an impartial way and to quote the facts, both favourable or unfavourable, to his party. It is not that way he will really show his impartiality.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I am under the impression that our C.C.F. friends possibly believe they would be wronged by the amendment that I moved. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, may I ask you to put off the vote on the amendment that I moved.
When the election act was passed in the province of Quebec there were only two parties, while here, in Ottawa, we also have the C.C.F. as well as the Social Credit party. It would therefore be unfair if the names of the official candidates of the C.C.F. and the Social Credit could not be included in the ballot, after those of the Liberal and Conservative party candidates.
If my amendment had been worded in this way, it would have been more regular and fairer for all the parties recognized in the federal parliament. I believe I have made the house understand the reason why I moved this amendment. I had nothing against the Liberals, the Conservatives, the C.C.F. or any other party. I was only thinking of those organizers who, in order to create confusion, find a way to nominate citizens who do not exist at all, or so little, so as to mislead the population and take votes away from those who, normally, would get them.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member has indicated his intention to withdraw if the committee is willing to give leave to do so.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jacques Flynn: There is not unanimous consent.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, it is rather surprising that unanimous consent is not given. I should like to illustrate the point. Where you have two identical names you might be able to identify them in some way but I know of a recent occasion when there were three identical names on a ballot. If you do not provide some means of differentiating between the three identical names you can appreciate that a real problem arises for the voter in knowing exactly what to do. This situation has occurred and there is room for confusion. All the amendment seeks to do is to eliminate the confusion.
I think the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville was quite courageous in standing up and supporting the amendment, indicating that he or someone he knows has been a victim of precisely this kind of confusion. I feel that the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Denis may be somewhat improved in this way. The first thing to appear on the ballot should be a list of all official parties, and the candidates of all official parties. Whether there are two, three or four, they should come first. Following that could appear all the additional names that tend to confuse. I think the amendment should be withdrawn but if hon. members do not give unanimous consent, of course, it cannot be done, and in refusing hon. members are just compounding confusion.


Mr. Palleil:: And the hon. member has done so successfully.


Frank Howard: We have had an explanation of why this amendment was moved and what it is intended to accomplish. Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the correct approach to the problem, allowing the placing of the party name on the ballot along with the name of the candidate. If we are going to look to provincial statutes for some guidance as to what the provinces should do in this regard, I suggest that we leave the province of Quebec for a while and look to the province of British Columbia which in some regards also has some enlightened, progressive legislation.


An hon. Member:: Most reactionary.


Frank Howard: It is a reactionary government and some of the legislation it has introduced is reactionary; there is no doubt about that. In British Columbia the system there is that the designation of the political party to which a candidate belongs appears on the ballot paper along with the name of the candidate. The act also provides that a person cannot run, for example, as an independent Liberal. If there is a Liberal candidate

in a particular riding, and we do have a few in provincial elections, his name would appear along with his party designation. If there is confusion in the ranks of the Liberal party and someone wants to run as an independent Liberal he cannot designate himself as an independent Liberal. He must be an independent, period. He cannot be an independent and attach the name of a political party.
No doubt the hon. member for St. Denis and his colleagues want to find a system to overcome the problem in Quebec that he related, which apparently arises in other places also, but I think they should direct their attention to the placing of the party affiliation on the ballot with the additional proviso that a person must be classified as an independent if he is an independent and not have any party label attached.


Mr. Monleith (Verdun):: Mr. Chairman, a short while ago an hon. member made reference to Verdun. To my knowledge all candidates in Verdun were legitimate candidates over 21 years of age and had paid their deposits and it is unfortunate that there happened to be many people with the same names. As far as I am concerned, anybody by the name of Monteith who wants to run in my riding is quite welcome.


Frank Howard: Does that include the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of explanation as to what this amendment means. The hon. member who moved it said that he did not mean to include only the two largest parties and that if he had a chance to amend the motion he would tack on some of the other parties as a kind of afterthought.
The hon. member for Levis endeavoured to explain to us the purpose behind the amendment. I understand the purpose and I think there is nothing wrong with it. Certainly no one wants to see a lot of fictitious names on the ballot. The hon. member said that he is not a lawyer. Neither am I, but I understand that when you are contesting a case before a judge it is not the purpose behind the section that counts but what the section itself says. Let us not support an amendment that even the mover would just as soon have withdrawn at this moment. The hon. member for Cartier complained that the committee would not allow the amendment to be withdrawn and that this was adding confusion to the confusion that already existed. I can say amen to that because there is a great deal of confusion here. The confusion, of course, is in the Liberal party. They have got their signals mixed. This session the
Canada Elections Act
Liberal party has been talking about planning. They have been planning all over the place for the government and for the country but they cannot do a simple little bit of planning within their own party on a very simple proposition of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Bourget: What about your own party?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would not think my hon. friends would be quite so sensitive. I can understand that they are embarrassed. It happens to all of us at some time or other but it is not necessary for them to show their embarrassment by such strong language and by interrupting so much. I should like to see the government members be a little more tolerant tonight. Having regard to the embarrassing position of the Liberal party, let us allow them to withdraw their amendment. Let us not be so unkind to them at this stage of the session as to ask them to stand up and vote for something that obviously should not be passed or to vote against it and embarrass one of their colleagues and one of our friends in the House of Commons.
This amendment is a mistake. I think the hon. member for St. Denis should be given the privilege of withdrawing it as that would probably be the easiest way out of their embarrassing position.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I was kind towards the C.C.F. leader, but I have just noted that my attitude, which shows more fairness towards his party, is appreciated in a curious way.
That is the spirit shown by the C.C.F. leader and that is the reward I get for the kindness I have shown him.
It is claimed that I am embarrassed on account of that amendment. I am not at all.
You know how we call those who never change their minds.
If members of the Conservative party, as well as those of the C.C.F. party changed their minds as often as they change clothes, I think they would have more success in the house and with the Canadian public.
Something amazes me, and it is the statement that this amendment is undemocratic whereas, in fact, it was drafted by the friends of the Union nationale party-I see several of them sitting right here.
As far as I am concerned, if the Conservative party wants us to vote on this amendment, it won't embarrass me a bit to vote against my own amendment, in all fairness towards other parties.


André-Gilles Fortin: This man is logical, very logical.

Canada Elections Act
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Order. Before I ask whether the committee is ready for the question I wonder whether I should not ask if the com-mi'ttee will grant leave to the hon. member to withdraw the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 107 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 108-Act to apply in votes taken under Canada Temperance Act.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wanted to ask the minister to just how much of Canada this particular act now applies.


Léon Balcer: The last two counties in which votes were held were Huron and Perth.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The reason I asked the question was that I understood the Canada Temperance Act no longer had any application anywhere in Canada, and I just wanted to be brought up to date.


Léon Balcer: But someone could petition that these counties become dry again and that is why this section of the act is still retained.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 109 to 116 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules I to IV inclusive agreed to.
On the title-
Leon David Crestohl: Before we carry the title, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister for a word of explanation about one section which went by in the confusion between the amendments which we had and the fact that we did not have a copy of the bill before us. I do not propose to move any amendment, but I should like the minister to give me some explanation on the wording of clause 21, paragraph 5, which reads:
-by signing a nomination paper in form No. 27 stating therein such particulars of the name, address and occupation of each person proposed as sufficiently to identify such candidate,-
The question I should like to have the minister answer for the record is whether a candidate must give his right name or can he take a name that he is using but which is not his name by birth or his legal name?


Jacques Flynn: I assume the hon. member has leave to ask this question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léon Balcer: He can use the name that is on the nomination paper. It does not necessarily mean that this name is his only Christian name. He may use a nickname, but

at the time he decides what name he is going to use on the nomination paper that is the name that is printed on the ballot.


Leon David Crestohl: May I ask for a little more clarification. I can understand that a man could use a nickname, but could he use, as his surname, one that is not his? Assuming that I want to use the name Babe Ruth because I am a good ball player, and my friends call me Babe Ruth but that is not my name, could I use such a name? There are instances, and I believe the chief electoral officer knows exactly what I am referring to, where a man has used a name which was not legally his. He has not had his name changed by due process of law; he just uses the name. If I use the name Babe Ruth or the name of some popular hockey player, I do not believe that is what the law intends because you will elect a man called Babe Ruth who is not Babe Ruth.
I think the minister should make a statement on that, as to whether the name of a candidate who may be elected to be a member of the House of Commons must be his genuine name or the name he obtained by legal processes.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, this matter was raised in committee. Of course, the rule is that a person should use his genuine name, the name that he uses usually and the name by which he is known in his constituency. Of course nicknames have been used, and they were used in cases where they were the genuine names of the persons. They were the names under which the persons were known in the ridings.


Leon David Crestohl: I am afraid I still have not got a clear indication. If my name were Brown, could I call myself Jones?


Mr. Jones:: No.


Leon David Crestohl: If my name were Bob Brown -I apologize to the hon. gentleman-and I have a nickname, could I have my name put on the ballot as Jones? Jones is not my name, by any stretch of the imagination, but I use it as a trade name.


Léon Balcer: The answer is no.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I cannot see any possible reason why anyone named Brown would want to call himself Jones.


Leon David Crestohl: I realize the difficulty in both cases. It is a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. In order to eliminate any confusion I should like the minister simply to state whether a man named Brown can

put his name on a ballot paper as Jones because he uses the name Jones? Would the minister say no?


Léon Balcer: I said no previously. He is entitled to use his legal name. If his name is Brown he uses Brown. If he is well known to the riding as Dick Brown, if he wants to use the first name of Dick, that is all right.


Leon David Crestohl: Can he use the name Dick Jones?


Léon Balcer: No.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should see these amendments.

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


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
41. Grant in respect of the net operating requirements of the radio and television services, $62,085,000.
Jacques Flynn: This item will be found on page 11 of the blue book, the details on page 128.
(Translation):


Mr. Campeau:: Mr. Chairman, until now in the discussion of the C.B.C. estimates, my colleagues have mostly dealt with the cultural point of view. Obviously, two main features must be taken into account when an organization such as the C.B.C. is being considered.
First, there is the matter of ideas. There is also the matter of the technical vehicle to convey those ideas.
As an engineer, I feel it is my duty to point out to my colleagues the technical aspect of the C.B.C.
Canadian engineers, and especially French Canadian engineers, may rightly be proud of the technical achievements of the C.B.C.
If we compare the C.B.C. radio and T.Y. systems with those in other countries, we
Supply-C.B.C.
have no reason to be ashamed of what has been produced in Canada.
Those engineers who performed miracles with so little in so little time, in a vast country with a dual culture, really deserve praise.
We must not forget that Canada had its first radio facilities only a generation ago, that is around 1920, while television began in 1952 and yet more than 96 per cent of Canadian families already have radio coverage and almost 80 per cent enjoy television. We must especially take into account the vastness of our country. In fact, the radio network covers more than 15,000 miles and the T.V. network covers the greater part of the country from sea to sea.
Moreover, we must take into consideration the two cultures existing in this country and I believe that nobody will deny that radio and television are factors which contributed more than anything else to Canadian unity.
We should really take into account the contribution to Canadian unity of that technical means of communication, thanks to the work of our Canadian engineers.
I want to quote a few names: Dr. Augustin Frigon, Mr. Alphonse Ouimet, Lucien L'Allier-now director of the department of the public works of the city of Montreal- Andre Ste. Marie, the present chief engineer, and I unfortunately cannot quote them all, but I believe that all these engineers have a right to our gratitude because of the considerable work they accomplished.
I was able to appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the vast concepts of those technicians who are managing the C.B.C. As technical adviser of the committee on housing and renovation of the city of Montreal, I have been able to satisfy myself of the co-operative mind shown by the representatives of the C.B.C. with regard to the municipal authorities of Montreal, and of their great civic spirit with regard to their French-speaking fellow citizens in the eastern part of central Montreal.
I do not hesitate to pay them tribute publicly for the excellent work they have done in their negotiations with the city of Montreal, in order to find an appropriate site, in Montreal, for the future French language T.V. and radio centre for the whole country.
On behalf of the citizens of the constituency of St. James which I have the honour to represent here, Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the management of the C.B.C. for having had the courage and wisdom to choose

Supply-C.B.C.
as the site of that future T.V. and radio French centre, that old "faubourg de Quebec", in the very heart of the French-speaking population of the centre of the metropolis.
Construction of that huge centre will involve slum clearance and the replacement of those physically and morally filthy houses by comfortable ones. It will increase the value of neighbouring properties, and will bring about shortly the complete renovation of a huge decaying centre, to which no one seemed to pay any interest until now.
I must pay tribute to the vision of Alphonse Ouimet, president of the C.B.C., to his assistant, colonel Rene Landry and to all their associates, who made those negotiations possible and have thus insured the continued technical development of the C.B.C.
I trust Mr. Chairman, that this project which has been approved and supported by the downtown Montreal businessmen's association called the centre commercial de Montreal and by many other business and civic organizations in eastern Montreal will also be approved by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), for the benefit of the Montreal area, the province of Quebec and the whole of Canada.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, let me stress once again the technical aspects of the C.B.C. Those aspects should retain a dominant position in a country as large as ours, where communications are of vital importance. It would be unfortunate if the heights reached by our technicians and engineers in the fields of radio and television were forgotten in the midst of quarrels on other aspects of the problem.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I am rather flabbergasted at hearing such great truths on the C.B.C. from the mouth of a Conservative member from Quebec, and would ask for leave to call it ten o'clock. Are we sitting till eleven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No, no, you are all mixed up.


Augustin Brassard: I am not mixed up, you are the ones who will be confused if you listen to my speech.
Mr. Chairman, first I should like to commend the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Campeau) for sounding a very refreshing note, quite different from the others we have

heard on the estimates of the C.B.C., as introduced by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan).
I am greatly interested in the operations of the C.B.C., and I know every Canadian is interested, while the French network is of concern to every French-speaking Canadian, not only in the province of Quebec, but throughout Canada. I believe the former administration as well as the present one have done much to extend in the other provinces the service of the French network to our compatriots. And it is also for that reason that I have been a little concerned by the remarks made in this house by certain Conservative members from Quebec.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul), for one, proffered many charges. But he did not bring any proof of what he said. He complained that the C.B.C. does not encourage local artists, that the corporation brought in from Paris a Canadian songstress to sing Canadian songs. I believe it is time that his colleagues make their choice between what they want and what they do not want; and once they have made their choice, they should work in an intelligent way to reach their goal.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere also criticized an employee of the corporation for having stayed at the Windsor hotel for a certain number of days in February 1959.
If his memory serves him right, he will recall that this was at about the time when we had a strike of the corporation's employees in Montreal. Could it not be, perchance, that the employee who stayed at the Windsor hotel in Montreal was an official of the head office who would have had to move to Montreal for this whole period in order to meet the authorities of the C.B.C., the local authorities and the striker's representatives?
The hon. member then gave a list of programs and mentioned names. I agree with him on certain points. I do not approve of all the programs of the C.B.C. They do not all please me. But, I do not think that my taste should be the standard of the taste of all other Canadians. There are some programs I like and others I do not like.
The hon. member told us how much those programs cost. I would have been much interested to know what kind of programs he would have substituted to those who are already on the C.B.C. schedule. And, once again, I readily agree that the C.B.C. does

not produce perfect programs only. The corporation tries to improve, I hope, and if we consider helping it, it is not only by criticizing those who look after the programming that we shall succeed.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere told us how surprised he was at what happened on the French radio network, on the French T.V. network, the night of June 22nd. He stated, as if he had the proof, that Hon. Dozois, Hon. Thibault, Hon. Bertrand and Hon. Johnson were not invited to appear on television following the June 22nd development in the province of Quebec. I ran twice as a candidate at elections in my region where we have a private T.V. station. I remember very well, and I still have the documents that the local station wrote twice during both elections to invite all the candidates to appear on television to make any comments they wished, whether elected or defeated. And I remember very well answering twice that whatever the results might be, I would go; therefore, I would be very surprised if the C.B.C. which has a wide experience in that field, had not done the same.
I shall certainly inquire of responsible authorities and write to none other than the hon. Minister of National Revenue who will supply me, I hope, with this information.
Those are accusations that are altogether unfounded and vicious. I admit that some C.B.C. people may not be doing their duty. Some people in the C.B.C. have faults like anybody in this house. There are in the province of Quebec certain people who sincerely want to help those persons who have built our French television network. If these people wish to make an intelligent contribution, it is not by throwing mud at people in parliament, that they will succeed. If these people are intelligent, and I am sure that many of them are, they are going to inquire and if they should come up with facts showing that this or that happened, and should they really want to help the minister and the authorities of C.B.C. they will acquaint the latter of their findings and ask them to act. If the minister does not do anything, I would then understand, in those circumstances, that the hon. members would want to rise in the house to unburden their mind, referring then to the famous mopping-up at C.B.C.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: "La Belle de Ceans."


Augustin Brassard: "La belle de Ceans". I think that the authorities admitted
Supply-C.B.C.
in a public document that there had been a mistake in that case. And the C.B.C. authorities have offered their excuses to the clergy and the Canadian viewers.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Did they straighten it up?


Georges-J. Valade: They raised the producer's salary.


Augustin Brassard: That is another question that I will put to the Minister of National Revenue.
False accusations were made, and I promise to obtain the required information by addressing myself directly to the Minister of National Revenue. As far as this particular aspect of the question is concerned, as far as the error committed in presenting that famous program which was so much talked about is concerned, I believe that the authorities have presented due apology and that they have not demeaned themselves by admitting that certain people made a mistake. One does not lower himself by admitting that he has made a mistake, provided that he does not repeat the same mistake.
I am sure that the C.B.C. authorities have been taught a lesson by that painful experience that was deplored by everyone and I do not think that such programs will be seen again on the French network-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Tell us about the program______


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) has something to say, he will have every opportunity to do so when I am through.
To come back to that matter of clean-up, I wonder at times whether those who spend their time talking about cleanliness and clean-up do not mean by that the dismissal of all C.B.C. employees who do not share their views. I think that is the kind of clean-up they want in the C.B.C.


An hon. Member:: That is why you are
against it.


Louis Fortin: You do not want to get rid of them.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Whom are you protecting?


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I agree with some of the criticism which has been voiced. All things are not going well in the C.B.C. As I already said in this house, the corporation is composed of human beings like all of us. But, who, in this house,

Supply-C.B.C.
would boast of never making a mistake? What is gained by such criticism? Attempts are being made to tarnish the efforts which the authorities of the C.B.C. are constantly making in order to improve their service.
There is also another thing. After we managed to set up a French network here, some people now try to destroy it.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: That is untrue.


Mr. Asselin:: Shame.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, let those who say "it is untrue", rise and speak. We know them. There is no question of shame. Read over the speeches made in this house since the Conservatives have been in power. Read them over and tell me what the purpose is of such insidious remarks and dishonest accusations! Who is wrong, in all this? Just tell me, and, if I am wrong, I will admit it.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about "La Belle de Ceans".


Augustin Brassard: I shall have that title, "La Belle de Ceans" recorded and give some free copies to two or three of my colleagues from the province of Quebec.


Louis Fortin: The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) will do such a thing, will he?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: The hon. member for St. Jean will sell them for you.


Augustin Brassard: The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) is a man I rather like.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Be kind.


Augustin Brassard: He often makes surprising remarks, but he nevertheless shows some intelligence when he speaks.
In his speech, last Friday, he too proffered some accusations which astonished me a great deal. I hope he also wishes that the C.B.C. gives us programs interesting for everyone and that the C.B.C. does honour to its government and to our country. Yet, he should know that the C.B.C. has earned several trophies. Again last year, if my memory serves me right, it earned the Italia trophy in an international competition, for its interpretation of dramatical works. As I just said, the trophies earned by the C.B.C. are innumerable; but it is certainly no thanks to the recommendation of certain Conservative members from Quebec that it has been able to earn those international trophies.
If we want to be genuinely sincere in the purposes we want to achieve, in the speeches

we make in this house, I think we should be in a position to prove our statements. I repeat what I said a moment ago: if we really want to help the Minister of National Revenue to fulfil his functions in an efficient, practical and concrete way, let us go and see him in his office, let us give him proof of what we claim, let us tell him our concern about the improvement of the management of the C.B.C. and of its programs. Let us offer our cooperation to the minister. But let us not come here in the house to be the laughingstock of our colleagues from the nine other provinces.
I resent that way of doing things, because, like several other members, I am not that kind of Canadian. In behaving that way, Mr. Chairman, we are opening doors to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who is always too happy to use them.
Through this kind of behaviour, we also justify the first sentence of the speech delivered in this house by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) on the C.B.C. estimates. Unfortunately, I do not have the text of his speech at hand, but I think I recall that the hon. member said something like this:
"Mr. Chairman, when those quarrels are over in Quebec, I shall commence."
I should like to revert, for the last time, to what I was saying a moment ago. It is the responsibility of any hon. member who has something serious against the C.B.C. to call on the proper authorities and place the evidence on their desk and say: "Unless you do something about it, we will arouse public opinion". Ministers or authorities should not be subjected to blackmail. The proper way is to call on them and tell them candidly what is wrong, with appropriate proof, and then to say: "Now it is your duty to act". And if they refuse to act, then there is ample time to do what has been done in this house since
1957.
Mr. Chairman, such tactics are such as to arouse suspicions in every citizen not only of the province of Quebec, but of other provinces as well, as to the things going on in our province.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to check a few of the accidental and unfounded charges made in this house, and I will certainly speak plainly when the occasion arises.
Apparently, an attempt is being made to use the tactics of Voltaire, who would often say: "Keep lying and lying, and eventually

some of it will stick". Great liars end up believing their own lies. When you cast mud, you end up smearing people.


An hon. Member:: You are right, it is true.


Louis Fortin: You are smearing us, all right.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin). Should a person who gets a dustpan and a broom to pick up what has been thrown on the floor be insulted? That is what I am trying to do presently, and my honourable friends from the province of Quebec are shocked. The proper course to follow would have been not to throw anything on the floor and to act like responsible men in this house.
Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in telling the house that the Conservative members from Quebec are not all of that stamp, and I am glad of that, for one would get a wrong idea of the province of Quebec if I were to say they are all alike. One must not see it through certain speeches on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that were made in this house.
The French network of the C.B.C. is not free of all mistakes, as I have said, and many others too, but if we compare it to the television service in France, I feel that our network is doing very well. In fact, it has taken away many international trophies from the television network of France. And yet France has a population of little over 44 million inhabitants. Its television system operates 50 to 53 or 54 hours a week.
We in Canada have a little more than 18 million people. Our French network can reach 5 million listeners or viewers and is on the air for 75 hours a week.
As I said, there is not a single year when C.B.C. does not win a great number of trophies for its radio and television programs. As recently as last year, the C.B.C. won the prize for good citizenship which was awarded to it by the United States National Safety Council, at Columbus, Ohio. It has been the same in many other fields.
That does not mean that all C.B.C. programs have a very high quality. It does not mean either that everything that is broadcast over the same network is likely to satisfy the most voracious intellectual appetites in my province.
But we must take into consideration a certain balance in the programming of the C.B.C.
Supply-C.B.C.
That is the tough part. I am not saying that the C.B.C. is successful in maintaining that certain balance. I am saying that it is difficult for the authorities of the corporation to develop that balance and to succeed in maintaining it.
However, if we want to help the corporation, we can convey our ideas to it and discuss the matter with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). There is nothing he would like better than a sound administration of the C.B.C. Nothing he would like better than to see the corporation broadcasting programs in accordance with the taste of the majority of the viewers and listeners.
I would like also, Mr. Chairman, to say a word about the international service of the C.B.C. Everyone recalls that this international service was set up during the last world war.
I do not think I would exaggerate the role that it played and is still playing by saying that it projects a picture of Canada in the various countries where it is heard.
I do not think I would err either in saying that the international service of the C.B.C. spreads the ideals of our democracy, of our way of life and that of the western countries.
I must admit quite frankly that the former administration, particularly in the latter years-it was at the time of the Liberal government, and this time will come back soon- did not always fully understand the part the international service plays. But the present administration does not understand it either. At the time of its creation, we realized the psychological influence it could have on the countries where it broadcast its programs.
As for Russia, that country fully realizes the whole influence of the international service that it established. Russia realizes it to the extent that it started three or four months ago, I believe, a daily service to Africa.
The publicity machinery, propagandist of Soviet Russia, is fantastic. It is nothing new for anybody to say that Russia will soon open a university that will be called the international friendship university. This institution will extend free admission to students from Latin America, Asia and Africa.
Those students will be treated in such a way that they will never forget, once they are back home, the kindness shown to them.
In brief, Russia leaves no stone unturned to make known its ambitions, its philosophy, its way of thinking, its Leninism or its Khrushchevism.

Supply-C.B.C.
It seems to me that in Canada, within the limits of our financial possibilities evidently, we should contribute more to the propagating of the ideals of our democratic system.
Consequently, I urge the Minister of National Revenue to try to get a better understanding of the significance for us and for our spiritual and intellectual values, of the work done abroad, and often in countries behind the iron curtain, by the international service in all fields.
The director of the international service- I am talking from experience, because without ever being in charge of that service I worked there for two years-the director is working under difficult conditions. Concerning the programming of political or politically related programs abroad, the director of the international service must keep in constant touch with the authorities of the Department of External Affairs.
Furthermore, he maintains a close contact with the Minister of National Revenue, the treasury board and the national network. Thus, this director has to deal with a lot of employers.
I believe, it is at least my impression, on seeing the budget being cut down each year, that he has to begin, anew, each time he meets an employer, to explain the importance of the international service.
I would like to see the present government give consideration to this matter and make it less difficult and less arduous for the director of the international service to operate.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I wish to remember how things were when I was myself an employee of the corporation in that department.
I have not seen the director of the international service for months. I say that for the benefit of my hon. friends who are always ready to say that we meet with the authorities in order to get information. I do not think they do us any harm in that respect.
Last year, in fact in this house, an hon. member produced a copy of a brief which could not have been obtained without the collusion of a C.B.C. employee. This copy of the brief was certainly not obtained through the help of a member of the Liberal party.
In brief, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the C.B.C. French network has made a very great contribution-and I want to be fair to

the hon. member for Berthier-Maski-nonge-Delanaudiere who said so in his remarks, the contribution made by the French network to Canada's national unity has been very substantial. The present government also did its best in this regard.
I should like all of us to understand that we must keep our French network, and that if we want to improve it we ought not to behave as we have been behaving right here in the face of our people.
I urge my fellow members from the province of Quebec to consider this thought. If they really want to help the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, let them make representations to persons in authority.
Their government is in power, and their government is therefore able to help the C.B.C. Let the minister be approached and hear the complaints, and I am sure he will be responsible enough to take the necessary steps, when he has evidence.
In concluding, I want to tender my deepest sympathy to the Minister of National Revenue with regard to certain accusations voiced against him, in a very veiled and clever way, by some hon. members in this house. If I might repeat a suggestion I already made, I would say that he might appoint as chairman of that corporation, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), who has great qualifications. Moreover, he might give him as assistant the hon. member for Chambly-Rou-ville, and as judicial authority who would investigate it all and superintend the latter's work, well, Mr. Chairman, he might appoint the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere (Mr. Paul).
I hope the minister will take-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Augustin Brassard: I have concluded my speech and I thank the minister in advance for all his sympathy and consideration with regard to my suggestions.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Augustin Brassard: Certainly.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: What authority has the hon. member for Lapointe to distribute jobs like this to all his colleagues in the Conservative party? Does he admit that the Liberals are still managing the C.B.C.?

(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: I have no authority whatsoever in this respect. I was simply meeting the tacitly implied wish of those hon. members who have taken part in this debate on the Conservative side.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened with much pleasure and amusement to the speech which has just been delivered in this house. I think the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, in the full sense of the word, has had a good idea in recalling the memory of Voltaire and of his famous saying:
Lie and keep lying; some of it is bound to stick.
He could not have said better, under the circumstances, to describe his party and his own words.
Mr. Speaker, of his entire speech, what I remember is the courage and boldness which he has shown when he said with feeling: "I shall try to summarize my thought." In fact, much courage and boldness were necessary, but I would say the only things lacking were competence and subject matter.


Augustin Brassard: You have it all.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: What I must emphasize also is the gracious nomination he kindly made. He kindly recommended that I become through Her Majesty's gracious intervention, the president of the C.B.C. Please note-and I dare admit it-that I would be glad of it, were it not that I really have no such pretension. All the criticisms I have made in this house had only one purpose, Mr. Chairman, and it was to reply to the representations, criticisms, questions and requests addressed to me by my electors, by those who have asked me legitimately to represent them here, and by all those who, in the province of Quebec, are concerned, and rightly so, about the atmosphere which exists particularly on the French network of the C.B.C.
I heard a moment ago my hon. colleague declare bluntly that we had indulged in mud slinging, that we had thrown garbage on the floor of this house, and that he had given himself the mission of picking it up. I regret, Mr. Chairman, but I will not be so insolent as to believe that my colleague is a garbage collector, but none the less I should like to denounce that cheap accusation he has made. I thought he was intelligent, I still believe it, except that, after what he said tonight, I am unable to award him the good points I would have liked to give the excellent student he seemed to be when we were in school together.
79951-0-389
Supply-C.B.C.
I do not wish to come back tonight on the subjects I have already dealt with many times. On several occasions, I looked into the problems of the C.B.C., especially those of the French network. I have always been careful to note that the C.B.C. had rendered outstanding services to our country. And if my hon. colleague wishes to refer to the first speech I delivered in this house about the C.B.C., he will be able to read on page 4264 of the French version of Hansard what I said then and which is far removed from the words he dared put in my mouth. This is what I said:
It Is appropriate, I think, to commend the promoters of that movement. They tried in complete good faith to protect us from being too much affected by the United States civilization. At the same time, they have set up a state-owned organization whose value we shall never praise too much.
I repeated the same praises time and again and particularly a few months ago. This is what I said, and this can be found in Hansard of April 8, 1960,-I cannot give the exact page because I have here a separate copy,-
I shall have the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to come back to the specific matter of programs. I shall then be able to specify the general criticisms I have just made, because it is not my intention to cast reflection on those C.B.C. officials who are doing remarkable work with a scrupulous conscientiousness and in a spirit steeped in the best cultural traditions.
There again, Mr. Chairman, I had praised with much good faith, and also with much pleasure the excellent productions of the C.B.C. No one will deny that the French network, in particular-it is the one I am especially interested in-has given us excellent productions and put excellent programs on the air, but this does not prevent me from criticizing the corporation and denouncing the abuse which creeps in its activities.
The hon. member who spoke before me said that we were making against the C.B.C. a case which consisted in unsubstantiated denunciations, in unfounded charges. I, myself, pointed out on various occasions that the C.B.C. has a well known sympathy for certain people representing a certain school of thought. I pointed out, that most of the time the forum programs had commentators who are invited so often that they seem to be life pensioners of the corporation.
I would like to give here an example of a case in which I have been, not the victim, but the object. In October 1959, that is-if I may use legal terms-on or about

Supply-C.B.C.
October 23, 1959, I received from Montreal a phone call from a moderator or rather-I beg your pardon-the producer of the program "Tribune libre", who invited me to participate in a panel program whose theme was to be the following: "Is a member of parliament free within his own party?" The person who called me gave me many details and I asked him the following question: "Who will be invited on this program?" He replied: "Well, sir, we are trying to have a balance of opinions. That is why we invited representatives of the various political parties, that is a representative of the Liberal party, one of the Conservative party, and one from the Rassemblement des Electeurs, a party which does not exist outside the province of Quebec. That is what I was told by the person who called me. I was also told there would be an independent member. When I asked for details, I was told that Pierre Elliot-Trudeau would represent the Rassemblement, that Paul Lacoste would be the moderator; that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) would represent the Liberal party, despite his Conservative background; and I was told that the independent member would of all people, be the former Liberal member for Quebec-Montmorency, Mr. Wilfrid Lacroix. I then asked the caller: Are you kidding, or are you being serious? He said Mr. Lacroix had always been an independent member, and there the matter rested. I refused, on the following grounds: I felt that in that particular instance, the C.B.C. was obviously displaying a partisan attitude in inviting on the same panel two representatives of the Liberal party. That is what prevented me from taking part in this program "Tribune Libre".
I could mention many other cases of this type, Mr. Chairman, but the speeches I have made so far on the subject of the C.B.C. have dealt mainly with the attitude and mood prevailing in the C.B.C. Last year, I stated my position quite clearly. I denounced certain attitudes, and at no time would I hesitate to repeat what I said, because as a citizen and a representative of several thousands of citizens, I have a right to say quite candidly what I sincerely believe about the C.B.C. But I did more than denounce attitudes; or accuse individuals, I made suggestions. I was quite surprised that a moment ago, the hon. member who spoke before me made no mention of them. I would simply refer him to the speech I made last Friday, in which I

made suggestions, notably for setting up a royal commission on the administration of the C.B.C.
A commission whose main purpose would not be to inquire only into broadcasting in general, as was the case especially for the Fowler commission, but a commission which would examine in detail all the aspects of the C.B.C. administration.
And I repeat, not with a view to uncovering scandals, to accusing this one or that one, but with a view to giving the people the satisfaction of knowing how the C.B.C. uses the taxpayers money. Such a request has been made for years and we have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. We were told the other day, I think it was, by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets): "But you only have to ask questions." Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is unfair to say "put your questions to the officials and the minister sitting in front of you". Last year, we had a parliamentary committee. We put the questions we were urged by the public to put and we did not get any answers. We were laughed at and got vague and often insolent replies. I, myself have been treated in such an overbearing manner by highly placed officials in the C.B.C. And when I asked, for instance, what principles and criteria were followed by the corporation in such and such a case and for such and such a program, I was told that the aim of the corporation was to present wholesome and entertaining programs. That was not the answer I was looking for. I wanted to know what was the governing idea, the line of thought of those in charge of the C.B.C., and especially of programming, and if their aim was to present programs in accordance to French thought and French culture and to religious and moral principles from which we seek inspiration.
Mr. Chairman, allow me before I conclude to clear up a matter. I usually ignore the stupid remarks that the member for Hull (Mr. Caron) takes the liberty of uttering in this house. However, for the sake of truth I must challenge the insanities he uttered the other day, especially at page 17 of the appendix to Hansard where he said in a language which, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall not qualify:
He should be the last one to complain about patronage-
That is I.
-because, if my memory serves me right- (si je me rappelle bien)

Of course, he should have said "si je me le rappelle bien", because here we are dealing with a transitive verb.
-following a vote, he went to the C.B.C.- and, which is rather unusual-asked to he interviewed during the news broadcast in order to explain his vote in the House of Commons. I do not know of any other member who has been authorized by the C.B.C. to explain a vote he had cast the very same afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, what I am up against, are not the barbarisms and solecisms of the excerpt I just read out, but the absolute lack of truth in what it contains, which in no way describes the real facts. I have never, at any time, asked anybody in the C.B.C. to be interviewed in the news. The statement made by the member for Hull is incorrect and absolutely contrary to the facts.
Mr. Chairman, this evening I would have liked to come back on certain matters which have already been dealt with, but I wonder whether it is really necessary to do so. The suggestions I made the other day clearly indicate my views and my intentions. But in order to satisfy the conscience of the Liberal members who like to hear us asking questions, I shall ask the Minister of National Revenue the following: "What is the policy of the C.B.C. with regard to tenders for any sort of contracts? Are tenders called for buildings, for instance? Are tenders called for the purchase of materials entering, for instance, into settings and costumes? Are tenders called for each of those items?" The question was asked last year, and no satisfactory answer has yet been given.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like, in closing my remarks, to thank the C.B.C. for the magnificent productions it has given in the past. I do not hesitate to do it tonight, as every time I took the floor in this house.
And I should like also to call the attention of my colleagues on the fact that our purpose, our desire, is not to find quarrel with the senior officials of the corporation, not to indict such and such individual, but that our desire is simply to know how things are done in the C.B.C., how public funds are utilized and how are chosen the various persons responsible for the education of the public, for its entertainment and recreation.
I should like to recall at this point the principles set out in the corporation's white paper on the particular problem of information. I quote:
79951-0-3891
Supply-C.B.C.
1.	The air belongs to the people, who have a right to hear the main points of view on any important question.
2.	The air must not come under the domination of individuals or groups who are powerful because of their resources or particular situation.
3.	The right to rebuttal is inherent in the democratic doctrine of freedom of speech.
4.	Freedom of speech and the free exchange of opinions are two of the main bulwarks of the freedom of institutions.
And I add this in reply to those who say we are wrong in referring to political favoritism in the C.B.C. and to a monopoly in the field of thought. To reply to this, I will quote an excerpt from the address of Mgr. Paul-Emile Gosselin on the influence of the press, motion picture, radio and television during the 34th social week of Canada. I quote from page 180 of the report:
However, we do not believe that the state radio and television wholly and faithfully reflect the national sense of French Canada. The goal is difficult to achieve in such a field. Without engaging in discussions which seem rather useless, we would wish that all the schools of national thought would have access to the official tribunes. To that end, those who are in charge of the programs would have to be broadminded enough to admit that some people may entertain opinions that are different from theirs on free matters and that there are, outside their circles, sincere patriots who are familiar with the problems of the day.
(Text):


Mr. Korchinski:: I have a few remarks to make on this subject. The brevity of my remarks, however, should not be construed by the minister or by the C.B.C. to mean that our problem is not a big one. I wish the minister in showing his appreciation for my few brief remarks, would pay special heed to our problem.
Our problem is not a new one. Representations have been made by me in the past and by the hon. member for Churchill, the hon. member for Dauphin and other members from that particular area who are interested in bringing television to that area of northern Manitoba. My interest is this. If television were extended into that area, my riding also would be served. The need is there. I will not go into that phase of it. The sentiments I feel on this subject were expressed by the hon. member for Churchill. I should like only to say that I concur fully with what he has already said.
My correspondence with the president of the C.B.C. led me to believe that if an announcement were to be made of a policy

Supply-C.B.C.
setting out any extension into the north we would be duly informed. However, I note that recently a statement was made to the effect that kinescope recordings will be made available to that area of The Pas and other places. This is better than nothing. However this presents a further problem. Recently the Yorkton station had its services extended into the areas in Manitoba of Swan River and Dauphin. I am sure the people of that area appreciate that fact. However, the further problem is that the area in between Swan River and Dauphin and the areas of The Pas and Flin Flon are unserved. The service is poor at best. As a matter of fact, the chamber of commerce in the town of Hudson Bay suggested that unless the television service would soon be improved they would advertise for an optometrist.
On reviewing the report of the Fowler commission I note that the forecast of net operating expenditures for 1958, 1959 and 1960, in round figures, were $44 million, $50 million and $55 million and that government estimates were $51 million, $58 million and $62 million, again in round figures. It is to be noted there that the government estimates were in most cases higher than the forescast that was made by the Fowler commission, that is, on their net operating expenditures. Again, on the estimates of capital costs, for the same respective years, the Fowler commission forecast $10 million, $14 million and $13 million for the years 1958, 1959 and 1960 respectively, in round figures, and the government estimates were $8 million, $9 million and $7 million for the respective years.
It seems that we have sacrificed expansion because of increased operating costs. I should only like to say that those operating costs are perhaps in some cases warranted. The operating costs fall into one of three categories that I have mentioned, namely requests for second stations, extensions of time so that television can be viewed earlier in the day and requests for coloured television. I submit that this is hardly fair.
An example of the first category, namely requests for second stations, is to be found in the city of Edmonton in connection with the new station there. I will not dwell on that matter. As for the other two points, I wish the minister would enlighten us and indicate whether, where there is an extension of time, this has meant that the operating costs are greater and that we have been sacrificed in that we are not able to get television because of that fact. Again, I say that is not fair.
[Mr. Korchinski.l
The third point is one which will perhaps become more serious. There is no doubt that there will be a certain amount of agitation for colour television. Agitation for colour television could come only from areas at present served. I wish the minister in summing up would assure us that no such consideration will be given unless areas now unserved are given a chance to get at least some television.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Nowlan:: No. I think it would be hardly fair to carry this item. After listening to the turbulence of this debate all I can think of are these words:
The tumult and the shouting dies;
The captains and the kings depart:
Still stands thine ancient sacrifice.
An humble and a contrite heart.
I think it might be a sort of epitaph to this extremely interesting debate. Since it is eleven o'clock and as I doubt that it is advisable to allow this item to pass at this time, I think it would be better to call it eleven o'clock and deal with this matter tomorrow, I hope.
Progress reported.


PRIVATE BILLS
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house would give me permission to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the house. I would ask that the order of the house with respect to Bill SD-479 be discharged-the bill was reported back yesterday by the committee, I believe-and that it be recommitted to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. I am sorry that I have not the formal motion drafted.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. McCleave, seconded by Mr. Thompson, moves that the order referring Bill No. SD-479 to the committee of the whole be discharged and that the said bill be referred back to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? What number is it?


Robert Jardine McCleave: It is No. 479. It was reported back by the committee yesterday. It is not on today's order paper but it will be added.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill referred to standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Lionel Chevrier: May I have an indication of what the business is for tomorrow and the succeeding days?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The first item tomorrow will be third reading of the Canada Elections Act, followed by the estimates which we have been dealing with tonight, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the board of broadcast governors. In view of the long hours, with each day being the equivalent of
12, 1960	6171
Business of the House
two normal sitting days, perhaps we might finish those estimates by two o'clock and then go on with the Department of Transport estimates which have been before the house on other occasions. There again, if we finish by six o'clock we would have public works available for tomorrow evening.
On Thursday we propose to start with the estimates of external affairs, which have been through committee of course, and if that debate concludes by, say, six o'clock, we would continue with public works in the evening.
On Friday it appears at the moment we will be able to go ahead with the estimates of the Department of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]


		
		
		
		
		
		*
		
		
		
		
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 13, 1960