1960-08-01

Mr. Speaker:: I think I should call the attention of the house to a clerical omission from the order paper. Under government orders there should appear a further item reading:
July 30-House again in committee of supply (the messages of His Excellency the Governor General with estimates, supplementary and further supplementary estimates, referred)-The Minister of Finance.



PUBLIC WORKS


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will be interested to know that the investigation which was commenced several weeks ago into possible criminal activities in certain public works projects in northwestern Quebec has now advanced to the point that it appears that criminal charges should be laid.
Accordingly my colleague the Minister of Justice is appointing counsel to assess the evidence now available, to advise as to the course of further criminal investigations, and to draft the charges that should be laid. The house can be assured that the completion of this aspect of this investigation and the laying of charges against all those who may be involved in a criminal way will be pressed with the greatest possible speed.



EXPROPRIATION ACT


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-88 to amend the Expropriation Act.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This bill proposes to provide for an amendment to the Expropriation Act to require the minister in the name of the crown to give notice of intention to all interested parties of the crown's desire to take over particular properties.
I sincerely hope we can have passage of this bill this week in order to make more effective the end result of the bill of rights.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



JUDGES ACT


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee later this day to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salary for an additional judge of the supreme court of judicature of Prince Edward Island.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
July 30-The Prime Minister-(a) The following proposed motion:-That it be resolved by the... House of Commons:
That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations operations in the Congo, and that this house do approve the same.
(b) The following proposed motion consequent upon the adoption of motion "a" above:-
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this house has adopted a resolution approving of the participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations operations in the Congo, and requesting Their Honours to unite with this house in the approval of the same by filling up the blanks in the resolution with the words: "Senate and".
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Howard: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government or any department or agency thereof and any other government, person, or corporation, since January 1, 1956, dealing with the surrender of land

Motions for Papers
for a road allowance of approximately seven miles in length from the Saugeen band of Indians to the corporation of the county of Bruce.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: We shall be glad to produce whatever correspondence is available having regard to this particular deal, but I draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that there was no formal surrender of land or formal resolution regarding the surrender of land. On that basis we shall be glad to produce the correspondence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 135-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a breakdown of the estimate of the additional cost to the federal treasury of the provincial proposals at the public sessions of the federal-provincial conference on July 25 and 26, 1960, provisionally fixed by the Minister of Finance at approximately two billion dollars.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 136-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of the "Canadian Economic Outlook for 1960", prepared in the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is no such document for 1960.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish his motion to be withdrawn?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is no reason why the motion should not be passed. If there is no such document it obviously cannot be complied with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it would not be in accordance with the practices and usages of parliament to pass a motion concerning a document which does not exist.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, just a few days ago there was tabled in this house in answer to a motion for the production of papers a return showing no correspondence between the federal government and the Saskatchewan teachers' federation. I suggest with all deference that it is very much in order to have on the order paper a motion for the production of papers which may result merely in demonstrating that no such papers exist. Such motions have often been passed. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is perfectly right when he says it is in order

that this motion be passed. If no such document exists, of course, it could not be complied with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the example given is not analogous at all. A search would have to be made for correspondence. It might not be within the knowledge of the minister at the time whether that correspondence was in existence. After the motion was passed a nil return was produced, but in this instance I have given the information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid any further complications, if the house will give unanimous consent I will be very pleased to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member, because otherwise there is a difficulty presented in that the house is asked to accept a motion which involves necessarily a refusal to accept the word of the hon. gentleman, given from his place in the house. Does the house give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the state of the order paper, which is now pretty clear, could the Prime Minister give some information to the house about the arrangement for a private members' day to discuss capital punishment?
Eight Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken with the house leader in this regard. 1 am very anxious to have a day set aside for a continuance of the discussion of this subject, and this will be done as soon as an arrangement is made between representatives of the opposition and the house leader. As referred to earlier 1 will be very happy to have that day fixed by agreement. Otherwise it will be somewhat difficult to have a day fixed. We want to have a day set aside for the purpose of this discussion, as was made clear. All that is needed now is an agreement among those whose responsibility it is to facilitate the business of the house.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister if it was not the intention of the government that there would be

a conference among the house leaders as to when this could be arranged? There has been no indication that such a conference is about to take place or has taken place over the last several weeks.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the answer to that question should be given by the house leader. We want the conference to take place, we want the day to be set aside, and we want the discussion to take place.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in order to clear this up may I say that preliminary consultations were held on Saturday with hon. members on the other side of the house. I was informed that an answer would be forthcoming today. We have not yet had an opportunity today to have further consultations.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader with whom the preliminary discussions were held?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If all these things must be disclosed, yes, but it is normal for whip to consult with whip. I consulted with the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Herridge:: Quite correct.


Lionel Chevrier: No one consulted with me.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member was not here.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the general question of legislation, or action that will be required by the house for the remainder of the session, can the Prime Minister say whether parliamentary action will be required during this session to implement the government's proposal to bolster western farm income?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after we have concluded the matters that are before the house at the present time, then the house will be advised in this regard.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before the Prime Minister makes this long sought statement in the house, will a conference be held with the farm organizations to discuss this general question?


John George Diefenbaker: That, too, will be made clear at the same time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister whether one can draw from what he has said that there is no doubt there will be a declaration of policy by the government on this matter before we prorogue?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I simply point out that when parliamentary action has
Inquiries of the Ministry been taken on those matters now before us, then it will be appropriate to consider the matter in question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question. Is it clear that an announcement will be made by him, or by a member of the government, including the Prime Minister, of the government's policy with regard to the demands of the western farmers through the western liaison committee and the thousand farmers who came to Ottawa a year and a quarter ago?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisler of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite evident that I would have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister has already said in regard to this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The short answer is no.


Hazen Robert Argue: A well behaved minister.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. I regret not having given him notice of it. I wonder whether the attention of the minister or of the combines investigation branch has been drawn to a newspaper article-I am reading from a newspaper story of Saturday, July 30-which indicates that Southam Press, a large concern in the newspaper field, has purchased MacLean Publications, a publishing company, and whether this indicates it will result in any study by the combines branch.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I did see the press article on Saturday. I think it referred to the acquisition of MacLean Publishing Company, not Maclean-Hunter. There is a distinction. I have not had a chance yet to consult with the director on the matter, but I shall do so at the first opportunity to see whether his attention has also been drawn to the article.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The Fort William junior chamber of commerce is trying to secure a steam locomotive to be installed in a park area as a monument to the era of the

Inquiries of the Ministry iron horse. For one of its discarded engines the Canadian Pacific Railway wants $15,000. The Canadian National Railways donated one free to the town of Rainy River. My question is, is the minister in a position to inform the house whether the Canadian National Railways have more of these engines to give away? If not, what are they doing with those old locomotives?
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for indicating his intention to ask this question. I will pass his question along to the management of the Canadian National Railways. As soon as I have received an answer I will pass it along to him.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES NATIONAL GALLERY    REPORTED RESIGNATION OF ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether the associate director of the national gallery has submitted his resignation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge and belief the answer is no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. lady say whether she has seen the story which appeared in the Toronto Star of July 30, to this effect? If not, will the hon. lady have a look at this story and inform the house tomorrow?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have already read the article in question, and there are so many discrepancies in it that I cannot credit any of the statements contained therein.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether a company by the name of Crossroads Marine Disposal Corporation of Boston was manufacturing at Nanaimo, British Columbia, containers for the disposal of atomic wastes, and the minister said he would look into the matter. I wonder whether he now has any information to give the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have found on investigation that a firm known as International Anti-Radiation Limited was set up in
[Mr. Badanai.)
Nanaimo, British Columbia, last year to manufacture spherical containers of high density concrete, reinforcing steel, dense glass, lead and polyethylene, in which radioactive wastes might be disposed of to the sea. This company, according to press reports, has signed a contract with a United States firm, licensed to dispose of low level United States radioactive wastes, for the use of these containers in its disposal operations.
The company has not been authorized by the atomic energy control board of Canada to receive or dispose of radioactive wastes in Canada or in the waters adjacent to Canada. Since no permit is required for the construction of containers provided radioactive materials are not placed therein, the company's construction activities are not affected, but the board has not approved the use of these containers for the disposal of radioactive wastes from Canada. It has advised the company that the suitability of the containers could be considered only in connection with an application to dispose of specific wastes. Similar arrangements are in effect in the United States but, so far as the board is aware, the atomic energy commission has not approved the use of these vessels for the disposal of United States radioactive wastes.
The subject is one of importance from the standpoint of protection for the public. Interested members might refer to the report of the committee on research which was made to the house some time ago. They will find there, in the statement made by the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, some reference to the care that is taken with regard to radioactive wastes, and it is interesting to note that the safety record of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is very good indeed. No lost time injury has occurred in 15 years in the operations of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and this has been due largely to the supervision and control exercised by the radiation hazards control branch and the co-operation it receives from operating personnel throughout the project.


Hazen Robert Argue: So that the answer will be clear, is it a fact that although these containers are manufactured in Canada, they will be sent to the United States and will be used for the disposal of United States atomic wastes in United States waters and not Canadian waters?


Gordon Minto Churchill: They will not be used for Canadian purposes whatsoever. Whether or not the company has a firm contract to ship them to the United States, and whether or not they will be used by the United States for the purpose indicated is not within my knowledge, but they are not intended for Canadian use and no radioactive wastes can

Inquiries of the Ministry
be disposed of in Canada or adjacent to	UNITED NATIONS
Canada in Canadian waters without the consent of Canada.	disarmament-reported u.s. suggestion



RESPECTING COMMISSION MEETING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I have already sent him. Is the minister aware that a United States pilot operating in Canadian waters, apparently in contravention of the Canada Shipping Act, recently grounded the freighter Astertal in lake St. Francis? What action does the minister, as the pilotage authority, intend to take in this case?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into that report.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question. When he is looking into the matter I raised a moment ago, I wonder if he would inquire whether a United States pilot authorized to pilot a ship in international waters can take a ship right through to the city of Montreal, when Canadian pilots have not a similar right to operate in purely United States water.


George Harris Hees: Yes, I will get that information also.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the R.C.M.P. investigation is still continuing or has been concluded with respect to any further charges which may be laid in the province of Manitoba in connection with the recent Chinese immigration investigation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I am not able to give my hon. friend an authoritative answer. I think I had better find out what the exact situation is before I attempt to do so.
On the orders of the day:


Paul Joseph James Martin: On Saturday last I asked the Prime Minister, and he promised to obtain a reply from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if the government has yet been advised as to whether there would be a meeting of the disarmament commission prior to the general assembly of the United Nations, to deal with the question of disarmament.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Padillo Nervo, the chairman of the disarmament commission, is now in the course of inquiring of the different members of the commission with regard to a date for the meeting. Tentatively it has been set for August 15; at least the suggestions are that it may be on August 15.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the hon. gentleman could say whether there was prepared in his department a document entitled "The Canadian Economic Outlook for 1959"?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes; and the house had that before it earlier, and expressed its opinion.



UNITED NATIONS


John George Diefenbaker: (a)	That it be resolved by the...House of Commons:
That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations operations in the Congo, and that this house do approve the same.
(b)	The following proposed motion consequent upon the adoption of motion "a" above:-
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this house has adopted a resolution approving of the participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations operations in the Congo, and requesting Their Honours to unite with this house in the approval of the same by filling up the blanks in the resolution with the words: "Senate and".

United Nations Forces in Congo
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think I should commence by placing on record the two resolutions that were passed by the United Nations security council, so the entire transaction which has made necessary the action now being taken will be before members of the house.
On the 13th July a resolution introduced by Tunisia was passed which reads:
The security council,
Considering the report of the secretary general on a request for United Nations action in relation to the Republic of the Congo,
Considering the request for military assistance addressed to the secretary general by the president and the prime minister of the Republic of the Congo (document S/4382),
Calls upon the government of Belgium to withdraw their troops from the territory of the Republic of the Congo;
Decides to authorize the secretary general to take the necessary steps, in consultation with the government of the Republic of the Congo, to provide the government with such military assistance as may be necessary, until, through the efforts of the Congolese government with the technical assistance of the United Nations, the national security forces may be able, in the opinion of the government, to meet fully their tasks;
Requests the secretary general to report to the security council as appropriate.
Then there was a revised draft resolution on the 22nd July, sponsored by Ceylon and Tunisia, which in part read as follows:
The security council,
Having considered the first report by the secretary general on the implementation of security council resolution S/4387 of 14 July 1960 (document S/4389),
Appreciating the work of the secretary general and the support so readily and so speedily given to him by all member states invited by him to give assistance,
Noting that as stated by the secretary general the arrival of the troops of the United Nations force in Leopoldville has already had a salutary effect,
Recognizing that an urgent need still exists to continue and to increase such efforts,
Considering that the complete restoration of law and order in the Republic of the Congo would effectively contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security,
Recognizing that the security council recommended the admission of the Republic of the Congo to membership in the United Nations as a unit,
Calls upon the government of Belgium to implement speedily the council resolution of 14 July 1960, on the withdrawal of their troops and authorizes the secretary general to take all necessary action to this effect;
Requests all states to refrain from any action which might tend to impede the restoration of law and order and the exercise by the government of Congo of its authority and also to refrain from any action which might undermine the territorial integrity and the political independence of the Republic of the Congo;
Commends the secretary general for the prompt action he has taken to carry out resolution S/4387 of the security council and his first report;
Invites the specialized agencies of the United Nations to render to the secretary general such assistance as he may require;


Requests the secretary general to report further to the security council as appropriate.
Those are the two resolutions upon which action is now invited and the approval of parliament asked. The constitutional position in this regard was set forth by the former prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, on November 20, 1956, when an order in council was passed which authorized the maintenance on active service of not more than 2,500 officers and men as part or in immediate support of the United Nations emergency forces in the Middle East.
A special session of the house was called and the order in council was duly tabled, at which time the then prime minister stated that it has always been the constitutional requirement and the constitutional practice that the government has to take the responsibility of making a decision, and then puts itself in the hands of parliament so that parliament may determine whether it will provide the funds to implement that decision, or whether it will refuse to provide the funds and get another government to carry out the policies that parliament wants to have carried out.
That has always been the position. That will always be the position, so long as this party has the responsibility for public affairs in this country. A supplementary $1 item in the estimates was debated and approved, without a vote being taken, on November 29.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the Prime Minister could give us the Hansard page reference he has just mentioned?


John George Diefenbaker: I have the copies of Hansard here. I thought I would simply summarize, and if there are any questions they can always be checked in Hansard and I will refer to the specific pages if required.
Today I had the opportunity of discussing something of the situation in the Congo with Air Commodore Carpenter of the R.C.A.F., who returned yesterday from the Congo. He was in charge of the air lift there, and those of other nations who saw something of the work he has done have given him high commendation.
He pointed out the situation as he saw it there in a way that could not be understood by simply reading the records and statements from those in the area. The views he expressed indicated something of the situation in that country. It is a vast country, situated on the equator, depending in the main on waterways, 1,000 miles on the Congo river and some 4,000 other waterway miles. Its communications generally are based on those waterways.
When independence came at the end of June the political and business administration

ceased to exist. Those Belgians with experience withdrew, and the result was that there was uncertainty in all parts of that country. With the withdrawal of the Belgian administration, with businessmen leaving and with other Belgians immediately departing from the country, there was brought about a situation which became difficult for the people of that country.
In saying that it is no criticism whatever of the action taken by the Belgian government or by Belgian nationalists. The Congo had achieved its independence. It had an administration to take over. But the difficulty apparently was this, that there was not that training and experience which is so necessary for administrators to have when suddenly propelled into a position of national responsibility. With the businessmen leaving, the result was that unemployment mounted and food in general became very scarce; for although the Congo supplies 97 per cent of all the food consumed in the country, no one had the money to make purchases. A dangerous situation resulting from hunger was the consequence.
In these circumstances I think I should also place before the house discussions which I had on Saturday with the prime minister of the Congo. He said he came to Canada because in the thinking of the people of his country Canada occupied a position of independence, coupled with a reputation for coming to the assistance of other nations with plans without strings attached.
Following his visit he made certain statements to the press in an interview, and I should like to make very clear the events which took place. He did not ask for any aid or assistance on the part of Canada directly or in any way outside the ambit of the United Nations in joint action. He indicated that he felt that in view of the bilingual nature of our country and the need for having French speaking technicians, Canada, he hoped, would provide a reservoir for the supply of needed agriculturists, teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, radio technicians, information and administrative officers and the like. He wanted a list, if he could secure one, of Canadians who might be available to go to the Congo in the event that financial arrangements to that end were made by the Congo government with the individuals in question.
I stated that we would communicate with universities, the national research council and professional bodies to the end that the needs of the Congo, would be made known to them, and he emphasized that any arrangements made would of course be made directly by representatives of his government. He further stated that he would like
United. Nations Forces in Congo Canada to participate in an investment program in his country, and I frankly told him that Canada, a country in a stage of great development, was herself in need of capital and that in this regard I did not expect that his hopes would be attained.
Also on Saturday I met with some Canadian missionaries who had just returned from the Congo. They were representatives of the Baptist and Mennonite faiths, and were brought to North America by airlift some ten days or two weeks ago. They informed me that while there was a feeling of antagonism against the whites in general, at no time had they been directly or physically interfered with; and I think it is proper to say that among all the missionary representatives of Catholic and Protestant denominations and faiths from Canada, none has been subjected to personal physical violence.
However, the interesting reaction of these people and the reason they came to Ottawa was that they felt that at the earliest possible date they should return to their responsibilities and fields of service. They felt that the missionaries of the various faiths and religious denominations in Canada would want to return there as soon as a reasonable degree of order had been re-established. They pointed out what is known to all of us, that wherever there is anarchy, chaos or economic dislocation there is a field for communist operations. They spoke in the highest terms of the treatment they had received. They also indicated the need of action being taken by the nations of the world to assure that the conditions existing in that country, wealthy but unfortunate in so far as civil disorder is concerned, should receive the attention of all of us.
In that regard it is obvious that the U.S.S.R. is using the situation prevalent in that country to assure that those conditions shall be magnified. Indeed, in the last few weeks the attitude of the U.S.S.R., particularly since early in May, has been one of aggressive and continuing threats. Only on Friday Tass, the official Soviet news agency, carried a government statement to the effect that it had become clear that "the aggressors in the Congo were acting with the encouragement of all the colonial North Atlantic treaty powers." This was a continuation of Premier Khrushchev's earlier view expressed on July 15, in which he referred to imperialist aggression in the Congo. Finally it was stated that Russia was ready to consider giving the Congo extensive economic assistance and "will not shrink from taking decisive measures to rebuff the aggressors who, as it has become quite clear, are acting with the encouragement of all the colonist powers of NATO."

United Nations Forces in Congo
That statement is hardly in keeping with the fact that the U.S.S.R. as a member of the security council must have voted for, or given its support to, the resolutions of the security council which I outlined at the beginning of my remarks. Indeed, on July 21 Mr. Khrushchev threatened to send troops to the Congo, although the Soviet representative in the United Nations security council voted for or supported the decision that no troops of major powers should be included in the international force.
The course of action taken by the U.S.S.R. in the past several weeks in the Congo incident is a continuance of the belligerent and even blatant attitude now being taken in many parts of the world by that country. It is of interest, too, that while Prime Minister Lumumba when he was in Washington refused to meet with the charge d'affaires of the Soviet embassy there, while he was in Ottawa he met with the ambassador of the U.S.S.R.
I repeat in summary what I have said, namely that the need of action being taken to restore equilibrium in the Congo is underlined by the fact that the U.S.S.R. has been making the threats to which I have referred. Indeed, in addition that country has endeavoured to supply foodstuffs directly to the Congo without going through the United Nations organization. All this if successful, could not but have an adverse effect on the strength, the authority and the responsibility of the United Nations.
During the years Canadians have advocated the need of an international force under the control of the United Nations to be available whenever required. I looked up some of the debates in parliament, and I am simply going to refer to them so as to make clear to hon. members the nature of the particular discussions which took place in this regard.
I spoke in this house on October 19, 1945 on the United Nations agreement which was then before us for consideration, and I said this, as reported at page 1308:
I know this charter will be approved, and, I hope unanimously, by parliament, but approval will be only lip service to its idealistic principles unless parliament faces the realistic problem of assuring not only by words but by pledges that Canada will contribute to and make available to the security council the necessary armed forces, assistance and facilities including the rights of unhampered international air passage across Canada and the use of her airports for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Then again, prior to the United Nations meeting in April, 1945, at San Francisco, I said speaking on the conference, as reported at page 163 of Hansard of March 23 of that year:

Are we going to incorporate a further provision whereby we in Canada shall determine not only the number of men we will supply and the nature of other support we may give, but in addition stipulate that the men we mobilize for an international force shall not be used beyond the confines of Canada? The Prime Minister finally used these words:
"As they stand, the acceptance of the proposals would in no way commit Canada to send forces beyond Canadian territory at the call of the security council. If any such commitment were sought, it would be embodied in a later agreement freely negotiated by the government of Canada, and coming into effect only after it had been approved by parliament."
With that statement I am not in disagreement in so far as it requires that this agreement, like any other of the kind, under the proposals, must be presented to parliament. But what is serious about that statement is that either unintentionally or designedly, page 26 of Hansard, on which the Prime Minister's remarks are reported, makes for controversy in this country at a time when there should be a united front. Surely one of the outstanding lessons we learned in the failure of the league of nations was that when the member nations of the league had the right to determine the degree of their obligation the league ended as an instrument to prevent war.
Then at page 164 I said:
The warning of 1919 comes back in 1945. The league of nations failed because it never had the power or strength of a real league. It failed because it lacked the united responsibility of all member nations to keep the peace; because it reserved to any and all of them the right to decide if and when and where they would co-operate to assure peace.
And a little later:
If we take away from our responsibility to contribute our part everywhere in the world we add to the probability that eventual impotence will come to the security council, for other nations may well follow our lead in this regard.
After referring to the fact that the one great contribution Canada could make in the building of a new world free from war would be to make available to the United Nations the strategic airports given to us by nature, I went on to say, as reported at page 165 of Hansard of March 23, 1945:
In that way we can do our part toward rendering available posts from which great international forces will be able to move in order to prevent aggression, not only within the confines of Canada but everywhere in the world where duty calls and parliament allows.
Our view at all times was that an international force available anywhere in the world was the one means whereby the high idealism inherent in the United Nations organization would become effective in the interests of world peace.
In addition, I think I should also refer to the discussion which took place in this house on January 31, 1956. At page 723 of Hansard of that date I set forth the views that had been expressed on earlier occasions. On that occasion the house was discussing the situation in the Middle East. I said that as far

as I could see the only immediate hope was to set up an international force to protect and assure the boundaries. I went on to say:
I suggest to my hon. friend who interrupted that one of the things he can do, with his influence in the United Nations, is to see to it that something in the nature of an international force is established to the end that this dangerous situation shall be obliterated. If it is not, and war breaks out, we shall have war all over the world-
I simply point out these instances in the past, beginning in March of 1945, to indicate that throughout that period of time the Conservative party took a strong stand on behalf of an international force.
An international force has now been set up to meet the delicate if not indeed the frightening situation in the Congo. I say that because unless a degree of order is established there, what is taking place in the Congo may, in the nature of things, be expected to expand. There will be a total of 12,140 in this international force consisting of 14 battalions and 5 companies representing nine countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, the Mali federation (Senegal and Sudan), Morocco, Tunisia. Haiti and Burma may also contribute. Ireland has already sent its force, one battalion, and Sweden has transferred 635 persons from the Gaza area. In addition to these there are military advisers from Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Italy and Denmark.
I should pay the tribute of Canadians to the outstanding work done by all who have gone to the Congo, to the advance party of officers, and in particular Colonel Jean Ber-thiaume, chief of staff to Major General Von Horne, United Nations commander. Colonel Berthiaume is in charge of getting in troops and of deployment, and has earned the commendation of all who are contributing to the force. As I said earlier, the airlift has been in charge of Air Commodore Fred Carpenter, R.C.A.F., who has also made an outstanding contribution that has won widespread commendation.
What have we done? What has been Canada's contribution? I simply outline it for the record without going into particulars. Following the initial request the government authorized the secondment of five Canadian officers who volunteered from the United Nations truce supervisory organization in Palestine. Three of the five are now in Leopoldville. When it was reported that there was the risk of a food shortage the government decided to provide pork and dried powdered milk to which reference has already been made. These supplies were airlifted by R.C.A.F. North Star aircraft.
79951-0-463
United Nations Forces in Congo
The secretary general asked for the secondment of certain specialized personnel, including five Canadian officers serving with national contingents of the United Nations emergency force in Palestine. The five Canadian officers, all of the rank of captain, are specialists in movement control, equipment and transport. Then there was a request for signals and logistic support for the United Nations Congo force. On receiving that request, Canadian and United Nations authorities consulted as to the precise needs to be met in the Congo.
On July 28 Canada authorized provision for the United Nations force in the Congo of up to 500 Canadian armed force personnel including a signals detachment numbering some 200, as well as a small Canadian headquarters detachment. Arrangements for sending the selected personnel to the Congo are going forward, and parliament is now being asked to approve the action in this regard.
In response to an appeal for medical personnel to serve in the hospitals of the Congo, the Canadian Red Cross society recruited from Canada two teams of trained medical personnel each composed of one surgeon, one physician trained in tropical medicine and three nurses. All these are French speaking. Both teams left on July 28 and are expected to arrive in Leopoldville today. Further, in response to a request from the secretary general, the Canadian government has placed at the disposal of the United Nations the four North Star aircraft which airlifted supplies to the Congo, for the purpose of transporting supplies and equipment for the United Nations force in the Congo on the shuttle service between Pisa and Leopoldville.
In addition we are acquiring at once two Caribou aircraft from the de Havilland corporation for airlifting supplies to Canadian forces. A third will be made available in September and a fourth in October. The feature of these aircraft is the fact that they can take off from short runways. Even though only two such aircraft are available at the moment, this action will ensure that the Canadian force there will receive proper commissariat assistance.
Furthermore, we are in a position to supply six or seven R.C.A.F. officers to organize the United Nations air transport force. That force is made up of airmen from Yugoslavia, Sweden, Norway, Brazil and the Argentine. In addition to those named, India will provide certain pilots and air force personnel. This country's contribution will total 75 pilots. In order to organize this extraordinarily complex international force into a unified whole the necessary R.C.A.F. officers to whom I have just alluded will be supplied.

United Nations Forces in Congo
That, in general, represents Canada's contribution to the force. What is taking place is, I think, one of the greatest steps forward toward the ultimate establishment of an international force. Indeed, there has never been in all history anything like the force that is now being mobilized from among the various nations that I have referred to, or in all of mankind's march to the achievement of peace in the world. All through modern history hope has been expressed. In the middle ages the international lawyers claimed that the only way in which peace could be achieved would be through a force readily available to meet whatever situations might arise before they expanded to such an extent as to assure the outbreak of war.
The reason the armed forces on foot were mobilized from among the nations I have mentioned was to assure the peoples of Africa, and I think Asia too, that the nations comprising the white race were not, as it were, organized into a group or international organization against the coloured race.
I trust that the house will give unanimous acceptance to the course we have followed, for it represents a major step forward to that day when, wherever difficulties may arise anywhere in the world, as I stated in March, 1945, the nations comprising the United Nations will all make available to an international force whatever is requisite to assure peace.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have listened with great interest to what the Prime Minister has said, both in regard to the resolution before the house and in regard to the background for the action we are being asked to support in this resolution, including something of the history of an international peace force. We on this side of the house would like to comment on both aspects of the Prime Minister's statement.
The resolution states:
That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations operations in the Congo-
In this resolution as I read it, Mr. Speaker, there is no limitation on the nature or extent of that participation, but there is the limitation that the participation is designed to cover Canadian forces in the United Nations operations in the Congo, and cover no other form of assistance that might be required. Notwithstanding that there is, perhaps understandably, no limitation on our participation within this particular category, we on this side are happy to be able to support a resolution of this kind and, indeed the action that has been taken by the government outside the terms of this resolution.


We would say that the course adopted by the government in bringing this matter to the attention of the house in this way is the proper constitutional course to take. Also, in the matter of action that is taken under this resolution in the supply of forces, I take it that the government will table, as would be required under the Canadian Forces Act, any order in council which has been passed putting members of our armed forces on active service for this purpose. I think the act itself-I believe it was passed in 1950-requires that this should be done within 10 days of the action having been taken.
This is a new assignment for the United Nations and for Canada in its participation as a member of United Nations, Mr. Speaker. It is a new assignment as indefinite as it is likely to be far reaching and important, not only in respect of the immediate emergency which has occurred but in respect of the development of the idea of United Nations help of this, kind in the future.
We are bound to ask ourselves the question as Canadians, as a member of the United Nations, what are we taking on? Indeed, what is the United Nations taking on? A few weeks' or a few years' assignment? A temporary job in helping to restore order as part of an international police and peace force or a long job, again as a member of the United Nations, to help to administer and assist economically a state of some 15 million people which has achieved its independence in circumstances which are not easy for the people of that state? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this latter assignment, which is related to though not specifically part of this resolution, may be an even more important and certainly far more expensive one than that which we are being asked to take in the purely police and military side of the undertaking.
The Prime Minister has pointed out that the authority behind the recommendations of the Secretary General of the United Nations, who incidentally has accepted this new assignment in his usual swift, efficient and devoted way, lies in two resolutions of the security council of which all members of the security council, I believe, approved. In any event, no member voted against the resolutions, including the Soviet union which, if it had wished to do so at that time, could have vetoed either or both of these resolutions.
These resolutions provide for the members of the United Nations on invitation from the secretary general-I am paraphrasing one of them now-to contribute forces, peace-preserving forces, for a United Nations contingent to go to the Congo. From what the

Prime Minister read from the second resolution, I think it may be interpreted as providing for other forms of assistance, because it does refer to the technical agencies of the United Nations which the secretary general might call on to help him in this field.
Acting on this authority the United Nations, through the secretary general-my information is only from public sources but I assume it is accurate-and the Congo state have now signed an agreement, of the details of which I have no knowledge, with the U.N., that the United Nations forces will remain in the Congo until the mission of peace has been fully accomplished. That mission of peace may require more than the provision of police forces; it may require the provision of economic and other kinds of help.
I am not quarrelling for one minute with the advisability, the wisdom, of the secretary general entering into this kind of agreement on behalf of the United Nations. It was well that he should have done so, but it does underline the possibly far-reaching nature of the commitments which we are undertaking as a member of the United Nations, and which we should be glad to undertake. I read this morning that the statement covering this agreement had been circulated to the members of the security council by the secretary general himself, and it would be very interesting to know whether this reported agreement has been circulated to Canada which is proposing, and rightly so, to take such a constructive and active part in this operation.
The situation, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, is not an easy one, and in many respects it is a dangerous one. There is the obvious impatience of some elements of the government of the Congo, including, if we can give credence to press reports, the deputy premier, to get the last relic of Belgian authority out of the Congo in the least possible time, to use the United Nations force primarily and swiftly for that purpose and presumably, once that has been done, to get the United Nations out also except in terms of economic and financial help. If this course were followed then, presumably, with the United Nations forces out of the Congo, the assistance given would be under the administration of the Congo authorities.
There is another kind of impatience with respect to the Congo, and that is the impatience of others at the lack of order, the lack of discipline in this new and free state, and some impatience at the administrative weakness of the present government, a weakness which is understandable in the light of the immediate background and the less immediate background of their ascension to power in their 79951-0-463|
United Nations Forces in Congo own country. So we read even in this morning's paper of rising tensions, of charges that the United Nations forces-I thought the Prime Minister quite rightly referred to one of these this morning-are in danger of assisting in what has been called colonialist intrigues; indeed, are in danger of being accused of complicity in those intrigues.
It is discouraging to hear these reports out of the Congo at a time when the United Nations is moving with speed and efficiency to assist. We also read and have heard reports over the week end of the development of separatism in this country, which has a heritage of tribal separatism, a separatism based on the historical forces of tribalism which, if they prevail, might lead to an even worse disaster than has been the case up to the present.
Then we have the problem of Katanga, the richest and most highly developed part of the Congo, without which it is difficult to see, on the basis of the information I have, how the rest of the Congo could ever become a viable economy without great support from the outside world. So this situation is a terrific challenge to the Congo and its people and to the United Nations and its members. I was reading this morning in the Globe and Mail the statement of a United Nations official just back from the Congo, who was quoted as saying:
The Congo needs artificial respiration. Ninety per cent of the technicians and administrators are gone.
The Prime Minister made some reference to that difficulty.
The government doesn't work. The railroad doesn't work. Nothing works. And on top of that tribal warfare can be expected at any moment.
I wish this were too gloomy a view of the situation. I hope that what the United Nations has asked its members to do and what they are doing will prevent the realization of this gloomier prediction. Yet it is quite clear that United Nations intervention in the situation was essential to prevent disaster. Those people who sometimes say that the United Nations does nothing except talk, pass resolutions and waste time and money in New York should ask themselves now, what would be the situation in the Congo if there had not been a United Nations to call on in this emergency?
I think all Canadians will be happy to back up anything the Canadian government may do to play our own part effectively in this essential work. That part will require administrative and technical help; and, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, perhaps Canada is in a special position to contribute this kind of help because of the bilingual nature of our population. It is unfortunate
7334	HOUSE OF
United Nations Forces in Congo that there is now, so far as I know, no permanent organization in the United Nations which could have moved into this technical and administrative field with a corps of trained international technicians and administrative experts.
I know this suggestion has been made more than once, and this situation does underline the importance of having available not only armed forces for police and peace purposes, but a corps of international civil servants trained to assist in situations of this kind. This will take a long time, but I think it is high time that the process should begin, because the situation which we find in the Congo may well be repeated in other countries which have newly achieved or are about to achieve independence.
There is the other aspect of this matter. We will be asked to contribute a contingent to the police and peace preservation corps. Once again, however, the United Nations has found itself faced with an emergency and the necessity of taking ad hoc action to meet that emergency. How much better it would have been if there had been at the disposal of the United Nations, for immediate use, trained, equipped contingents from the various members of the United Nations. Instead the secretary general, as he had to in 1956, has had to call on those whom he thought were qualified to help and from whom he thought help would be desirable in the first instance, in this case Asian and African countries, followed by help by other countries.
I think probably the secretary general would say that the principles adopted in 1956 for the establishment of the United Nations emergency force at that time have been of great assistance to him upon this occasion, even though he had to operate in a rather different way, because at that time the assembly did pass resolutions which established the principles for the organization of a force of this kind, and also laid down the principles regulating the relationship of such a force to the peoples and governments which they were seeking to assist. But this situation does underline again the necessity of pressing ahead at the United Nations for some kind of an organization which will make unnecessary in the future this kind of improvised action.
I do not mean by that-the secretary general has already expressed his own doubts about this-a permanent United Nations police force established in some particular place or places under direct United Nations control. I mean having forces available in the various member middle powers and smaller powers, kept in those countries but earmarked for United Nations use; trained


for that purpose in the administrative, technical and signals field as well as in the combat field, and ready to move at a moment's notice on the authority and approval of the government and parliament of the country concerned, if it happens to be a free democracy.
The Prime Minister talked about the desirability, which was recognized years ago by him and many others, of some form of international peace and police force behind the United Nations Charter. Indeed, the idea of an international force behind international law goes back to the very dawn of history. It has been an ideal which has inspired many men all through history, from the days of the Greek leagues to the holy Roman empire, through the middle ages with the grand design of Henri Quatre, on to the holy alliance of the nineteenth century, a kind of autocratic expression of the whole idea, until we reach the league of nations.
There was a clause in the league of nations covenant which did provide for the implementation of such force behind international law, in the development of which I must confess Canada did not play, in those days-and I am now talking about the 1920's -too creditable a part. We were more concerned at that time with keeping out of trouble than trying to prevent trouble, for reasons which seemed very sensible at that time. But looking back now at the trouble we have got into since 1914, it does not seem to be so wise.
When the United Nations charter was drafted at San Francisco, every speech made there, and I sat through a great many of them, was about the necessity of getting behind the charter and building on the mistakes of the old league of nations and its covenant; making sure, once again, that if we were in trouble we would have this kind of force. We made our own share of declarations at that time, for that purpose.
As a result of those speeches and those ideas, there were included in the charter provisions which seemed to be a recognition of the mistakes that were made in the league covenant. Provision was made in the charter for an international force which would have been strong enough not only to put an end to brush fires and to police situations with which we are confronted today, but an international force which would have been strong enough to prevent wars, because it would have included contingents from the great powers. There would have been an international force on a grand scale.
But the cold war began, and an international force of that type became merely a provision in a document about which very

little was done, if anything, to implement, except to set up in New York a military commission of the permanent members of the council, which is still in existence and which I gather meets formally every month or two.
The cold war made that kind of international force impossible. During these years, after 1945 and in the 1950's, a great deal of attention was given at United Nations to finding some other kind of force which would take the place of the one that was so abortive in the charter, because it included only the permanent members of the council who could call on others for help if necessary. I remember that at the United Nations the Canadian delegation took a very active part in the resolutions that led to the establishment of a peace observation group, and I remember the Canadian delegate, at the very earliest assembly, making a plea for the building up of this kind of international peace and police force.
The Prime Minister has referred to the difficulties in the Middle East before they broke into war in 1956, and he mentioned the desirability in the spring of 1956 of establishing an international peace force to assist in the maintaining of peace in that very dangerous area. I recall very well the discussion on this idea that took place in the committee of external affairs, when it was pointed out that the Canadian and other members of the United Nations had already taken up this question of a peace and police force for the Middle East, and that it had been rejected at that time both by the Arab governments and the government of Israel, as well as by officers of the United Nations, as premature and not practicable.
So there was the situation when the crisis and the necessities of 1956, in the autumn, made necessary that kind of swift action which should have been provided for months and years before. If at that time there had not been this crisis, it is very doubtful whether the United Nations emergency force would have been set up. Also if at that time delegations at the United Nations assembly had voted against the inclusion of this item on the agenda, on the motion before the United Nations assembly, there could not have been any international force. Furthermore if then there had not been approval by the United Nations assembly of the action taken, for reasons which seemed perfectly good to them-reasons advanced by the governments of the United Kingdom and France-for intervening, there would not have been any United Nations emergency force and we would not have had anything on
United Nations Forces in Congo which to build in 1960. It was the establishment of the United Nations emergency force which has at least given us a foundation on which we could build in 1960.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the Korean
crisis?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister says, what about the Korean situation. That was another kind of intervention. That was United Nations intervention but not the kind of intervention through an international police and peace force which I am talking about, because it was an intervention made possible by a decision of the security council, such as was visualized in San Francisco in 1945, but which was made possible only because the Russians did not turn up at the security council meeting. If they had the opportunity over again they would veto any action of that kind. It was also a decision to put the United Nations force under the administrative control and military direction of a single member of the United Nations, the United States of America. It was also action taken in Korea after there had been a declaration, accepted by the United Nations, of aggression in Korea. So it was not quite the same, either in origin or in the action taken, as the decision in 1956, which did set up a United Nations emergency force under United Nations control consisting of contingents from the middle powers, which is the way I suspect it will have to be dene in the future in this kind of situation.
Since 1956 there has been very little progress indeed in building on this foundation for the establishment of a permanent United Nations emergency force, for reasons which I do not need to go into now. But I think the situation in these early days underlines again the desirability of doing this on a permanent basis, and it emphasizes the misfortune of the United Nations in not being able to make any progress in the last two or three assemblies.
The Prime Minister mentioned the attitude of the Soviet union toward what has been proposed by the United Nations to assist in this Congo situation. Experience in the last 15 years has shown beyond any possibility of doubt that communist governments will not only refuse any constructive support for an initiative of this kind through the United Nations, but that they will do their best to confuse and frustrate the purposes of the United Nations and misrepresent those purposes in the eyes of the public of the country where the United Nations is intervening, in this case the Congo. Anarchy is their opportunity and chaos is their ally. Perhaps that helps to explain the sinister-I do not
7336	HOUSE OF
United Nations Forces in Congo think that is too strong a word-statements which have come out of Moscow in the last few days.
The Soviet union began to show its hand in this matter after it had given us at least some reason by accepting the original security council resolution to believe that it might take a different and more constructive stand. It has shown its hand, as the Prime Minister mentioned, by talking about aggression on the part of the NATO forces in the Congo, a statement which of course is a cynical falsehood. The United Nations purposes and the purposes of those members of the United Nations which are participating in this operation are above reproach, and I am sure all of us hope that the action of the United Nations will be as effective as its purposes are good.
We know that Canada can play an important part in this action. We learned the other day that the nature of our contribution at the present time-I am talking now about the military side of it-is to be the provision of administrative, technical and headquarters personnel. That is what was required of Canada in 1956, and there were some members of this house who made not very flattering observations at that time, about that kind of participation. But this would appear to be the way in which Canada can serve best in this kind of United Nations operation, at least at the present time. Perhaps our experience in the United Nations emergency force, as indicated to the secretary general and those advising him on those matters, shows how Canada can best serve in this situation by providing personnel on the administrative side, the signals side, the technical side, the liaison side and the headquarters side. If it had not been for that kind of work by the Canadian forces in the Palestine United Nations emergency force it would have been infinitely more difficult for that force to be as successful as it was. The Canadian forces in UNEF, as I am sure the Canadian forces will be in the Congo UNEF, were the backbone of the force owing to the essential nature and efficiency of their contribution to its operation.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister mentioned something about the visit of the premier of the Congo last Saturday and the request for assistance which he made, I think the Prime Minister was very wise indeed in emphasizing that while we want to do everything we can, both in the policing and economic fields as well as in the administrative field, to help this new and struggling state, this must be done through the United Nations. Not only is that the best way for us to participate;


it is the best kind of assistance from the point of view of the Congo itself, because it will then be above all form of political suspicion, and I hope no member of the United Nations will emphasize direct assistance at the expense of United Nations assistance.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will do what we can in this field of developing a police and peace-preserving force, and I hope the Prime Minister's desire that this assistance through the United Nations will prove to be possible. We are happy on this side to support this resolution.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, after the order of business was announced on Saturday afternoon last the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) suggested that this resolution be dealt with first this morning. In my opinion the ready acceptance of the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on behalf of the official opposition of what I consider a most appropriate and happy suggestion symbolizes the unity of the members of this house in dealing with this important matter this morning. A question affecting a neighbour concerns the whole World and should be discussed prior to dealing with, shall I say, the vicissitudes of our domestic house.
I listened with great interest to the explanation of the Prime Minister with respect to the resolution which he presented to the house; that it was based on previous resolutions adopted by the United Nations security council and on procedure and practice established by the previous government. I can not help thinking-I do not know whether it is because I am growing somewhat in years-of days gone by when I hear problems of the present being discussed. I remember that someone said, and if I am correct it was a French writer, that to understand the world is wiser than to condemn it; to study the world is better than to shun it; to use the world is nobler than to abuse it; to make the world lovelier, better and happier is the noblest work of man or woman.
I think this resolution introduced by the Prime Minister this morning provides Canada with an opportunity to contribute her share within the framework of the United Nations effort toward making this portion of the world, a somewhat unhappy portion of the world at the present time, a lovelier and happier place in days to come. For that reason we in this group give our wholehearted support to this resolution.
However, the first essential is peace. We cannot carry on administrative practices or social undertakings without law and order.

So the first thing we have to establish is peace, and in my opinion peace is the golden wisp that binds the sheaf of opportunity for the people of the Congo, and we are doing what we can by adopting this resolution resolution unanimously to build that wisp. In my opinion, by this action the parliament of Canada is making quick use of the opportunity available to it in this extraordinary situation in the Congo and of the machinery at hand to demonstrate our readiness to accept our responsibility as a member of the United Nations.
The members of this group are of the opinion that the Belgian government is to a great extent responsible for the present unfortunate situation. I remember as a boy when the conscience of Europe was shocked by what was known as the Belgian atrocities, but that situation was remedied and the people of the Congo have received many economic advantages as a result of the development there. I say at this time on behalf of this group that we consider the government of Belgium to be responsible to a great extent for the present state of affairs, because there was no preparation for independence, no training of people to take over administrative tasks, no training of doctors and all those other persons whose work is required to carry on the activities of a modern state. Possibly there is some truth in the reports over the C.B.C., in our press and in United States and European papers that in some quarters it was hoped that the Congolese administration would collapse and that a Belgian administration would be required to return, together with its civil service and also, of course, its business interest. There may be truth, also, in the other reports that the mutiny at Leopoldville ruined this opportunity. But certainly from a number of reports it is obvious that there was an almost complete lack of preparation for independence.
When I consider this situation I cannot but remember the remarks made before a group of the commonwealth parliamentary association by the premier of Northern Nigeria last winter, when he spoke of that country's coming independence on October 1 of this year. He spoke of his country's long-awaited independence and said they recognized, many of them in Northern Nigeria, that they were not yet fully prepared for independence; that until a civil service staff had been trained and they had men to carry on medical services, this would not be the case. During that short talk to this group in the parliamentary association he paid tribute to the preparation for independence which had been made by the United Kingdom government.
United Nations Forces in Congo
Now the United Nations forces have a tremendous task, but the situation does provide its member nations, and Canada too, with an unusual opportunity of using their forces, both military and civil, in a positive policy for peace.
I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs is looking at me, and I cannot resist quoting a few lines from the Globe and Mail of July 30, 1960, because the Globe and Mail is a paper which in general supports the policy of the present government-


Howard Charles Green: Who told you that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Perhaps I should say that historically it has supported Progressive Conservative policy, but in recent times it has been critical at certain points. It is strange, I think, that in recent months we have so often found ourselves in agreement with the Globe and Mail on international affairs. This editorial is entitled "Defence, a Positive Policy". It reads in part:
We believe there can be a positive policy on defence. We believe men at arms can be employed as effectively in waging peace as in waging war -more effectively, indeed, because the waging of peace goes on all the time, all over the world, while the waging of war is only a possibility. We believe that in Canada's defence program there should be a strong emphasis on the use of troops to prevent wars rather than fight in them. We believe that Canada should play a major role in the formation of a permanent, multi-national police force; and that Canada should be one of the major contributors-of money, material and men-to such a force.
It is a great tragedy, in our view, that Canada is so little identified with the United Nations emergency force now restoring the peace in the Congo. The United Nations action in central Africa precisely typifies the kind of service an international police force, drawn from middling and small nations, can render. It can keep the great powers out of a troubled situation, keep them from directly confronting and threatening each other in that situation, by stepping into the situation itself.
The UNEF is doing this in the Congo. The only trouble is that the African UNEF, like its Middle East counterpart, was hurriedly and belatedly organized to meet a specific situation. What we suggest is a standing United Nations police force, ready to swing into action immediately, anywhere in the world.
But Canada can scarcely crusade for such a force when it has shown so little interest in the Congo action-which secretary general Dag Hammar-skjold rightly describes as the greatest enterprise the United Nations has ever undertaken. And Canada can scarcely contribute to such a force if in trying to tag along with the super powers, Canada has ceased to produce conventional forces.
Then it goes on briefly:
More recently, external affairs minister Green revealed that the United Nations had requested 100 Canadian signallers for Congo service, but that he was having difficulty in finding them.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he think those paragraphs he has just read from the Globe and Mail editorial are fair?

United, Nations Forces in Congo


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. gentleman mind repeating his question? I did not hear it.


Howard Charles Green: Does the hon. member think himself, that the paragraphs he has just read from the Globe and Mail criticizing the action of the Canadian government, saying it was not interested in the Congo and so on, are fair comment?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall be quite fair in my reply. I do not think it is quite correct to say that the Canadian government is not interested in the Congo. I read that sentence in the context of the whole of the editorial. I do not think it is quite fair to say that the Canadian government is not interested, but I think the tenor of the whole article is that the Globe and Mail wishes the government had shown more immediate concern with the situation.
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.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when we recessed for lunch to take on some bodily sustenance-there are some who believe that the hon. member for Kootenay West is a saint but even that hon. gentleman requires material restoration periodically-I had just concluded reading some paragraphs from the Globe and Mail of Saturday, July 30. I read complete paragraphs, not omitting sentences with which I do not agree, then later explain my disagreement with a certain sentence or certain words. Before I had an opportunity to do that on this occasion the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with out of character impetuosity, asked me a question with respect to one sentence. If I heard him correctly the sentence was:
But Canada can scarcely crusade for such a force when it has shown so little interest in the Congo action-
The hon. member asked me if I thought that statement was fair. Let me explain. I was going on to say that while I agreed with the tenor of the article, I thought that statement was unfair. However we are very anxious to be sure that Canada is doing her fair share in making contributions of personnel from the armed forces or the civil administration. When the Prime Minister or the minister replies to comments made on this side of the house I trust we will be given an idea of Canada's contribution according


to her population as compared with the contributions of other members of the United Nations.
This group was somewhat concerned at what seemed to be hesitation on Canada's part in taking action. We looked for the "ready, aye, ready" attitude especially on the part of this government. The Republic of Ireland has already mobilized and recruited a special battalion for service in the Congo. In this respect Canada is in a particularly fortunate position, the Congolese being mainly French speaking people. We have three battalions of the Royal 22nd regiment stationed at Valcartier, including in their groups a number of senior commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers who have had considerable experience in actions on behalf of the United Nations in various parts of the world. This regiment would be a credit to Canada having won its spurs and laurels at Courcelette in the second world war. We should give consideration to using these French speaking Canadian troops if required. I am not suggesting that this group knows all the background and details but when the minister replies we would like information on this question.
I support the attitude taken by the leader of the official opposition on the organization of the U.N. force. We do not support a centralized United Nations police force, but support the idea of trained troops in each country ready to be utilized on short notice in a United Nations police force for any particular service or action. Much more could be done in future than has been done in the past for preliminary staff arrangements and organization so all nations would know how to proceed to immediately mobilize the forces required to meet any particular circumstances.
With respect to Canada's contribution in civil affairs, I wish to quote a brief paragraph from another Globe and Mail editorial of today which states that the first task is to restore order so that white and black alike can live in peace. It goes on to say that this presents great difficulties, as follows:
No less formidable are the civil problems facing the United Nations in the Congo. Practically all the Belgian doctors and nurses have fled the Congo; there is no one to take their place. Technicians, managers and civil servants are needed to take the place of the retreating Belgians. The vacancies cannot be filled with Congolese; in the whole vast country, with its 14 million people, there are only 16 university or college graduates.
This group believes that the United Nations should work for the reunification of the Congo so it can progress to better advantage because there will be a balance as between

various areas in the country, and all the wealth will not be centred in one splinter state.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question, Mr. Speaker? Would the hon. gentleman suggest that the United Nations force should be used in the event there was anything of a disruptive nature in Katanga, in order to ensure that Katanga would remain within the Congo state?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is a fair question. Circumstances are so fluid that it is difficult to give a definitive answer. I am content to leave the decision to the secretary general, the commanders and the senior officers of the United Nations.
As a result of lack of training in years past of civil service personnel and all the rest of it, the first thing to be done after peace is established will be the training of administrative personnel. That is the first thing to be done before there can be any development in the country. The second will be the provisioning and training of technical personnel. Then one of the immediate problems will be that of health of the people in this region. As a matter of fact, my recent reading has indicated to me that the question of health is a most serious one in the northern and central portions of Africa. Why? Because so little has been done for those people, although there has been great wealth extracted from the region for many years. I was reading yesterday that the life expectancy in northern and central Africa is just under 30 years at the present time.
Attention should be focused on our out of balance approach to this situation not only in the Congo but in other African states and backward nations. To illustrate, last year the United States spent in the neighbourhood of $40 billion on armaments and contributed $3,500,000 to the World Health Organization. I am not going to lay blame on any one country or the other at this time but this situation must be recognized. We are all concerned in this, and as members of the United Nations we must all share some responsibility. All I am mentioning the figures for is to indicate what one nation can spend on armaments and what it is spending in the development of the World Health Organization, which is the organization that the United Nations will use in the Congo and does use to promote health in other regions of the world.
The other factor that has been mentioned is the cost to the United Nations of U.N. action in the Congo. This is a very important undertaking. In the opinion of the members of this group it is one of the greatest tasks 79951-0-464
United Nations Forces in Congo the United Nations has handled since its formation. It may be of some duration. The United Nations may be required to stay in the Congo for some years, to the advantage of the people of the country and for the preservation of world peace. Anyone who is in the know at all at the present time knows that this is a very serious situation in so far as the western world is concerned. That is why we have to pull our weight, and no nation should shirk its responsibility.
The matter of cost has been raised, and cost must receive consideration. There will be cost to Canada in respect of our forces and in respect of other contributions, and it looks as though the cost will be considerable. We in this group suggest this. Over the years thousands of millions of dollars have been taken out of the copper mines and other mines of Katanga. Today we read-and the Prime Minister mentioned it this morning-that food is one of the immediate problems in the Congo region; that there is a shortage of food in a few days. We are of the opinion, although we are not suggesting permanent confiscation of private property, that the United Nations should take over the rich mining business that now exists and administer it during the tenure of its mandate, and then leave it to the people of the region and the established government at the conclusion of the mandate to decide what should be done with those properties. In the meantime use the profits of these properties to provide the health, technical and other services required by the people of the Congo. Surely we owe that to the people of the Congo who have suffered from this exploitation, possibly one of the worst examples of exploitation in modern colonial history. I think we, the white people, owe that to the black people of the Congo, to indicate our concern for and interest in their future, and our anxiety to make amends for past injustice.
However, regardless of our efforts to establish law and order, peace will prevail in the Congo only as a result of our continuing and united effort to make life worth living for the people of the Congo. That is the approach we have to take. The policy we have to assume in the United Nations is food instead of guns and health instead of disease. Those should be the slogans of the United Nations forces.
As I mentioned before, one of the first problems in these early days is the shortage of food. Let Canadians show their pride in the Canadian contingent to the Congo by acceptance of our full responsibility to the United Nations and to the people of this stricken area. We must do everything possible in my opinion, to inform the people of

United Nations Forces in Congo Canada of our contingent's activities while in the Congo. Today we meet a growing cynicism, a growing lack of faith on the part of our young people particularly. When this force goes to the Congo, I make the suggestion to the Prime Minister, let us make certain that its activities are made known to the Canadian people; let us see that interest is aroused in the activities of this force, this defence of peace. Let us be sure that its activities are made known to our high school children and to our public school children of an age sufficient to understand. Let us speak with some pride of our participation in this organization; let us have a continuing interest as the result of information by the government of Canada given through the press and other agencies. We must arouse public interest and pride in our participation in this very important work which I am quite sure many people do not fully appreciate at the present time.
This latest task, Mr. Speaker, of our nation and of the United Nations is a key task; it is possibly one of the most important tasks ever undertaken by that body or by its agencies. Canada's record in the Middle East, in the United Nations emergency force on the Arab-Israeli frontier, and on other United Nations teams in other parts of the world is unblemished and is respected everywhere.
In conclusion on behalf of this group I extend best wishes for a successful mission to all the officers and personnel of the Canadian Congo contingent.


Mr. Pearkes:: May I ask the hon. gentleman one question before he resumes his seat? Does he subscribe to the quotation he read from the Globe and Mail that there was difficulty in obtaining 100 signallers. Because I want to assure him that my department has had no difficulty whatever in getting the number of signallers required from the personnel available. The only delay there has been is in knowing the type of signallers that were required. It is no good sending a radio operator if somebody is required to run a line exchange, and there is no good sending out linesmen if dispatch riders are required. We had to wait until we knew the type of signaller that was required, but there has been no difficulty in getting signallers to go there.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In reply may I congratulate the minister on the excellent tuition he has received from the hon. member for Essex East in making a speech while asking a question.


George Randolph Pearkes: I wanted to correct the erroneous idea of the hon. gentleman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to ask a question. Some members of the armed forces have said


that to date all they have been issued were their berets and some underwear. The clothing has not arrived. Would that be true?


George Randolph Pearkes: The services are all issued with bush clothing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house, introduced by the Prime Minister, reads in part as follows:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations operations in the Congo, and that this house do approve the same.
I am assuming for the purposes of the remarks I wish to make that we are talking about the present United Nations operations and the present decision of the government of Canada, in answer to the request of the secretary general, to dispatch certain personnel of the Canadian armed forces, notably, those who have special experience in the matter of communications, that is, the group known as signallers. Anything I say is predicated on that understanding of the character of the resolution.
I well remember the statement made by the Prime Minister in 1957 at the general assembly of the United Nations when he said that Canadian foreign policy was predicated, among other things, upon the commitment, which Canada undertook as a signatory to the charter of the United Nations. That being the case, the remarks made by the Prime Minister on Saturday last, were warmly approved, and deservingly so, because the situation in the Congo now is one that calls for intervention not by any individual state but by the collectivity of states represented by the United Nations itself. Any intervention in that situation on the part of any great power would have been, as the President of the United States himself noted, a dangerous intervention. It may be that the United States, apart altogether from its appreciation of the dangers in the Congo at the present time, was not unmindful of the dangers that could have flowed from their action in 1957 when, apart from any action taken by the United Nations, the United States dispatched some 12,000 marines to Lebanon although I admit in answer to the request of the president of that country.
I believe the government has taken a sound course in proposing, as all speakers thus far have supported, that this is an action in which only the United Nations can take part. Only through collective intervention would it be possible to answer the charge, irresponsibly made, that this is an effort to bolster up the colonial power. This action on the part of the United Nations clearly is no such thing.
In the first part of his statement this morning, the Prime Minister referred to the



I960

[Stage Direction]
two basic resolutions of the security council, that of the 14th July and the other of the 22nd. The first resolution calls on the government of Belgium to withdraw its troops from the territory of the Republic of the Congo. That process is now under way, and to the satisfaction, I believe, of the secretary general. In this resolution, the United Nations also instructs the secretary general to take certain steps, among them the provision by the government of the Congo of such military assistance, as may be necessary until, through the efforts of the Congolese government, with the technical assistance of the United Nations, the national security forces may be able, in the opinion of that government, to meet fully their tasks.
There are two observations I wish to make about this portion of the resolution. In the first place, this is the first time in the history of the United Nations, apart altogether from Korea-which was an action taken by the United Nations following a declaration of aggression by that body-that the United Nations is providing military assistance. No military assistance was provided in 1956 on the occasion of the Suez crisis. The resolution of the United Nations at that time clearly authorized the dispatch of what was called a para-military body, that was to exercise an effort to preserve the peace between Israel on the one hand and the United Arab Republic on the other, through the exercise of what I call the police power.
No such limitation is provided in this particular action taken by the security council. It is noteworthy that the action taken by the United Nations in Suez was an action taken pursuant not only to the resolution of the security council but also to a resolution passed by the general assembly of the United Nations. The resolution of the 14th of July last would, I think, warrant the conclusion that the Prime Minister himself drew, that any technical assistance, which might be provided by this country, would go through the United Nations. I believe this is a wise course for the government to adopt. That would not preclude, of course, any bilateral arrangement that Canada might want to make in the light of later events. But I certainly agree with the position taken by the government, that at the present time the proper way to channel whatever material aid Canada might wish to give should mainly be through the United Nations.
The second resolution of the 22nd July recognizes the Republic of the Congo, and whether that includes Katanga is certainly not clear. However, it is noteworthy that the Republic of the Congo as of that date did include, I believe, the province of the Congo 79951-0-4644
United Nations Forces in Congo known as Katanga. In any event, the wording of the resolution of the 22nd July, "recognizing that the security council recommended the admission of the Republic of the Congo to membership in the United Nations as a unit", warrants the view that the security council by implication, at any rate, did recognize that the sovereignty of the government of the Congo extended to Katanga.
It may be, however, that the secretary general, who is a very wise, cautious and prudent man, will not seek to rely upon the general character of such a resolution in his effort to see that the trouble in the Congo is not extended, and will seek to deal with Katanga in a manner that will not encourage needless friction between that part of the country and the main part under the government of the Congo itself.
The main resolution also invites the specialized agencies of the United Nations to render to the secretary general such assistance as he may require. That too would seem to confirm the view, taken by the Prime Minister, that whatever material and economic aid is extended should be through the United Nations or its subsidiary bodies. However, I would simply point out that it may be that the international development association, which we approved in the house this session, will be one of the agencies by which in the ensuing period some assistance could be given by countries which wish to extend capital at satisfactory rates of interest in a manner not possible under the existing terms of the international bank's functions.
There is another basic document which I think should be referred to at this time, and that is the agreement announced in yesterday's New York Times, between the government of the Congo and the United Nations, presumably signed for the United Nations by the secretary general and by the responsible representative of the government of the Congo. It is, I think, a very basic document, because it clearly establishes that as far as the United Nations is concerned its presence in the Congo is at the invitation of the sovereign power. In clause 1 it is observed:
1. The government of the Republic of the Congo states that, in the exercise of its sovereign rights with respect to any question concerning the presence and functioning of the United Nations force in the Congo, it will be guided, in good faith, by the fact that it has requested military assistance from the United Nations and by its acceptance of the resolutions of the security council of 14 and 22 July 1960-
So the United Nations is there, not for any purpose of aggression, ridiculous as that charge may be, but under duly constituted authority pursuant to those sections in the
[Stage Direction]
United Nations Forces in Congo charter of the United Nations which empower the security council to act in matters that threaten the peace, or where the peace is actually in danger.
This is, I believe, the most important single act taken by the United Nations up to now in dealing with situations that threaten the peace. That may seem to be too general a statement in the face of Korea, but I would simply point out again that Korea was a situation in which there was actually war on the part of the members of the United Nations who supported the declaration of aggression against the communists of north Korea.
This is the first major testing ground where the United Nations is prepared to dispatch armed forces of a military character. The United Nations emergency forces in the Middle East are not of that character; they are specifically referred to as a para-military body. The United Nations observation group in Lebanon was merely an observing group, and the United Nations supervisory force under General Von Horne in Jerusalem is merely a body that exercises police power in its purpose of maintaining peace between two contiguous countries.
All we can say is that there is no violation of the charter of the United Nations in so far as article 11(7) is concerned. This is not an intrusion by Canada, or by those other nine nations who are participating in the United Nations forces in the Congo. This is, by no stretch of the imagination, a violation of the domestic jurisdiction clause, because we are in there as a result of the invitation of the sovereign power. It may be that the question of Katanga will have to be dealt with again by the security council, or it could be that the issue arising out of the dispute between that province and the parent body will have to be determined by the courts. In any event, it is clear that whatever action has been taken by the United Nations thus far cannot be regarded, I believe, as an attempt to prevent one substantial body of opinion in a given national state from asserting the traditional right of self-determination recognized in the charter of the United Nations.
It is significant that in the matter of the two resolutions to which the Prime Minister made reference, and which brought comment from me, the Soviet union voted affirmatively. That represents a different position than was present, of course, in certain other situations in the past, all of which serve as precedents for the gradual build-up of experience in the United Nations toward what ultimately must become, I believe, the normal role of that body, namely to try and keep the peace
[Stage Direction]

through the instrumentality of the collective will rather than through the instrumentality of any given nation.
There are now some 10,000 soldiers, wearing nine different uniforms I believe, in the Congo; and it is to the credit of the United Nations, to the credit of its officers, and notably the secretary general, that this organization has been effected in such a short time. The command has been given to General Von Horne, a distinguished Swedish soldier who has had great experience with United Nations troops, particularly in Jerusalem, operating both in the Gaza strip and in Israel.
It is significant that he is reported as having said that he has not yet been able to set up an effective system of communications between his multilingual forces scattered over an area of some 1,500 miles. So the particular request to the government of Canada at this time, in the face of this statement, seems in my judgment particularly appropriate; because that is the kind of military assistance which at this time is requested by the United Nations.
The Prime Minister, and I think quite properly, this morning spoke of this whole matter as a strong argument for giving to the United Nations the kind of sanctions which were intended when the United Nations charter was first discussed at San Francisco. The fact is that if the necessary sanctions have not been provided, the fault must largely rest with the Soviet union, who have persistently refused to give effect to article XLIII of the charter of the United Nations. But it is significant that the charter of the United Nations, through article XLIII, was never intended to eliminate the necessity of agreement between the member states and the security council in regard to the supply of armed forces from any contributing country. Articles XLIV, XLV and XLVI of the charter of the United Nations clearly, I believe, confirm what I have just said.
But the Prime Minister, of course, is not alone in recognizing the desirability of the United Nations acquiring a strong United Nations peace force, or police force, or a United Nations force, depending on whichever nomenclature one wishes to accept. The Leader of the Opposition in 1957 wrote this in the April issue of Foreign Affairs:
Are we to go on from crisis to crisis improvising in haste? Or can we now pool our experience and our resources, so that the next time we, the governments and peoples whom the United Nations represents, will be ready and prepared to act.
His views are supported by some very eminent people who have had considerable experience in the field of foreign affairs, among them the former foreign secretary in

the United Kingdom, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, who said in an article written by Mr. Leslie Munro at page 210 in Foreign Affairs of January, 1960:
I have realized that it is a topic upon which one must carry with one a consensus of world opinion. The realities impose upon us the necessity to hasten slowly. I understand the limitations. It could not be a fighting force. It could only be put into position by a decision of the United Nations. Its deployment would depend upon the agreement of the countries concerned. I also acknowledge the practical difficulties.
Then he goes on:
I hope that during this assembly some indication will be given of the views of other governments upon what I have been saying.
Then Sir Leslie Munro goes on to say:
Mr. Lloyd seems to have adopted the proposal of Mr. Lester Pearson in the article I have mentioned, when Mr. Pearson suggested that "member governments, excluding the permanent members of the security council, should be invited to signify a willingness in principle to contribute contingents to the United Nations for purposes that are essentially non-combatant, such as, for example, the supervision of agreed cease-fires and comparable peace supervisory functions."
It may be that the kind of force Mr. Lloyd is speaking about and about which the Leader of the Opposition spoke is not precisely the kind of force that the United Nations through the security council decisions has asked Canada and other nations to provide. When I said Mr. Lloyd and the Leader of the Opposition, I meant to include also, of course, the Prime Minister, who has undoubtedly shared with these two gentlemen the view that the United Nations must build up in the form as suggested those forces which could in due course be used by the United Nations for dealing with particular situations.
The difficulty of realizing the kind of force that the Leader of the Opposition had in mind is reflected in the attitude taken in 1957 by Mr. Krishna Menon, the minister of national defence for India, and the attitude of other countries which regarded the particular effort as one that had implications with which they were not at that moment prepared to fully concur.
So I believe that this action represents the most important single act taken by the United Nations, apart from Korea, which was of a different character. In that case there was an act of war based upon a declaration of aggression, and it seems to me that the only precedent for the kind of action that is being taken today, particularly on the economic side and on the side of trying to bring stability to a government at the invitation of that government, was the kind of action taken in the early twenties by the league of nations when that body stepped
United Nations Forces in Congo in and effected a rehabilitation after the financial collapse of Austria. So we may today, perhaps to an extent greater than our anticipation, be dealing with one of the fundamental developments in international organization, and we hope in the maintenance of peace in the world.
I said at the beginning that this resolution is of a general character, and not being able to foresee the events which could arise in the Congo, in Africa, I believe it is our responsibility in this house to anticipate in the light of our constitutional responsibilities what situations could confront us and make sure that in consultation we will not in any way be dissipating our powers.
The Prime Minister was right this morning in saying that a decision of this character was one which in the first instance must be made by the executive, by the cabinet. Only the cabinet, under our form of government, can be presumed to be informed of all the facts involved, and it is right for the Prime Minister to say that the government takes this decision and then comes to parliament, in accordance with our constitutional practices, to obtain ratification or disapproval of the executive act.
That was the position which Mr. St. Laurent took in November, 1956, when the government of Canada proposed that this parliament should be called upon to support the resolution of the United Nations establishing the United Nations emergency force in the Gaza strip. The words of the prime minister of that day ought, I think, to be on record for our consideration and for notation at this time. I refer to what Mr. St. Laurent said as reported at page 19 of Hansard for November 26, 1956, at the bottom of the left hand column. He was referring to an observation made by the then hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who had been dealing with the implications of the Canadian Forces Act of September 8, 1950. Mr. St. Laurent went on:
This is at page 494 of Hansard, the second column, and it reads as follows:
Then the then prime minister quoted the words of the then hon. member of Winnipeg North Centre:
"From what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has said tonight, and from what has been said previously by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and on other occasions by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), I feel they are with me in this, so I do not think I have to argue it. I did think it was possible, however, that the house might be so preoccupied with other matters this session as not to get this issue right into the open and have it made perfectly clear. I hope before we leave-it could be now, or later in this
debate, or later in the session, but certainly soon_
it will be made perfectly clear just how the matter stands as to the responsibility of the government
[Stage Direction]
United Nations Forces in Congo to parliament, which is there all the time, but which is particularly clear and important in this matter of putting our forces on active service."
That statement by the then hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre contained the observations of a man who, whatever we may say about some views which he hold's and no matter what may be our criticism of those views, nevertheless must be regarded as a man who would share with us a belief in the strength of the United Nations in situations such as the one with which we are now dealing. He was concerned, in recognizing the desirability of giving the United Nations power in the matter, that there should be no delegation by parliament of functions that parliament has no right to delegate.
Mr. St. Laurent then went on:
Well, when that suggestion-X will not say that challenge-was made, I immediately rose in my place and said:
Then Mr. St. Laurent quoted what he said, and it was as follows:
I think the matter should be made perfectly clear at once, so there can be no misapprehension or uncomfortable feeling about it anywhere. When this bill is passed and becomes law it is the intention of the government to comply with the letter and spirit of section 33, in so far as its policy has been announced with respect to Korea.
Then Mr. St. Laurent continued:
Section 33 is the section that provides that if an order in council is passed, as the section authorizes in express terms, putting our forces on active service parliament, if it is not then in session, will be called within ten days to deal with the matter.
Then Mr. St. Laurent continued his quotation:
"The intention of the government is that if any other service should be required of this special force, which of course is not being created solely because of the Korean incident, if any police action, for instance, that has a warlike character should be required of it elsewhere than Korea, the government would of course have to make its decision, but it would immediately call parliament, make that decision known and leave it to parliament to approve or disapprove of it. I think that is the only way the Canadian people would feel they were getting the protection they expect from the representatives."
And then further on page 495:
"If anything else should be required at any future time in order to carry out similar commitments, the government of course would have to take the responsibility of making its decision, but would certainly have to place itself in- the hands of parliament within the ten-day period for ratification or disapproval of that decision."
The course the government has pursued in this matter is precisely that. That is why the Leader of the Opposition said this morning that the course taken by the government, in accordance with our traditional practice, was to be commended. I refer to these words because I want it clearly understood that so far

as I am concerned the resolution which is properly now before the house will always be considered in the light of what our constitutional practice is, a practice which the Prime Minister himself has recognized.
The Prime Minister this morning was anxious, I am sure, to establish what I, certainly, and I do not believe anyone else really controverts, namely that as a supporter of the United Nations-and he has shown that- he wanted also to establish the fact, as we all do, that the United Nations in its evolutionary process of becoming an important instrument for the preservation of peace in the world, must have behind it the sanctions to make its work effective, particularly in specific situations. I agree with the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition stated this this morning, that the reservations made about article X, for instance, of the covenant of the league of nations, perhaps especially in the light of events today, were not the kind of reservations which were calculated to give the league of nations the potential strength its authors intended.
The Prime Minister referred this morning to some remarks of his which will be found at page 182 of Hansard for the first session of 1945, when he said as reported at the top of the right hand column of that page:
Will Canada become a leader among any nations if the policy she adopts is not to allow any of her manpower to be sent beyond the confines of the dominion without parliamentary sanction?
In fairness to the Prime Minister I do not want those words to be interpreted as meaning that he does not approve of the kind of action which he himself has initiated in this instance. I take it he was advocating there the desirability of a United Nations force which would impose sanctions to achieve its purposes and ends.
John George Diefenbaker: Read on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house has been dealt with very fully and adequately by the hon. members who have already spoken. I do not intend to trespass on the time of the house for long, but there are two points with which I should like to deal.
The first has to do with the place of the United Nations in what has been taking place in the Republic of Congo. For me, the actions of the secretary general and of the United Nations are extremely significant. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he said that there has been a new and long forward step taken in these particular actions.
The appeal to the secretary general was made by the Republic of Congo on July 12, which is not quite three weeks ago. On July 14 the resolution was adopted which was read this morning by the Prime Minister, and which in substance called for military assistance and also for technical assistance. It is almost unbelievable that within such a short space of time there could be thousands of troops serving under the United Nations flag actually on the spot in the Congo.
There was some suggestion by the hon. member for Kootenay West that Canada might have sent a battalion. The situation is that the secretary general-and very wisely, I think-decided that the troops to go in the first place should be from Africa. This is one of the finest features about the whole action taken by the United Nations.
For in addition to getting troops into the Congo, the United Nations has been successful in having foodstuffs flown in, and is gradually providing administrative services for the new nation. I thought a listener might have taken the inference this morning from some of the remarks made that the United Nations has no administrative machinery available for a crisis of this kind. The fact is that there are several thousand international civil servants under the United Nations. From my experience in New York last year I know they are internationally-minded. They do not serve in New York as Canadians for example on the United Nations staff. There has been built up in that staff a United Nations loyalty. Many of these men have been
7346	HOUSE OF
United Nations Forces in Congo used in this crisis. Take, for example, Dr. Bunche. He was in Leopoldville within a matter of hours, and has been doing splendid work there ever since. There are a number of others from the United Nations permanent stall who have been participating in the actions taken to meet this problem which arose so suddenly.
At the present time the United Nations is organizing technical assistance for the Congo, and I understand has almost completed a plan under which it will be possible for member nations such as Canada to make a contribution which will have the effect of building up proper technical assistance for the Congo. At the present time the secretary general himself is in Africa. He has had conferences with members of the government in Leopoldville. Before that, on his way to Africa, he conferred with members of the Belgian government. I believe that the United Nations, by the actions it has already taken and is in the process of taking, may very well solve in 1960 the most difficult problems arising in Africa. The British and the French have been able to launch independent nations on that continent with great success, and now the actions of United Nations may largely round out the picture and make it possible for that continent to make progress in the way we would like to see it done. It just may be that this test which the United Nations has been facing so successfully will be the turning point in the whole process of establishing new independent nations in the world.
One other subject with which I should like to deal for just a few minutes is Canada's part in this whole crisis. The hon. member for Kootenay West took some comfort and relish from reading editorials from the Globe and Mail. I do not take quite so much comfort from their editorials these days. However, I noticed that the official opposition did not quote them; they know better.
I suggest to hon. members of the house and to the Canadian people that Canada is playing a greater part than any other nation in maintaining and building up the peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations. So many Canadians are so extremely modest and bashful about Canada's role in world affairs. They seem to take the attitude that everything their country does is just not as good as what every other country is doing, and that there are so many ways we could be improved. On the whole they suggest that we should be a little ashamed of ourselves, and all that sort of nonsense.
We have to have faith in Canada, and we have plenty of reason to have faith in Canada in so far as her relations with the United Nations have been concerned from the very


start of that great organization. We have roughly 900 young Canadians with the United Nations emergency force in Palestine, the second largest contingent in that force. No other nation with any large number of troops there has undertaken a second role in the Congo. The Swedish troops have been moved to the Congo from Palestine on a 30-day basis. This is not a new contingent from Sweden but is a temporary transfer of the battalion from Palestine to the Congo. Ireland has troops in the Congo but, of course, she has none in Palestine.
Canada is involved in this business more deeply than any other country in the world. This is true also of the members of our Department of National Defence and of the Department of External Affairs. We are participating in the various truce organizations and commissions in southeast Asia, Israel and in other parts of the world where Canada has or has had young men taking part in work, in effect, for the United Nations. We have more trained men in that category than any other nation. This is a role which we can fill very well and which we have filled with great success. These young men have brought great credit to our nation. I am sure that will be the case with the young men who go out to the Congo within the next few days.
Canada stands firmly behind the United Nations. I repeat, Canada is doing more today than any other nation in the world to help support the peace-keeping efforts of the United Nations. We are deeply interested in a United Nations force. Eventually I would hope that some sort of United Nations standing force can be devised. So far there have been many difficulties which have made it impossible to complete such a program. For example, take this Congo situation. If there had been a standing force of the United Nations it certainly would not have had sufficient African troops in it to enable the secretary general to send several thousand Africans, as has been done within the last two weeks.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested today that member nations should have forces in being earmarked for service under the United Nations, just as we have had one of our regular army battalions allocated for that particular work. This, of course is a good idea; but circumstances vary so much that Mr. Hammarskjold has not thus far considered it practical to have a standing force for the United Nations. Who could have foreseen that trouble of just this kind would have arisen in the Congo? I do not think anyone in this house would have been able to sit down six weeks ago, or certainly six months ago, and work out a plan for a United Nations force to meet a crisis that

was likely to arise in the Congo. 1 merely point out these tacts to show that the problem is not one of people wanting to have a United Nations force, but is one of working out the details. Mind you, I hope that eventually this will be done.
I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker, to have the unanimous support of the house for this resolution. I am confident that there will also be support from coast to coast in Canada, and I believe Canadians can look to the future of this force with considerable optimism. So far the United Nations has been immensely successful in what it has tried to do to meet the situation in the Congo, and I see no reason why that success should not be continued; provided, of course, that the Soviet and anyone else who is trying to interfere will just not meddle and will leave the United Nations to work out its own plans.
Some reference has been made to Katanga province. This is the most difficult feature of the whole situation. Law and order are prevailing in that province and apparently have been for some time. There seems to be quite a strong movement for secession from the Congo republic, and the question of selfdetermination arises, as the hon. member for Essex East rightly pointed out. This is a particularly difficult problem and the United Nations has made it clear that there will be no interference with the internal affairs of the Congo. For example, the statement of principles governing the use of the United Nations force in the Congo was made public by Mr. Hammarskjold on July 18, and we find this with regard to interference in the internal affairs of the Congo:
Likewise, it follows that the U.N. units must not become parties in internal conflicts, that they cannot be used to enforce any specific political solution of pending problems or to influence the political balance decisive to such a solution. It is only on this basis that the U.N. can expect to draw on member states for contributions in men and material.
We had a request by cable about two weeks ago for recognition of Katanga as an independent state and I believe a similar request went to quite a few other countries. I explained to the house subsequently that Canada had not replied to that request. We do not believe that we can help work out this problem by getting involved in it under present conditions. Mr. Hammarskjold, as I have stated, is now in the Congo or will be back within the next day or two, and is certainly well aware of the nature of this problem. I am hopeful that it will be possible for him to work out a reasonable solution. No one knows just what type it will be. Perhaps a confederation will be established in the Congo rather than a unitary state such as they now have; but Canada has felt that her wisest
United Nations Forces in Congo course with regard to this particular aspect of the Congo problem was to refrain from making statements at a time when conditions were as inflammable as they are at the present time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister permit a question? Notwithstanding the fact that this Congo operation is being conducted under the authority of a resolution of the security council, does he not think it would be helpful to have an advisory committee of participating governments helping the secretary general in working out the principles and procedures required, a committee such as was so effective in connection with the United Nations emergency force some years ago, and on which Canada would be represented?


Howard Charles Green: There has been no suggestion as yet, Mr. Speaker, that a committee of that kind should be set up, but it does seem to me that it would be very much worth while, and Canada would certainly be on it if for no other reason than the fact that we shall have forces actually in the Congo.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.
Eight Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go over ground already covered. Naturally I am pleased with the unanimity of support given to the motion. However, there are one or two observations I think I should make arising out of an apparent conflict in points of view regarding Katanga, as expressed by the hon. members for Kootenay West and Essex East.
The hon. member for Kootenay West, if I understood him correctly, contended that everything possible should be done on the part of the United Nations to keep Katanga in the Republic of Congo. By nodding his head he indicates that I have correctly interpreted his views. On the other hand the hon. member for Essex East, realizing as he must the difficulty inherent in a proposition such as that advanced by the hon. member for Kootenay West, took rather a diametrically opposite stand. Personally I believe that if the United Nations, either directly or indirectly, were to interfere in the manner necessary in order to attain the objective of the hon. member for Kootenay West, the consequences would be very serious. '
Indeed, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated in the course of his remarks a few moments ago, in the statement of principles enunciated by the secretary general it was made perfectly clear there should be no interference by the United

United Nations Forces in Congo Nations forces with civil government in the Congo. I might also underline that the principles governing the use of the United Nations forces, which were enunciated by the secretary general on the 18th July, are to the following effect:
The authority granted to the U.N. force cannot be exercised within the Congo either in competition with representatives of the host government or in co-operation with them in any joint operation. This applies a fortiori to representatives and military units of other governments than the host government. The U.N. operation must be separate and distinct from activities by any national authorities.
I feel I should bring that to the attention of the house for the reason that it epitomizes what I believe is a necessary declaration which is inherent in any organization such as the United Nations force. To do otherwise would place United Nations forces in a position of participating in civil disorder within a state, whether directly or indirectly, on the side of either the existing government or conceivably, should circumstances arise, on the side of the forces of a revolutionary government, and of becoming involved in the recognition of that government. It would be a dangerous course to follow. I feel that what Mr. Hammarskjold has set forth in his declaration is the only course that could possibly be accepted if we desire the United Nations forces operating under the direction of that organization to be effective and to be removed from all nationalist considerations.
Second, a question was raised as to the cost. The original estimate by Mr. Hammarskjold was $2 million. He found, however, before plans were very far under way that this amount would not represent even a small part of the actual cost, and the estimate now is that the cost to the United Nations will be $15 million for a period of three months.
The Leader of the Opposition said something this morning about the length of time the United Nations force might be expected to be in the Congo. There have been all kinds and types of estimates up to five years. When one looks at what has taken place in the Middle East, where the issues subsequent to December, 1956 have been less exacerbated than they are in the Congo and yet such a long period of time has elapsed since that force was set up, one can only conclude that if order is to be restored in the Congo, if anarchy is to be displaced, if peace is to be maintained, the period during which the force will be in operation there may be far beyond anything today anticipated.
I should like to make one further reference, and it is not by way of criticism. I deplore anything in the nature of an attack on any country that is friendly to us.

I am not here to weigh the difficulties of the past. I recollect the events to which the hon. member for Kootenay West made reference, but from the information that is available I feel there is every indication that the Belgian government through the years has made a worthy contribution in elevating standards in the Congo, and has made available means of transportation far and beyond those existing in many other countries of like physical circumstances. Just a few days ago I had a very similar reaction to attacks made on the President of the United States in his personal capacity. While all of us in the course of debate sometimes go beyond the limitation that each of us should impose upon himself, it is my opinion that as a general rule the best course for nations and for national assemblies to follow is not to place our allies and friends under criticism which cannot have any result that will be beneficial to us or to the freedom for which we jointly stand.
In order to indicate to the people of Canada and to our allies everywhere that unity which has been so apparent here, that realization that each of us is indeed internationally his brother's keeper, I think it only proper that we should have the opportunity of voting on this resolution, to the end that our unity will be a matter of record.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the Prime Minister permit one question before the vote is called? Does the Prime Minister consider the present government of Katanga a legal government which represents the will of the people of that portion of the Congo?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are many elements in that question. I would not want to give an answer to it because any answer I might give would not be based on a full knowledge of the facts and, in any event, if it were it would be presumptuous to make any personal determination.


John George Diefenbaker: That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this house has adopted a resolution approving of the participation of Canadian forces in the United Nations operations in the Congo, and requesting their honours to unite with this house in the approval of the same by filling up the blanks in the resolution with the words: "Senate and".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Combines Investigation Act THE ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government house,
Ottawa, August 1, 1960.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles Holland Locke, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Administrator of the government of Canada, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 1st August, at 8 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. Joly de Lotbiniere Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS RESPECTING MERGERS, MONOPOLIES, ETC.

Edmund Davie Fulton: the third reading of Bill No. C-58, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has received very complete and detailed discussion both on second reading and in the standing committee on banking and commerce, and also in committee of the whole house. Therefore I do not propose at this stage to say anything further, although of course I shall be prepared to reply to any hon. members who may feel they should say something at this stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no reply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I find that I have for a moment misapprehended the rules of the house. There being no reply on a motion for third reading it is perhaps desirable that I should say a word or two to lay before the house the outline of what this bill will accomplish.
I would list the accomplishments of the bill as follows: first of all, it consolidates and clarifies the definitions which have previously been contained in at least two different places. It does this by bringing under the Combines Investigation Act the definitions which were formerly contained in the Criminal Code. Also, as I have said, it clarifies the definitions of monopoly and combination. This process of consolidation and clarification will, I believe, be of assistance not only to those who have to operate business but also to those who have to enforce and interpret this legislation.
Second, it consolidates all the legislation under one act. It removes from the Criminal
7350	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act Code certain provisions having relation to this type of trade practice and places them all under the Combines Investigation Act. This is a step which was recommended by the MacQuarrie committee. The legislation clarifies the law with respect to combinations. It does this by making it clear that the per se rule against harmful combination is maintained. By keeping the definition under which the jurisprudence has developed we have maintained that jurisprudence itself. This part of the amendment clears the air with respect to practices which may benefit the economy. This is done in the amending section 32 contained in the bill. There has, of course, been a good deal of criticism with respect to this part of the legislation, but may I remind hon. members that there has been to my knowledge no disagreement with the fact that arrangements directed exclusively toward such matters as the pooling of resources for research and similar matters would produce real benefit to the economy in terms of placing our industry in a position more competitive with that of other countries.
Third, the change with respect to the combination provisions goes on further to protect the interest of the consumer by making it clear what are the harmful effects of combinations which cannot be allowed even though those effects might be accompanied by certain beneficial arrangements such as the one I have just mentioned. So it is a fact that this legislation clarifies the law with respect to combinations and that it would be of great assistance to the economy generally by encouraging those practices which will benefit the economy about which there formerly has been doubt as to their permissibility, while at the same time protecting the economy by making it clear that those beneficial arrangements cannot be allowed to be an umbrella for other arrangements harmful to the economy.
Fourth, the legislation provides the alternative remedy of injunction or dissolution order instead of the sole remedy by way of prosecution leading to conviction now open in dealing with restrictive trade practices. Again this is based on a recommendation of the MacQuarrie committee which made a thorough study of combines legislation and whose report contained a recommendation to the effect that the provision of such an alternative remedy would be of great benefit. The type of case in which this alternative remedy might be used is, of course, the type of case where certain mergers might be concerned or a marginal case in connection with a combination where it is not clear whether or not it comes under the per se rule. In cases such as this the MacQuarrie committee pointed out


that the advantages of such an alternative procedure as against the procedure now open to us would be considerable. The committee pointed out that the use of a restraining order has been found particularly useful in such cases in the United States.
Of course, there has been criticism in this house of the provision of this alternative procedure, largely on the ground that it leaves discretion with the minister. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the minister in the ultimate analysis will be responsible for determining what remedy is used, but that is the kind of decision which ministers are constantly required to make in a responsible system of government. There is nothing unusual or improper in it, and I think it is necessary to dispel the illusion which has been created by opposition spokesmen and others about this matter that the minister is going to be able to make his decisions, and exercise his discretion, in secret without the knowledge of parliament. That is a complete illusion. The minister will not be able to make any such decision without reporting to parliament or being held fully accountable by parliament.
Fifth, the legislation provides an alternative forum in which issues regarding arrangements in restraint of trade can be tried and disposed of. This alternative forum is by way of a procedure to allow us to bring these cases before the Exchequer Court of Canada instead of having to bring them in the trial courts of the provinces as up to now we have had to do exclusively. We believe it will be advantageous to build up; a body of judicial experts in this field inasmuch as a great deal of what is involved in cases of this type is concerned with the economic and related effects of these arrangements on the economy generally.
May I point out, however, that with respect to the change that nobody is deprived of any right whatever to have his case tried in the trial court if he so desires. With respect to prosecutions, these can only be taken to the exchequer court by the consent of both the crown and the accused, so the accused is not deprived of his right to trial by jury, if he is an individual, or, in the case of a corporation, of the right to be tried in an ordinary trial court if they wish it. As for the crown, the crown is not compelled to take a case to the exchequer court where the proper remedy is held to be by trial and conviction. This is simply the provision of an alternative forum which should provide a body of expert judicial interpreters of the issues involved in many of these cases, and

it would also provide a more expeditious method of bringing some of these cases to finality.
The next group of improvements I should like to mention-and there are four of these-is in the field of measures to assist small business and the consumer generally. The first of these important amendments is that made in section 34, which makes clear those things which may be done by way of discontinuance of supplies to merchants who are guilty of unfair competitive practices or of practices bordering on the dishonest. A great deal has been said by way of discussion of this particular feature of the bill and many false illusions again, have been created.
In the discussion in committee of the whole house I pointed out what kind of undesirable or unfair trade practices it is that we have in mind in this section and which if indulged in by merchants, would warrant the discontinuance of supplies, and there was not one member of the committee who had any disagreement to offer or suggest that he proposition that if anyone was found indulging in that type of competitive practice it was a perfectly proper and fair thing for the supplier-those supplying him with the goods by which he was carrying out those practices-to discontinue supplying them.
This, of course, will be a very great measure of protection to the honest small businessman and merchant who at the moment finds himself powerless to protect himself against this kind of unfair competitive device, the kind represented by loss leader selling and misleading price advertising, and to whom at the moment no one is able to bring any measure of assistance. As a result of this bill we believe he will find his protection greatly increased.
The next measure by way of assistance to small business is a measure which strengthens the provisions against predatory pricing practices. Those practices are now dealt with in section 412 of the Criminal Code. We have, of course, consolidated that section into the Combines Investigation Act and have strengthened it by the inclusion of a provision which makes it clear that where practices are being followed which have the tendency of eliminating competition or a competitor then the administration, the combines branch, can take action on that basis without having to wait until somebody has actually been driven out of business as is the case at the present time.
The next item in this field is the measure dealing with the question of promotional allowances. In this respect the legislation adopts the views expressed by the Stewart royal commission on price spreads and the
Combines Investigation Act views of the restrictive trade practices commission itself. We have adopted the views of those two bodies in the reports that they have submitted as to the undesirability of promotional allowances and by our legislation, I believe we will have done one or possibly both of two things: first, to bring about the elimination of these allowances or, alternatively, if they are not eliminated then the legislation will at least restore a large element of competitive equality as between those to whom these allowances must be given.
Again, under this category of measures to assist small business we have introduced a provision which will establish a penalty against those who indulge in misleading advertising with relation especially to advertising regarding prices. Under this group of four main measures we will, I am convinced, have gone a considerable distance toward protecting the competitive position of the small merchant in our economy. This was one of the deliberate objectives with which we set out to introduce these amendments.
A further provision of the bill, and a very important one introduced more lately than some of the others, is a provision which makes it clear that industry can make cooperative arrangements for strengthening their own and Canada's position in export markets provided those arrangements do not have any damaging effeot in the domestic market. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate more than was done in our earlier discussions on the necessity and desirability of this provision. I am certain that enough has been said to convince the house that the position of Canadian industry in export trade is becoming increasingly hazardous and difficult as a result of the competitive practices and the strength of the competitive influences being brought to bear against them and that any measure such as this which can ensure that our industry can make its cooperative arrangements in that field without damage to the domestic economy is to the advantage of Canada as a whole. This, then, is a summary of the effects and purposes of the legislation.
I should like to deal for a brief moment with some of the criticisms. The criticisms have been made on the most extraordinary basis that I have heard in a debate in this house for a long time. They have been made on the basis that measures which clarify the law as to what Canadian business may do, measures which improve the position of Canadian business without allowing any unfair or undesirable practices which will damage the economy, are somehow or other to be rejected simply because they were in troduced by a Conservative government. The
7352	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act whole basis of the criticisms of the opposition was on a basis of suspicion, conjecture and the creation or attempted creation of prejudice against this measure because it happens to have been introduced by a government which is Conservative in character.
As I said in moving second reading of this measure, this is an extraordinarily shortsighted policy on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite because as I reminded the house then, and as I should like to remind the house again, it is not as though the country itself had no interest in the welfare of Canadian business. It is a fact that practically every segment of our economy both jointly and severally has an interest in the welfare of business itself.
Men who work have a very direct interest in the welfare of business and in seeing that business is able to provide employment. At times like this when hon. members opposite express great concern over unemployment I have been amazed to find the extent to which for political purposes they are prepared to attack a measure which is designed to improve the position of business without damaging the position of the consumer or of the economy. Again, as I have pointed out, not only do men who work have an interest in the welfare of business but also the Canadian people generally have such an interest. Certainly the economy generally depends to a large extent upon the welfare of business. Indeed, the general revenues of the treasury are dependent to a large extent upon the business which pays taxes.
If, therefore, we can do as we have done here, without holding any special brief for business as though it were an organization that was not subject to the overriding public interest; without holding any special brief in that sense, if we can do as we have done here, introduce a measure which clarifies the law, which makes it clear by way of encouragement that certain beneficial practices can be carried out without danger, thus encouraging our industry to improve its competitive position; if, as we have done, we can introduce a measure which improves and protects the position of the small merchant who is so vital a cornerstone or of a truly free and independent economy; if we can bring in a measure, as we have done, to make it possible to improve the position of our exports on the international markets, and all this while maintaining adequately and absolutely the necessary safeguards for the interests of the consumer and for the general welfare, then it surprises me indeed that the bill would be attacked in the way it has been.
These will be the results of the legislation. These results will, of course, become more
[Mr. Fulton.l

and more apparent after the legislation passes, and when as I hope advantage will be taken of those proper arrangements which can be made under the legislation, these results should become apparent. But at the same time it is also a fact that the ability of the administration to deal with improper, unfair and restrictive trade practices which are still prohibited by the legislation will be made easier. The task of the administration itself has been made more flexible through a combination of the alternative procedures that are provided and the alternative forum that is made available.
So that on all these grounds, plus one other which I should like to remind the house of, I commend the bill to the House of Commons for third reading.
That third ground or third topic which I should like to deal with is to dispel the illusion which hon. members opposite have sought to create, and believe have sought unsuccessfully but nevertheless very definitely to create, that somehow or other after the passage of this bill all these things are going to be left to be decided by what has been called the process of private law. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what the opposition invites the house to assume and what they have said there, and particularly with reference to section 34, is that on the passage of the bill all those who are charged at the present time with the administration and the enforcement of combines legislation will, if they do not take leave of their senses, certainly take leave of their sense of responsibility, will lose interest in their responsibility and will lose sight of the fact that it is their responsibility to enforce this measure.
I have pointed out already that particularly in respect of section 34 this bill does not change the law, it merely clarifies it. How then can it be suggested that the law having only been clarified to make clear what may and may not be done, the officials in charge of enforcing it will be any less able or any less interested in enforcing it than they have been up to the present time? Of course, they will be no less able and no less interested. Bear in mind that on every occasion on which one of those practices which it is now made clear may be followed is in fact carried out, then there can still be a complaint made. There may be a complaint by anyone who feels himself aggrieved and no doubt there will be complaints. The limits within which those practices may be carried out are clearly defined in the act and anyone seeking to protect himself or defend himself in the course of the investigation of a complaint will have to satisfy and the same general administrative officers under the same legislation, that in fact he had justification for

taking the action that he did, and that his action did not in fact constitute one of the practices prohibited and still prohibited by this legislation.
Therefore, for hon. members opposite to talk about introducing some sort of private administrative law is nothing more nor less than for them to charge that not only the government but the responsible officials who report to the government, and whose reports when made must be made public, will themselves abdicate their responsibilities. Well, sir, of course, I reject out of hand any such improper assertion, any such improper assumption, and I assure this house that the officers who will be responsible for the detailed administration of the act will continue to administer it objectively, vigorously and fairly as they have done in the past and that the government will expect that kind of administration and itself will give that kind of administration to this legislation.
Therefore, looking at the bill as a whole, I can say safely that it should produce benefits to the economy by the clarification and the consolidation that it represents, and produce very real benefits in terms of strengthening Canada's position in international trade as well as improving the position of our domestic economy; that the measure will be administered fairly and flexibly and is capable of more fair and flexible administration as a result of the amendments; and that finally, while not in any sense weakening the protection of the consumer against the kind of practice which the legislation from its outset has been designed to protect him against, it will in fact improve the position of the consumer because of the direct effect that these amendments will have on their tendency to eliminate unfair competitive devices so as to make it impossible, or at least more difficult than ever for the setting up of monopolies and the elimination of competitors.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, nothing can be more obvious than that if we were to allow unfair practices to continue by which, solely through the power of the purse, the small merchant can progressively be driven out of business and power concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, nothing in the long run could be more adverse to the interest of the consumer. It is in recognition of that principle and of the other principles that I have outlined that these amendments were designed; and it is in furtherance of these objectives that I now move the third reading of this bill in this house.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Before the minister resumes his seat will he permit a question? In view of the fact that the bill was finally
Combines Investigation Act dealt with in the committee stage last Wednesday, why is no copy of the bill available in the house today on third reading?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is not a question I can answer since I am not in charge of the printing of the house. All I know is that I understood that reprints of the bill as amended in the committee were ready and available for distribution. If they are not available I am unable to explain; I am able to express only my regret. It is a fact of which I had no knowledge until this moment, and I regret that, in as much as the order has been on the order paper for some days now, the lack of printed copies was not brought to my attention earlier.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps, in fairness to the minister, I should say I discovered that reprints of the bill were not available only when the minister was speaking. We regret this but it is still the minister's responsibility.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not, but we will look into it right away.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the rather lengthy statement which the minister made. Because of its very nature it took the form of an apology for his entire bill. He proceeded to make what I considered to be a rather unusual and lengthy defence of this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There has been a very unusual and very lengthy attack on it.


Leon David Crestohl: Yet the minister's statement simply confirms the fact that it was a measure which needed, required and called for a lengthy attack and a close examination.
When the minister was making his lengthy defence I was struck by the old proverb "Qui s'excuse, s'accuse". Whoever excuses himself certainly accuses himself. During the entire recital by the minister I considered that one of the most important features or phases of the entire bill had not been sufficiently considered at all, nor had it been adequately dealt with. It is to just that to which I want to direct my remarks.
We heard over 30 witnesses who came before the banking and commerce committee. I classified them according to groups. The first group consisted of the manufacturers, the producers, the distributors and that class of people in our economy who are concerned with profits, with dividends, with earnings, investments, primarily. It is not an offence to be in that category. Profits are a perfectly legitimate thing; dividends are a perfectly legitimate thing, but for purposes of my discussion I want to make that classification. That was one class of witness that came

Combines Investigation Act before us. Then, there was a second class of witness. They consisted of the consumer, the person who is concerned with shopping, with buying, the housewife, the one who is really troubled by prices when they are too high. That is the second class of witness who came before us. My classification includes a third class of witness consisting of students, scholars, professors, economists, university teachers, people who make it their business to study and understand the economy of our country and how it might be affected by precisely this kind of legislation.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have these three categories. The first one concerns itself with production, distribution and sale, and naturally prices and dividends. The second class involves the consumer, John Citizen himself, who is the one who is affected when he has to do his shopping. You have these two classes, one at each end, and in the middle you have the third class involving people who in my opinion have no personal axe to grind. This class includes professors and economists, men who are academically interested in the problem. I like to regard them as a neutral voice in this debate between the two extremes. We have the producer, the buyer and the neutral voice. In my opinion the minister and the government have not paid sufficient attention to the householder and consumer. In fact, they have practically ignored the householder and consumer and have completely ignored what the scholars, the teachers, the thinkers, the philosophers, have said.
I should like to take a few moments to review briefly the highlights of what these people have said. Let me take first of all the consumer, the housewife. The president of the Canadian association of consumers, Miss Atkinson, appeared before the committee, and as found on page 99 of the proceedings of the committee she said:
The Canadian association of consumers has on numerous occasions, beginning with our original submission in November, 1951, and continuing at intervals up to our latest submission in April, 1960, made representations to officials or ministers of the government, expressing our firm and unqualified opposition to the practice of resale price maintenance in any form or degree.
Here is the Canadian housewife talking and making her position very clear and categorical. Miss Atkinson continues:
This opposition was and is based on a careful analysis of the fundamental and general consequences of the practice as well as on its impact on the specific interest of the consumer.
She makes these statements after a very careful study of the point of view of the Canadian who goes to a store to do the shopping. Here you have very direct opposition to this phase of the legislation. I

should like to read another short paragraph of her evidence in which she says:
We make no apology for emphasizing the consumer interest since it undoubtedly comes closer to representing the "public" interest than does that of any other group. Our representations have been repeatedly reaffirmed by our provincial and local branches, and by delegates to our national annual meeting from both C.A.C. branches and participating organizations.
We would first raise a question as to the grounds for any amendment of section 34 at this time.
She opposes it categorically.
In view of the findings of the careful and exhaustive analysis of loss leader selling by the combines branch, which culminated in the report of the restrictive trade practices commission, we fail to understand on what objective facts an amendment is being proposed which will restore in a particularly undesirable form the right of suppliers to withhold supplies from retailers who engage in so-called loss leader selling. Allegations as to the extent and seriousness of loss leader selling should, at the least, be once again examined by the commission before such a crippling amendment is considered.
That is quite emphatic. She went on to say:
Turning now to the amendments to section 34, it appears, on the surface, that the ban on resale price maintenance is not being eliminated but rather certain pricing, servicing and advertising practices are being brought under a limited control. Closer examination, however, makes it clear that successful prosecutions against dealers who enforce resale price maintenance will be most unlikely if these amendments are adopted.
Later in her evidence she was being questioned and certainly her answers highlighted her evidence. At page 119 there is the following:


Leon David Crestohl: You are speaking for the Canadian consumers association?


Miss Atkinson:: Yes, sir.


Leon David Crestohl: That is a very important source from which this committee seeks information. Somebody spoke before for the retailers and we will have someone speaking on behalf of the wholesalers. The committee appreciates receiving this information. Just how large is this organization in Canada, in numbers? You speak of the Canadian association of consumers, but what does it embrace? . ..
Miss Atkinson, I am quite satisfied that you probably do not have 17 million consumers in your organization, but the committee members would like to feel that you are speaking on behalf of the average consumer across the country. We are interested in your viewpoint because we do feel that the consumer is the person affected by this legislation. You are familiar with clause 34? You said a moment ago that you were familiar with it.


Frederick Coles Stinson: I do not know it by heart, but I have gone over it several times.


Leon David Crestohl: You are aware of the present law without these amendments?


Frederick Coles Stinson: Yes.


Leon David Crestohl: You are familiar that clause 34 prohibits resale price maintenance?


Frederick Coles Stinson: Yes.


Leon David Crestohl: And you are thoroughly in favour of that?


Frederick Coles Stinson: We would prefer that it be continued.


Leon David Crestohl: You would certainly not urge that the section be repealed?


Frederick Coles Stinson: Certainly not.


Leon David Crestohl: And if someone did urge that the section be repealed you would regard it as being hostile to the consumer population of Canada, would you not?


Frederick Coles Stinson: We would consider it very unfortunate. We would consider such a movement to be retrograde. I think that is the word we used in our brief. We would consider it a retrograde and regrettable development.
Here we have evidence from the consumers of Canada. I have not heard that this evidence was considered either by the minister or by the draftsmen of the bill. This is the voice of the Canadian consumer speaking and yet we have had no indication of any consideration of the point of view of the Canadian housewife.
I said that there was a second class of witness whom we heard, the college professors. I think the house should have these facts before it. Here is a class of men who, as I said before, are students deeply concerned with what is going on and who took the trouble to come before the committee. They made certain statements and recommendations. Where in the bill is there any indication that any attention has been paid to the views of these scholarly and disinterested gentlemen? They have no personal axe to grind. Yet the minister went right on almost oblivious to all the evidence. I should like to refer to what Professor Skeoch said. I will skip the introductory part as to his qualifications because I think hon. members will take it for granted that he is well known and well qualified. I should like to read a letter in connection with his evidence. The chairman made this statement:
Before we start on that. I think this would be the best time to mention one other matter. I have received a letter from the group of the economics department of Queen's University, which I think I should read:-
This is the letter:
We, the undersigned members of this department have read the statement to be made before the House of Commons committee on banking and commerce concerning the proposed amendment to the combines act by our colleague. Dr. L. A. Skeoch. We are definitely and decidedly of the opinion that in the main this proposed legislation is undesirable and offends the main principles of the combines act which have been built up over many years. We would like our concurrence and warm support of Mr. Skeoch's statement to be indicated to the committee.
Then the chairman said:
It is signed by C. A. Curtis, head of the department; M. C. Urquhart, professor of economics; David W. Slater, associate professor of economics, and George R. Post, lecturer in economics.
Combines Investigation Act
So I say, Mr. Speaker; this is the complete economics department of one of Canada's great universities. They mince no words. And where in the presentation to the house, or included in the bill, was any reference made to the opinion of these economists? These are the men who guide this country in matters of economics. They are free of politics; they are concerned with the lifeblood of our country, and are not placing emphasis on the political implications.
This is part of what Dr. Skeoch continued to say, at page 435:
If it is desired to maintain the same tests of restrictive agreements as are now in effect, the simplest and most direct means of doing so would be to omit subsections (2) and (3) from the proposed amendments. A somewhat similar result could be achieved by deleting everything after "unduly" in line 43 of page 6.
Then he continued:
In fact, however, it can be demonstrated that the proposed amendments will effectively eliminate the ban on resale price maintenance, will provide no effective protection either short run or long run, for the small dealer, will open the door to discriminatory practices, will strengthen the position of the large distributor who controls private brands, will place in the hands of the manufacturer a degree of control over the final price of his products that is denied to other groups in the economy, and finally, is based on a profound misunderstanding of the way in which business is conducted.
He makes one other very significant statement. I wanted to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that he was in the category of the independents and had no personal axe to grind, and I questioned him as follows:
So as to differentiate between a submission to the committee by a trade, industry or marketing organization and one of an academic nature, without any specific axe to grind, would you tell us, Professor, whether you have any direct interests, commercial or industrial, which might affect your presentation or which might be affected by your presentation; or are you making the presentation purely on an academic basis and as an objective study of the problem?
Dr. Skeoch: Weil, I have some investments, Mr. Crestohl, but I do not think this would affect my judgment of these matters because, as far as I know, some of the firms in which I have investments have resale price maintenance and some of them do not.
Consciously, this is an analysis that proceeds solely from an academic-I do not say "academic" because I have attempted over the years to acquaint myself as closely as possible and to talk to as many businessmen as possible about problems in this area. As far as I am consciously aware, this is an objective, careful and, I think, responsible analysis of the issues; and it is certainly not dictated by any personal interest of my own.
That was the first scholar who came before our committee, backed by his entire faculty. But he was not the only one. There were others, and all the others who came before the committee supported this viewpoint. There was not one teacher of economics, there was

Combines Investigation Act not one scholar of economics that the government brought before our committee who differed from that viewpoint.
At least, if there had been one to contradict all these scholars, there might be a difference of opinion in scholars; but they were all unanimous. Following what Dr. Skeoch said, I would now like to refer for a moment to Dr. Rosenbluth. He gave his qualifications, and it is certainly a very impressive record, having gone as far as obtaining a Ph.D. from Columbia University. That is by way of introduction. Briefly, what have I culled from his evidence? This is what he says, at page 468 of the evidence:
The purpose of the Combines Investigation Act is to keep private business as competitive as possible. It is designed to protect the public against restrictions of competition that occur when business firms act in concert, when they merge, or when they exploit a monopoly position.
Then he continues:
Such a law is necessary because businessmen usually find it profitable to restrict competition. This tendency is as old as business itself, as suggested by Adam Smith's much quoted comment that "people of the same trade seldom meet together, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices".
Then he says:
Second, to accept the advice of trade associations-
And that is what we had. We had some 25 trade associations, only one representing the consumers, and these three or four scholars. He says:
-on how the Combines Investigation Act should be amended is a little like asking burglars to amend the law on theft or basing liquor control legislation on the advice of alcoholics.
That is so significant, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to emphasize it. The experts who came before us and laid the groundwork for the bill which the government had presented were the industrialists, the producers, the manufacturers and the people concerned with price, and it is on their evidence, their information, their representations that the minister has made such a lengthy statement today, trying to say that it will be helpful. Yes, it will be helpful indeed; but it is helpful right down the line for these industrialists. Then Dr. Rosenbluth said further:
The major provisions of Bill C-58 are evidently based on the suggestions of trade associations-
How wise that man was:
-and it is therefore not surprising that their effect is to make it easier to suppress competition and more difficult to enforce the act. There are two such provisions.
And he analyses them. That was the second scholar we had. Dr. Rosenbluth by the way, also came from Queen's University. Then the committee also heard Dr. English,

who came from Carleton University. On page 491 of the evidence he said:
Clearly the mild and redundant provisions of Bill C-58 can do little to alter this situation, which is in any case largely favourable to Canadian industry.
There was also put into the record, Mr. Speaker, a letter signed by the staff of Carleton University, and I should like to read portions of this letter into Hansard. It is a letter addressed to the chairman of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and it reads:
The undersigned members of the department of economics at Carleton University wish to support the views expressed by Professor H. E. English in his brief to the standing committee on banking and commerce, July 5th, 1960.
In particular, we regard the proposed changes to the legislation on loss leader selling contained in Bill C-58 as detrimental to the public interest. As has been observed on innumerable occasions, the concepts of cost are varied and complex. Attempts to define them in one way rather than another for purposes of price determination restrict that freedom of managerial decision necessary to reduce consumer prices to a minimum.
This in spite of what the minister has tried to explain.
Inevitably, moreover, there are many occasions when it is advantageous for a business man to sell goods below the price he has paid for them, where, for example, he has misjudged the market, changes having occurred in either supply or demand...
In spite of the expressed intention of the framers of Bill C-58 that the prohibition of loss selling shall not be regarded as a reinstatement of resale price maintenance, we believe that such prohibition will in fact have this effect, and in our opinion the public interest will not be served thereby.
In general it seems to us that the net effect of Bill C-58 will be to weaken the legislation against private restraints on competition in Canada. In our view, this is an area where stronger and better enforced legislation is called for and we would regret to see the present amendments carried.
One is therefore not in the least surprised to hear the minister make this vigorous defence today which he also made in committee. I say to the members of this house who do represent the public that we have here on the one hand the consumer, who is interested in getting his wares as cheaply as possible, and we have this incontestable evidence from men who have no axe to grind, who are not politicians and have not sworn allegiance to any particular party. But good or bad, it must go through. In committee we were faced constantly by a well regimented majority. What could we do? We could only call as witnesses people who were independent, who stepped into the witness box with clean hands and who came before us without any ulterior objective.
Mr. Speaker, I think they are the ones who parliament should listen to in preference to

the manufacturers and those concerned with profits. But, oh no, the minister says, "Because this is a Conservative government we are suspected of favouring big business". The minister says that with his tongue in his cheek. The fact is that that is the truth, because if it were not, why does the government not take the evidence and follow the good, sound economic advice of the only people in the country who can give it to them.
We are bringing before parliament a bill for clarification purposes. Certainly no one has asked for clarification of section 34 in the past. I have heard no complaint that section 34 was not clear, so why clarify something which no one asks for? Section 34 was being very well handled and at least had some force. I look upon this present bill as being overloaded with clarity to the extent that it is completely confusing. It confuses the country, it confuses the scholars, it confuses the teachers, it confuses the economists, it confuses everyone. The only people who are not confused are the industrialists. Why? Because very subtly and carefully this bill has opened loopholes for them and provided avenues of escape.
Mr. Speaker, that is the bill the minister has brought before the house, and when the people realize that their eyes will be opened. As the president of the consumers association said, we certainly do not want this kind of advice; it is inimical to the interests of the Canadian consumer. I say that the Canadian consumers' position was not adequately considered by the minister when it should have been. We are concerned first and foremost with the people of Canada.
Of course we are concerned with business and with maintaining our economy and industries, but we have adopted a piece of legislation which has ignored completely the interests of the consumer and the government merits all the criticism which can be thrown at it. When the minister spends most of his time defending himself when at that particular moment no defence was needed, I think he has certainly fallen into his own trap when he tried to present this measure in the form of an attack. It is the old story that attack is the best defence. Or, as Shakespeare said-I am always wary when I quote Shakespeare-Methinks the lady doth protest too much. The minister certainly protested too much and has not given sufficient attention to the consumer's side in this debate.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I find it important to move an amendment. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron);
That this bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole to reconsider the deletion of clause 14 of this bill with instructions to have power to amend it to
Combines Investigation Act provide therein safeguards for small business and against the exploitation of the Canadian consumer.
Mr. Speaker, I am not unmindful of the fact of what the fate of this amendment will be. As I say, I wish it were so that members of a party had the right sometimes to vote freely. We had a great number of independent witnesses who gave evidence which was not contradicted, and I say to hon. members of the house who are members of the bar that if they had to sit in judgment I know which way they would decide. Unfortunately, I have to acknowledge the fact that there is a regimented majority against me and the amendment of course will follow the usual course.


Mr. Speaker:: Before placing this amendment before the house I should like to hear whether any member shares my concern about the last part of the amendment. It appears to be in order in referring the bill back to the committee of the whole to reconsider clause 14, but the instructions are that the committee have power to amend it to provide therein safeguards for small business. I suppose that means safeguards with respect to the subject matter of this clause. Then the words "and against the exploitation of the Canadian consumer" constitute a rather broad expression and would be outside the scope of the bill unless it related specifically to the subject matter of clause 14.


Leon David Crestohl: The matter was discussed in committee. We had felt in committee that there was exploitation of the Canadian consumer, and I think the committee should have the power to sit down and examine clause 14 and see whether it could not bring back to the house a measure with safeguards against the exploitation of the consumer if, indeed, the committee accepts that the consumer at the present time is being exploited. If the committee does take the view that it is satisfied that the public is not being exploited, then, of course, it could so state. This is why I feel that the amendment is in order and should be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Has any other hon. member any comment to make on this amendment?


Edmund Davie Fulton: All I can say is that the amendment, it seems to me, is assertive of an opinion and of an opinion which is not, in my view, well founded. I do not think I can add much to what you have said, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the conveyance of instructions to the committee. I understand the only instructions which can be made to the committee at this stage is to take the bill back to reconsider a particular clause, and in giving the committee power to amend you must indicate precisely the amendment

Combines Investigation Act you want. You cannot give the committee general power to amend; that power must be particular.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I draw Your Honour's attention to page 397 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne where it is stated:
The question being proposed "That Bill No. 133 intituled the War-Time Elections Act be now read a third time."


Mr.   Neely@: in amendment thereto, seconded by Mr. Sinclair, "That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instruction that they have power to amend it by eliminating from it all such provisions as tend to remove the franchise from any class of His Majesty's subjects who are now qualified electors, according to the laws of the province in which they reside."
I direct attention particularly to the words "tend to" which do seem to be of a very general character. I would suggest, as my hon. friend from Cartier has already suggested, that this question of the protection of consumers and safeguards for small business are matters which were fully considered in the committee. My hon. friend is not suggesting that the committee of the whole be restricted; he is suggesting that they should amend the bill and not do something which would be beyond that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I may speak again on this point of order may I say that the instruction to delete is, it is true, a specific one. But there then appear references to two matters-safeguards for small business, and the question of protection against exploitation of the Canadian consumer. There is no direction to the committee in either of these broad fields as to the lines along which they should move or the specific amendments they should make.
In the sample amendment cited by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate there is a specific direction to the committee to amend the bill by eliminating from it certain provisions, provisions which are specified, the kind of provisions "as tend to remove the franchise from any class of His Majesty's subjects who are now qualified electors, according to the laws of the province in which they reside." That was a species of provision which was capable of being isolated on an examination of the bill which was before the house.
But here you have a general instruction to reconsider a bill in reference to a particular clause, and then to consider the substitution therefor of something which is only outlined in a general way. That is why I say I have always understood that motions containing instructions to the committee of the whole at this stage must contain specific

directions, and in my view this amendment would not be specific within the meaning of that rule.


Lionel Chevrier: May I direct the attention of the house to the citation contained in paragraph 415 of Beauchesne's fourth edition Which reads:
When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, "particular".


Lionel Chevrier: There is no contradiction there, in that citation, with what is now being moved. Then the second part of this citation reads:
Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation; in the latter case, the whole bill is opened to reconsideration, but in the former case the committee can only consider the clause or amendments or instructions referred to them.
It would seem to me that on the face of what is stated in paragraph 415(1) this amendment is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their assistance. I should like to refer to the fourth paragraph of citation 415 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which appears to be relevant. It reads:
On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the committee of the whole must not tend to change the principle approved on the second reading.
Then again, I should like to refer to citation 418 on the following page which states:
The question for the third reading is put immediately after the report from the committee of the whole. All amendments which may be moved on a second reading of a bill may be moved on the third reading with the restriction that they cannot deal with any matter which is not contained in the bill.
Then lower down in the same paragraph there is a reference to amendments of second reading when opinions may be expressed. Then, it is stated:
This cannot be done on the third reading because it is not directly connected with any provision of the bill.
Finally, I would refer to the last paragraph of that citation:
When a motion is made "that the bill be now read a third time", the same kind of amendments are permissible as on the second reading, i.e. amendments postponing it for three or six months.
My difficulty in this matter-and I do not want to be unduly fastidious about this amendment-is that it seems to me in order to refer a bill back to the committee to delete clause 14, and if the hon. member had stopped there I would have no doubt about it. But



I960

[Stage Direction]
the hon. member goes on to say "with instructions that they have power to amend it". He is talking about the bill, I suppose, or perhaps he is talking about clause 14. In any event the committee is given power to amend it so as to provide safeguard for small business.
I do not know of any principle in the bill which distinguishes between small business and large business as such, and if we get the committee dealing with small business as a class of business, as business affected by the subject matter of clause 14, which, I take it, deals with a person accused of not supplying certain articles to the trade, there is no principle in the bill to indicate that the offence relates to a small or a large business. I think it relates to all business.
I think the introduction of that distinction goes beyond the principle of the bill or its contents as it now stands. I am also concerned about the final expression in the amendment "against the exploitation of the Canadian consumer". It is true, I suppose, that the whole principle of the legislation is to prevent exploitation of the consumer, the public, by unfair trade practices, but because of those two instructions I do not think I can accept the amendment as it now stands.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would permit me a further argument on the point about small business because that point was not argued before. The whole purpose of clause 14 as explained to us by the minister -I am sure the minister would not disagree with me-is to protect small business and to prevent the concentration of the retail business in a few hands. It seems to me that in view of the explanation which the minister gave only so late as this afternoon in this very debate what my hon. friend for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) is seeking to do is to provide a different kind of protection from that which the government considers it is providing in the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the hon. member does not specify it in his amendment. That goes to my point, Mr. Speaker, which I think is a valid one, that at this stage a bill should not be referred back to a committee with instruction to make an amendment which is so general in its nature that the committee does not really know precisely what it is that the house instructed it to do.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate is quite right in his interpretation of my view. Clause 14 of the bill was designed by the government to give protection to small business, and it provides a specific method by which the protection may be given. Now, instead of referring back to the
Division
committee to delete clause 14 and substituting something else or to make an amendment which would accomplish the objective by a particular move, my hon. friends seek to refer it back to the committee without any real instruction at all because the terms of their purported instructions are so broad as to be no real instruction at all. That is my objection to the amendment. It does not conform to the kind of amendment which has been allowed before at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not yet placed the amendment before the house. If the hon. member who has the floor wishes to move it he is at liberty to do so in the light of the views I hold about this particular amendment.


Leon David Crestohl: It is an accepted principle, of course, that the house can refer a bill back for an amendment to delete a paragraph.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is true.


Leon David Crestohl: If Your Honour has any difficulty in finding an instruction in the latter part of the amendment. I would ask that you accept this amendment only to the extent of deleting clause 14.


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment now proposed in my view, is in order, and I shall now place it before the house. It has been moved by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl), seconded by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron):
That the bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole for reconsidering the deletion of clause 14 of this bill.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on this amendment I feel I am bound to point out to the house that the amendment now moved would have the sole effect of deleting from the bill precisely that clause that was put in for the specific purpose of protecting small business. On this issue we shall be very glad indeed to divide the house.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister introduced the bill there was much talk of Conservative principles. I could not help but notice today that in his remarks on third reading Conservative principles were not recognized and seemed to have disappeared in a rather 
peevish attitude toward the opposition for being so nasty as to create such illusions about the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I spoke of my hon. friends more in sorrow than in anger.


Douglas Mason Fisher: More in sorrow than in anger, the minister says. I think we are the ones who might be entitled to feel more sorrowful than angry about the bill because it is a rather miserable one. The minister has had three years to live up to his reputation of being perhaps one of the most able Conservative spokesmen and also of being an extremely effective politician, someone who starred when in opposition, and in effect he did star a bit in the opposition role with respect to this legislation because in the committee we found that the minister took over some of the crossexamination of witnesses in order to try to make a case for the bill that his own supporters did not seem able to make. I thought that was rather unusual, to say the least. Of course, he has also had to rush into other committees recently to bail out government members who did not seem to be able to present the right kind of criticism to suit the government.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Douglas Mason Fisher: During the lengthy evidence which was heard I was very interested that so many of the people who presented points of view were against the bill. Almost every group was against one aspect or other of the bill but, as the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) has pointed out, the academic community as a whole was extremely critical. As a matter of fact, I think you could hardly find more than one or two points on which they thought the bill had any merit.
The hon. member for Cartier has also pointed out that this was a disinterested group, perhaps the only group that appeared before the committee which was disinterested in the bill. I should like to point out along with him that this disinterest was so marked that some of the professors who appeared before the committee admitted they had formerly been employed by the combines branch for special consultation, and despite the fact that they had received a certain amount of income, not any great amount, they were prepared to come before the committee and give their views, perhaps to the prejudice of their future use by the combines branch because of their speaking out so strongly against what the combines branch in association with the minister apparently was recommending.
The remarkable thing to me about the appearance of these academic witnesses was the reaction of the government members of

the committee. They seemed to feel that these people were mere theorists. Their view seemed to be, let us get down to something practical, and the something practical that most of the members of the committee always seemed to get down to were the suggestions of the retail merchants association of Canada. In my interpretation, that of every opposition member on the committee and I think that of every government member of the committee, the reason we have what is in effect a return to resale price maintenance is largely as a result of the representations of that particular group. To say, as Professor Rosenbluth did, that to take the advice of such a group is like calling in a burglar for advice on robbery is perhaps somewhat unfair. I think Mr. Gilbert in his own evidence managed to show that neither he nor his association had a clue on the point that seemed to move the minister most, namely that small business was in a very bad way because of the fact that resale price maintenance had been banned some eight or nine years ago.
I would have thought that the minister, if he was going to go to the length of crossexamining some of the witnesses who tended to be hostile to his legislation, might at least have gone the length of producing evidence for us in some kind of statistical survey form that small business really was in a bad way because of the ban on resale price maintenance. However, we did not get that at all. All we got from the minister was the same kind of ambiguity that Mr. Gilbert fed us. As far as that is concerned, I felt that Mr. Gilbert was prepared to insult any member of the committee who was critical of the retail merchants association. How anyone could fail to be critical of such a badly organized presentation I cannot understand.
I have no complaint about the fact that the retail merchants took their brief to a caucus committee of the government members. That is strictly Mr. Gilbert's affair. Obviously taking it there was effective because it seems to have been that visit and the influence of Mr. Gilbert that led to the clause of the bill which is perhaps the most controversial and to which we object the most.
In his remarks on third reading the minister spoke about a clarification. When he introduced the bill I believe he said that this was a revision. I believe he gave us the assurance at the second reading stage that to a degree this was only a temporary move, that there was going to be a long term and more consistent approach to the matter. I am rather bothered by the word "clarification" now because this would seem to indicate that the legislation is final rather than merely a temporary revision.
Combines Investigation Act
How the minister with all his reputed ability could spend three years on a bill and come up with the hodgepodge he did is beyond me. The hodgepodge, and I think it is fair to call it that, is exemplified by the fact that the second most important change in the whole measure was brought in late in the committee hearings. The thing that bothers me about it most, Mr. Speaker, is that this change in the export matter that the official opposition so heartily approved of was brought in long after we had had the opportunity to question some of the experts to whom the official opposition is so ready to refer.
I think it is most regrettable that we did not have the chance to hear from people such as Professor English, Professor Rosenbluth, or the great expert on this legislation, Mr. Skeoch. As far as I can find, Mr. Skeoch's only reference to it was one very small paragraph, in connection with this whole business of the export matter.
The minister, in his introduction on third reading, made a big thing of the export clause and yet here, after three years, he brings it in this late in the committee hearings. What kind of preparation is this by this able minister?
I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that we do dislike the export clause, for a number of reasons; that it is almost a panic move, like the panic move to bring back resale price maintenance as a result of the representation of the retail merchants. The salmon packers and the Canadian metal mining association appeared and put in a brief-and I will say, with regard to the salmon group, that if it was convinced that we were going to agree to a change of this moment so late in the arrangements, I think we are wasting much of our time considering legislation in parliamentary committees.
It seems to me that this particular clause is quite unlikely to have any other effect than to weaken the general attitude of the business community to the legislation. The fact remains that so far as our export trade is concerned, the great bulk of it is comprised of the newsprint industry, the wood pulp industry, the pulpwood industry, some agricultural products that go across the border, and certain products of the mining industry, especially metal such as nickel or zinc. I cannot see, in the present way those products are organized or used in the export market, that we need to give any particular encouragement to a clause such as this, to the organization of the export side of an industry's product, and think that it is not going to have some relationship to the domestic side.
Although the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) was close to something when he gave an indication that

Division
he really did not think the export clause was necessary if the general attitude toward the bill in the past obtained, it certainly assumed that the government of Canada was not going to put any of our important export industries into a particularly bad position because of the Combines Investigation Act, and that there was no other course open to the minister and the branch, in the way of executive loopholes, to see that no prosecution went ahead.
The minister has gone down the list in his introduction on third reading. Again I might note, Mr. Speaker, that we wonder whether the lukewarm way the bill was treated on second reading, and the still cooler way it was treated at this reading by the government members, is any indication. I cannot remember hearing any applause, despite some of our prompting. There was absolutely no applause from the government benches.
I do not know whether this is an indication that they feel the bill is as bad as we think it is; but we think it is so bad that I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Where is your applause?


Mr. Aiken:: Yes, where is your applause?


Hazen Robert Argue: He got some.


Frank Howard: There are a
few remarks I should like to make at this stage, because some of the reasoning of the government has been expressed by the minister on third reading and it is completely new reasoning in so far as relationship with the other stages of the bill is concerned. One, in particular, that I can think of is that the minister when he spoke at the beginning of this debate related this bill to the question of unemployment and said that one of the things that would be accomplished by this bill, if it is passed by the Senate and given royal assent, is that unemployment would decrease and that more opportunities for work could be provided. One could understand the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his generous way or even the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) reflecting on the activities of the government and saying that they have some bearing on the unemployment situation, because the winter works program can hardly be considered as a cure-all. But I think this intimation of the Minister of

Justice (Mr. Fulton) at the final stage of this bill represents a pretty desperate grasp for measures which may lead the general public to believe that the government is at least thinking about unemployment. I suggest this bill has relatively little to do with unemployment-


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the hon. member's suggestion that this bill has nothing to do with unemployment and hope he will not continue on that subject.


Frank Howard: I hope the Minister of Justice who has heard your comment will accept this indication that the bill has nohing to do with unemployment. I maintain that the minister tacked this on as a last thought.
I turn now to a few comments which do concern this measure which is now before us, and particularly that part of it which was initiated during the committee stage. Perhaps one could refer to it as the Pickersgill-Fulton amendment dealing with the question of the export trade. Unfortunately, during the time the bill was in committee of the whole and when the motion was formerly introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) on behalf of the government we only had a short period of time over the lunch hour and a couple of hours during the dinner interval to go into this question in any detail. However, we did register in the committee stage our objections to the proposed amendment concerning provisions dealing with the export trade.
I should like to point out that Canada is not the only nation which has considered and dealt with the question. Our neighbours to the south have had a statute on their books for a number of years. As a matter of fact it was just after the first war when an act was passed dealing with the question of allowing conspiracies which were designed to increase export trade. Such conspiracies were exempt from the provisions of the Sherman act and the anti-trust law provided they did not have certain deleterious effects. Under the Webb-Pomarene act export associations were required to register themselves with the federal trade commission of the United States stating what their objects were, who their officers were; what instructions they had given and so forth.
I wonder if I may call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I indicated that in the United States since 79951-0-465
Combines Investigation Act 1918 there has been an act under which companies were allowed to conspire for world trade provided it did not contravene certain existing laws. According to my reading the experience gained in that country under the federal Webb-Pomarene act has been that the hopes and desires of the government of the United States in passing the legislation had not been met. They found more difficulties arose after the passage of the act than previously existed. If the amendment before us were passed and an association were formed to function in a conspiratorial fashion with respect to exports it would have to take over virtually all domestic production in order to be successful. Without such control competition in the world market from firms outside the association would make it difficult to withstand the competition. This was the experience some time ago with the anti-trust law in the United States.
By dealing with the matter in this fashion there is a basic inconsistency between the act and the amendment. Under section 32 of the Criminal Code price conspiracies are illegal and' have been prosecuted time and time again under the act. This amendment would make such conspiracies legal with respect to export trade under certain conditions. This would mean that we would have two sets of rules, one with respect to domestic activities and the other with respect to activities in export markets. It is natural to assume that companies engaging in price conspiracies will come under the more liberal of the two sets of rules because they will be engaged in activities on the export market. There will be a psychological tendency to take advantage of exports, and this will encourage illegitimate action on the domestic market.
Mr. J. N. Hyland, director of the fisheries council of Canada who appeared before the standing committee on banking and commerce on June 22 gave evidence to this effect:
My experience in the marketing of canned salmon leads to the conclusion that the domestic price of any commodity which is exported in material quantity cannot be isolated from the world price. This is true whether the commodity is fish, lumber, pulp, copper, aluminum or newsprint. In this connection it should be emphasized that the factors of world supply and demand can work to reduce domestic prices as well as increase them.
This bill does not attempt to deal with the question of participation in international cartels.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if he would speak a little louder. We cannot hear a word he is saying.


An hon. Member:: It is just as well perhaps.

Royal Assent


Frank Howard: I am sorry. I usually have no difficulty making myself heard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is following his notes too closely.


Frank Howard: I must in this instance because in dealing with this delicate amendment of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I would not want one word to be misconstrued.


David James Walker: We can hear the hon. member now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is optimism.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend would take the opportunity of misconstruing anything I said if he so desired.
As I said, the bill makes no provision for dealing with cartels. The general tendency is to establish a price high enough to cover the additional costs so the general public as a result pays a higher price than necessary. Consequently, the general public has to pay far higher prices than are necessary if there are Canadian companies engaged in international cartels, as permitted by the export amendment.
Many times in the past the Liberal party and the Conservative party have undertaken to give more weight to what political support they will get from taking a certain point of view than to the principle. This the C.C.F. has refused to do. Because we believe the export change here will be undesirable and detrimental-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Administrator of the government of Canada desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the deputy of the administrator had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to incorporate The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada.
An act to amend the Income Tax Act.
An act respecting the Department of Forestry.
An act respecting the Franchise of Electors and the Election of Members of the House of Commons.
An act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
An act to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton for the third reading of Bill No. C-58, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, this is one speech of mine that has been split into three or four different sections and it is not always possible to pick up the thread immediately. However, I do not think this is a desirable amendment. While it perhaps gives a cloak of legality in the export field, its effects will be far more detrimental to the domestic field. In any event, we he-lieve that this is no place to make such changes. This is not the act under which to deal with this question. We think that something concrete, definite and constructive should have been done about our export problems some months ago. However, if we cannot deal with the shortsightedness of the government on the question of trade in this particular proceeding we will deal with it at another time.
In addition, the proposed amendments to subsections 2 and 3 of section 32, which allow corporations to engage in certain conspiracies with regard to certain matters in the domestic field, are such as to occasion our objection also. One interesting point in this regard, as pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), is that when the minister spoke on second reading of the bill he brought into the debate the traditional difference of opinion between the Tory party and the Liberal party. He was followed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who also dealt extensively with the traditional difference of opinion between the Liberals and the Tories so far as the Combines Investigation Act is concerned. In view of the fact that this matter was made such a party issue, one of the interesting things I am looking forward to seeing is what will occur when the bill reaches the other place where the Liberals have a majority. I am looking forward with a great deal of interest to see whether the other place has the same sort of courage as it had with respect to another proposal dealt with a while ago.
But in any event, Mr. Speaker, to indicate formally our objections to these two other features of the bill, one of which was dealt with earlier, and the other which came in at the committee stage, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the

whole for the purpose of reconsidering section 32 of clause 13 with a view to deleting subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) thereof.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is
obviously more clever than it is intelligent. It is obviously moved for the purpose, not of embarrassing the government but in a vain effort to embarrass the official opposition. I am simply repeating the words of the hon. gentleman, which were rather hard to hear, in the hope that mine will be easier to hear.
It is well known, of course, that subsections (2) and (3) of section 32 which it is proposed to put into the present act-which are in clause 13 of the bill-are objectionable, and objectionable in a quite fundamental way to the official opposition as my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), pointed out in the debate on the second reading, and as we have pointed out throughout.
It is equally obvious, of course, to everybody who knows anything about the history of this matter, that subclauses 4 and 5 in this clause would not be in the bill at all if it had not been for the initiative taken by the Liberal party in the committee on banking and commerce.
Hon. gentlemen thought they were going to place us in the awkward position of having to vote against something we stood for, or voting for something we were fundamentally against. This does not present the slightest problem at all to us. We think this whole bill is a mistake as my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition said on second reading. If this amendment were passed it would permit the house to reconsider in committee all the subsections except the first subsection-which is after all in the present act-of section 32.
When that stage arrives, if it does arrive [DOT]-;and of course, it is an illusory hope that it will-we would do what we did before, and that is we would do our best to take subclauses 2 and 3 out. We would, if there was no hope of killing the bill altogether, continue to take the view that subclauses 4 and 5 should be in and should be renumbered subclauses 2 and 3.
But we took the view-and I expressed this, as hon. members well know, and I do not need to repeat my words; they are on page 6975 of Hansard for July 26-that if this bill was going to be rammed through the house anyway, it might as well have something good in it. We did manage to get something reasonably acceptable put in it; but we think the bill itself is bad. We think it would be better if it did not pass at all, and therefore as a choice between the two courses offered by this latter-day Archbishop Morton, we will vote for the amendment. In that way we will be indicating-and that is 79951-0-465J
Combines Investigation Act all we will be indicating-that in a fundamental sense we are against this bill.


An hon. Member:: Vote against it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We certainly will vote with the C.C.F. against the government, because we are against the bill, as my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in the first place.
But we did think that if this bill is going to be put through parliament-or, at least, put through this house; and I will not break the rules, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) did, by talking about what may be done in another place-we think that a bad bill might as well have one good feature in it.
So when a straight question is asked us about this business of making it a little more certain that the export industries will not in any way be penalized under this legislation, we will, of course, when that question is isolated and by itself, support it, because after all it is the only really good thing in this bill, and the only reason it is there is because the Liberal party took the initiative in putting it there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dilemma of my hon. friend the member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill), because he used some quite inaccurate words about the bill being rammed through the house. May I point out that the bill was introduced and given first reading on May 6, which is some months ago; that it came up for second reading quite early in June; that it went to the standing committee on banking and commerce on June 16; and it was reported out of the committee on July 18-all of which has occupied some time. The bill has been adequately and thoroughly considered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what Walter Harris said four years ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This bill was not in the house when Walter Harris was here. I am sorry, my hon. friend has got his history mixed again, as usual.
But I can well appreciate that during the time this bill has been before the house for consideration the dilemma of the official opposition has been increasing. We now see their dilemma before us in a concrete form tonight. My hon. friend said that so far as they were concerned, their position was that a bad bill might as well have one good feature in it. Then he indicated by what he said with respect to the way they were going to vote, that they would do their best to vote what they regarded as the one good feature

Divisions
in the bill, out of the bill, because they have indicated that they are going to support this amendment. That, of course, would have the effect of eliminating from the bill that provision which imposed a protection for Canadian industries in export trade.
But my hon. friends of the official opposition are trying to have it both ways again; they are trying to claim credit, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate did just now, quite erroneously, for the inclusion of this amendment in the bill; but now they are indicating they are going to stand up solemnly on a recorded vote in this house to vote to have it taken out again.
That of course is typical of the whole history of the opposition in connection with the Combines Investigation Act and in connection with this amendment. If they can get any comfort out of the tortured explanation of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I can assure them that however much they try to rationalize their position the people of this country, the industry of Canada, whose position, by the attempts we have been making in these amendments we have attempted to improve, will understand perfectly clearly what is the position. The Liberal party, who voted for the inclusion of something in committee of the whole, voted to take it out again on third reading of the bill, whereas the C.C.F. party has been consistently throughout the whole discussion against anything that would improve the position of Canadian industry for the welfare of the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main	
motion. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Aye.	
The house divided	[ on the motion (Mr. Fulton) which was agreed to on the following division:	
YEAS	
Messrs.	
Aiken	Chown
Allard	Churchill
Beech	Comtois
Bell (Saint John-Albert)	Creaghan
Best	Crouse
Bigg	Diefenbaker
Bissonnette	Dorion
Bourdages	Drysdale
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	Dubois
Brooks	English
Browne (St. John's West)	Fairclough. Mrs.
Browne (Vancouver-	Fairfield
Kingsway)	Fleming (Eglinton)
Cadieu	Fleming (Okanagan-
Casselman, Mrs.	Revelstoke)
Charlton	Fulton

Grafftey	Montgomery
Grills	Muir (Cape Breton
Gundlock	North and Victoria)
Halpenny	Nasserden
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)	Nowlan
Harkness	O'Hurley
Hees	Pallett
Homer (Acadia)	Pascoe
Horner (Jasper-Edson)	Paul
Homer (The Battlefords) Payne	
Johnson	Pearkes
Jung	Pigeon
Keays	Rapp
Knowles	Ricard
Korchlnski	Rompre
Kucherepa	Sevigny
Lambert	Small
Legere	Smallwood
Lennard	Smith (Lincoln)
Letourneau	Smith (Simcoe North)
Macdonald (Kings)	Southam
Macdonnell	Speakman
Maclnnls	Spencer
MacLean (Queens)	Stanton
Macquarrle	Starr
McCleave	Stewart
McDonald	Tassd
(Hamilton South)	Thomas
McFarlane	Thompson
McGee	Thrasher
McGrath	Tremblay
McIntosh	Valade
McLennan	Villeneuve
Martineau	Walker
Matthews	Webb
Milligan	White-101.
Montelth (Verdun)	
	NAYS
Messrs.	
Argue	Habel
Badanai	Hellyer
Batten	Herridge
Boivin	Howard
Boulanger	Mcllraith
Bourget	McMillan
Caron	Martin (Essex East)
Carter	Michaud
Chevrier	Pearson
Crestohl	Peters
Denis	Pickersgill
Deschatelets	Regier
Dumas	Richard (Ottawa East)
Eudes	Robichaud
Fisher	Tardif
Godin	Tucker
Granger	Winch-34.
Motion agreed to	on division, bill read
third time and passed.



JUDGES ACT


Edmund Davie Fulton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salary for an additional judge of the supreme court of judicature of Prince Edward Island.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Judges Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, this is a very short resolution and a very simple proposition and I am sure the committee will not want me to take very much time in discussing it. There has been provision since 1925 in the judicature act of Prince Edward Island for the position of a fourth judge of their high court. As a matter of fact the first move in this regard was made in 1922 when the appointment was requested. The matter has been the subject of correspondence and discussion between the government of that province and the federal government during all that time. It has come particularly to a head since the amendment to the Supreme Court of Canada Act under which appeals as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada in civil matters were limited to matters involving the sum of $10,000 or more.
I am sure that all hon. members will appreciate that this has meant that appeals from the provincial court to the Supreme Court of Canada have been substantially limited with the result that it becomes of increasing importance to provide an effective court of appeal for the province and particularly for a province like Prince Edward Island.
At the present time with only three judges on the court there the situation is that where one judge sits, as he does, as a judge of the trial court and then when appeal is taken from him to the provincial court of appeal it comes before the remaining two judges with the result that there is frequently a split decision and therefore the litigant has in effect no final decision at all. That, of course, means that any litigant desirous of finality with respect to the issues involved in his case must appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the light of the facts I have outlined with regard to the limitation on appeals and with regard to the expense of appeals it means that the province finds itself in very real difficulties and in fact without a proper court of appeal for the province. Litigants are in a very unsatisfactory situation in that province.
The requests, therefore, for the appointment of a fourth judge have been pressed increasingly, certainly ever since we took office in 1957. I asked that I might receive a unanimous expression of opinion not only from the law society of the province which has itself pressed this matter but also an indication that the government of the province was in accord with this suggestion as well. That indication having been forthcoming it is my view that in the interests of the administration of justice in the province of

Judges Act
Prince Edward Island this house should accept the resolution and pass a bill based thereon authorizing the appointment and salary for the fourth judge.
I might also bring to the attention of the committee the fact that it is the intention of the government of Prince Edward Island, if this resolution and the bill based upon it pass, to provide a fourth judge for that province, to discontinue the appointment of a special judge in probate matters and, as they have already the authority to do, to transfer the jurisdiction in probate matters to the supreme court thus ensuring that that court and particularly the result of the extra appointment will not mean that there is a lack of ordinary judicial work for the judges of that court to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, this is a very extraordinary matter to come before the committee at this stage of the session. We have already had amendments to the Judges Act, some of them very recently, and the minister has told us that this matter has been under consideration since 1922. It seems to me that in view of the very important matters that this house is to consider, this sudden and precipitate decision by the government needs a lot more explanation than has yet been given us by the minister. When judges were provided for some of the courts in the other provinces which have rather more to do than the supreme court of Prince Edward Island, surely if this problem was as urgent as the minister now suggests it was it could have been decided on at that time.
The result of this resolution is that Prince Edward Island with 100,000 people is going to have seven judges, four in the high court and three in the county courts. In the province, one of whose constituencies I represent, there are three high court judges and two county court judges.


Mr. Maclnnis:: How many constituencies?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The population of Newfoundland is four or five times as large as that of Prince Edward Island and there is a great deal more litigation there.
It does seem to me that the minister ought to tell us why it is that this matter could not have been dealt with when other amendments to the Judges Act were brought forward earlier in the session. Why was this sudden decision made? I suggest to the minister that what Prince Edward Island wants is a causeway and not another judge, and that the idea that another judge will be appointed is not going to persuade the people

of Prince Edward Island that what they voted for last September is what they are getting from this government now.
The minister also ought to reassure us before the committee decides that this extra money should be spent from the treasury of Canada that it is really for judicial reasons and not for political reasons that this is being done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We ought to be assured by the minister that this is not being done simply to avoid an embarrassing situation in the assembly of Prince Edward Island. I am not saying it is; I am just asking the minister to assure us that it is not.
I should like the minister also to assure us that no decision has yet been made as to who is to be appointed to this vacancy; that the decision will not be made until after parliament has acted and when the decision is made a proper consideration will be given to the relative qualifications of all the candidates and not to the convenience of certain persons in that province.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, some of the hon. gentleman's questions are more deserving of answers than some of the questions he usually asks because he asked me to give an assurance that no decision has as yet been made as to who will be appointed. I think the hon. gentleman must have in mind the very improper suggestion that was made by the premier of Newfoundland when I went down to visit him, that if I would assure him as to the kind of appointment we would make then he would proclaim the act creating the fourth position. That, of course, is the kind of suggestion which emanates from Newfoundland, which has been reflected and echoed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I assured the premier of that province that when we make appointments we make them based upon the considerations that it is proper to take into account at the time. I can assure the hon. gentleman that notwithstanding his improper suggestion for making an appointment of a judge to the vacancy in Prince Edward Island, we shall have the considerations in mind that it is proper to bear in mind in selecting the person best qualified to fill the position, as this government has done consistently since it assumed office in 1957. I can assure the hon. member that if the premier of Newfoundland will proclaim that section of their act, then the same considerations will be borne in mind and come to bear in making the appointment of the fourth judge in that province after we have put through the amendment to the Judges Act here.

He asks why was this not done earlier; he talks about precipitous hurry. The hon. gentleman must appreciate that we have considered this matter very carefully during all those months, indeed years, since we assumed office in 1957. There were a number of considerations to be borne in mind. There was the question of jurisdiction; the question of whether we could confer supreme court jurisdiction upon the present probate judge in Prince Edward Island; whether that might be a better solution, if it was one that was open to us. This has been very carefully examined by my officers and we came to the conclusion-and I think it might have been on the face of it a rather acceptable solution to the situation-that there were constitutional problems and difficulties in the way and that was not unfortunately open to us as a solution of the problem of creating a fourth supreme court judge for Prince Edward Island.
These matters have been under consideration and discussion until quite recently, when we came to the conclusion that the only way to provide that province with an effective court of appeal was by the creation or appointment of a fourth judge, necessitating a request to parliament to authorize the payment of salary.
As I have pointed out to the committee, the decision has involved discussions between this government and the provincial government, and that government has recently indicated to us that if this course is followed it would be prepared to discontinue the appointment of a judge in that province under provincial authority with special jurisdiction in probate matters and transfer probate authority to judges of the supreme court of the province whom we will be appointing.
I think most every hon. member will appreciate the importance of providing to a province an effective court of appeal. The situation over the past number of years has been very unsatisfactory in Prince Edward Island from the point of view of disposition of appeals. We find the situation so now that there is an important election appeal the jurisdiction over which by the proper legislation is vested in the supreme court judges, where one judge heard the appeal in the initial case, another judge considered himself disqualified, and threw the appeal case to a single judge, the single remaining judge of the present supreme court. Therefore, we have an appeal from one judge to a court of one judge, and I am quite certain even my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate would agree that that is not a satisfactory state of affairs. But that sort of situation has been multiplied in Prince Edward Island, not only
Judges Act
with respect to matters such as the one I have just mentioned but with respect to actions involving issues which to the people of that province are very important not only with respect to the amount of money involved but with respect to the rights and obligations of their citizens which are at issue in these matters.
It is the feeling of this government with respect to the administration of justice that it is absolutely essential the people of a province should have the feeling that their litigation is disposed of in a manner which indicates to them that they have had a fair hearing initially and that they have had a fair opportunity of appeal to a higher court before which tribunal their cases and the issues involved will be disposed of and decided by a court which can in the very proper sense of the word be called a court of appeal.
It is because we are prepared to see that the people of Prince Edward Island, just as we believe the people of every other province, should have a proper court of appeal that we recommend this resolution to the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made a very touching case. He has suggested that some time between the last amendment to the Judges Act and this, which is perhaps almost a fortnight, lightning has struck and the government has suddenly been convinced of something of which since 1922, up until two weeks ago, no government has apparently been convinced. Since hon. gentlemen could not convince themselves two weeks ago that, in the first place, strains our credulity somewhat.
In the second place, when we remember this is the same government that left the supreme court of Newfoundland for months, for an unprecedented period, without a chief justice at all because they could not make up their minds who should be appointed to that office, this sudden desire to give a province with only 100,000 people four judges in its supreme court is, I must say, an application to duty which is, to say the least, unusual in Her Majesty's present advisers.
I did not introduce the subject, Mr. Chairman, but I draw your attention to the fact that the minister has chosen to make certain insinuations about the premier of Newfoundland and has suggested that if the premier of Newfoundland would proclaim something then something would be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You referred to Newfoundland first.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that in Newfoundland as in the other provinces of Canada the premier does not proclaim anything, that
the proclamations are made by the governor

Judges Act
in council under our constitutional procedure, and it rather surprised me that the minister should be so loose in his language. The minister knows perfectly well, just as every Canadian knows who knows anything about the history of this country, that there are certain traditional conventions that should be observed with regard to the appointment of judges. They are observed in every province and I do not see why an exception should be made in the case of Newfoundland except that for some reason or other this government seems to desire to make an exception of Newfoundland in every respect, and one can draw only one conclusion about that.
However, we are not debating Newfoundland; we are debating Prince Edward Island. I must say that in principle I perfectly agree with the minister. In principle I agree that with the situation which has existed in Prince Edward Island since confederation so far as I know, but for a very long time in any case, it is a very undesirable thing to have one court with only three judges because there is the problem of securing a proper decision on appeal. But I might also point out that for several months in the province of Newfoundland, because of the dereliction of duty of the present government, we only had two high court judges and no decisions on appeals could be made.


An hon. Member:: You had Joey.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Despite repeated efforts on the part of the opposition to stir up the government to do their duty, they did nothing about it and now they are holding up the termination of the session to treat as a matter of urgency a problem which could perfectly well have been left until later.


Mr. Nowlan:: Who is holding up the session?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might draw the attention of the Minister of National Revenue to the fact that I would not have been able to speak on this subject at all if the government had not introduced the resolution, of which they gave us no notice until Saturday, which was at no time suggested as one of the measures to be brought before us and which, when we were last told everything that the government intended to bring forward, was not included. What is the sudden urgency about it?


George James McIlraith: What about the attorney general?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Ottawa West says, "What about the attorney general?" I am not going to make any allegations because I would hate to try to read the mind of this government or of any member of the government, but I hope that before

the resolution passes the Attorney General of Canada will give us an unequivocal assurance that no deal has been made to give this job to the attorney general of the province.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is the hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate opposed to the motion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I think I can say that on balance I am opposed to bringing in the motion at this time. I am certainly opposed to having one law for Prince Edward Island and another law for a province with nearly five times the population. But what I think is of much more concern in this particular case is that this matter is not one of those things that was brought forward in the ordinary way in the session and it is hard for me and for anyone, I think, to believe that suddenly in the year 1960 Prince Edward Island, which has been a part of Canada since 1873-


An hon. Member:: You have said that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -finds itself in a position that it becomes a matter of the utmost urgency to have an extra judge in that province.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit me a question? Whether it is suddenly after waiting since 1873, as he said, or imperceptibly like a glacier coming down from Greenland from prior to 1,000 A.D., is he in favour of this measure or is he against it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it has anything to do with glaciers. It seems to me that this is one of those cases where it was not a matter of glaciers but rather a question of for whom the bell tolls, if the hon. member understands my allusion.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, we certainly know for whom the bell tolls.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not know who has the floor at the moment but I thought I had. I do think that we should be given a categorical assurance by the Minister of Justice that there is no intention on the part of the government to give this judgeship to a defeated candidate for the provincial leadership of the Tory party.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I would not intervene in this debate if it were not necessary once again to correct the many inaccuracies of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I can assure him that I do not know for whom the bell tolls but I have an idea that if he continues his present tactics there will be a paean of joy rung on the bells of Bonavista-Twillingate when the hon. member is

defeated because of the many misrepresentations he makes in the house.
He said that I had brought up the subject of Newfoundland but I did not do so. The hon. member first mentioned Newfoundland by making an inaccurate allegation as to the position in that province and he has just repeated that allegation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I merely gave the number of judges.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He says he does not understand why there should be one law for one province and another law for a province with five times the population. The solution of that problem, in so far as it relates to the number of judges on the court in Newfoundland, lies in the hands of the government of Newfoundland. All they have to do is to proclaim their act and, as has been assured to them on many occasions, there will be an amendment introduced in order to provide the salary of an extra judge and an appointment will be made. That is inaccuracy No. 1. The hon. member suggests that somehow or other this government is depriving Newfoundland of the right to have a fourth judge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He said he could not understand why there should be one law for one province and another law for another. If he will tell me how we can provide the salary and appoint a judge for whom a vacancy does not exist, I will begin to believe he is the magician that he himself thought he was when he sat over here. These matters perhaps are not important except that people do read Hansard. As his second inaccuracy, the hon. member said that we deferred the appointment of a chief justice of Newfoundland for an unprecedented time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That shows you, Mr. Chairman, just what attention my hon. friends pay to the many, many papers and information with whose production they plague the House of Commons. Last year the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me to produce a table showing particulars of the length of time taken for the appointment of judges to fill vacancies in the courts of Canada. I remember that when this matter came up last session I was able to satisfy him that the time taken to appoint a chief justice of Newfoundland was as nothing compared with the length of time that had been taken in the past history of the country by both Conservative and particularly Liberal governments with regard to the appointment of puisne judges and the appointment of chief justices of provinces.
79951-0-466
Human Rights
The hon. member was satisfied on that occasion but he has conveniently forgotten this information and the fact that we appointed a chief justice of Newfoundland within many months before the average time that has been taken in the case of many similar appointments in the past. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that much hangs on this. I wanted to demonstrate to the house how once again for his petty personal reasons the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has been opposed to the genuine interests of one of the other maritime provinces.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fulton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-89, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


Edmund Davie Fulton: Now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



HUMAN RIGHTS


John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-79, to provide for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Recognition and declaration of right and freedoms.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the amendments recommended by the special committee on the bill of rights have been reprinted in a new bill, which is available for distribution. Therefore, I would suggest, if it meets the convenience of hon. members, that the bill before them for consideration might be the bill as reprinted. Then, as we arranged on an earlier occasion, I would suggest that you call the clauses in this way, "Shall the clause as amended by the special committee carry?"


The Chairman:: Shall clause 1 carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the Prime Minister going to introduce the measure, or the Minister of Justice?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this bill was considered very extensively in the special committee and was discussed at length on

Human Rights
second reading. I see no reason why any statement need be made by me at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that there were a considerable number of changes made in the bill. If the Prime Minister does not feel that he wishes to initiate the discussion, following the consideration of the bill by the special committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms, of course that is a decision which he alone can take. But as there were a limited number of members of this house on that committee one would have thought there would have been an explanation made of the changes for the benefit of the membership of the house as a whole.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if it will be of assistance to the committee, I would be glad to make a few remarks upon the bill as it has been reported from the special committee.
I think that hon. members reading the bill and comparing it with the bill that was given second reading recently in this chamber will note that the first change is that there has been added a preamble, which appears in the reprinted bill.
Then hon. members will note that clause 1 in the original bill, which was a short paragraph containing the title, has been moved down to the position which it now occupies of clause 4; and clauses 2, 3 and 4 have been renumbered as 1, 2 and 3.
This is in accord with a feeling, which I think was universally agreed to by the committee, that the Canadian bill of rights should be in a form which would render it capable and readily adaptable to be reprinted, reproduced and framed, mounted on walls of schools, church halls and assembly halls, and other similar places, so that it would become familiar in a readily understandable and easily recognizable form to the greatest possible number of people, and especially to younger Canadians.
In accordance with that feeling it was decided that in so far as possible those provisions, having what might be described as a purely legalistic connotation, should be shortened, if that could be done, and that the framework and construction of the bill should be so altered as to remove, or subordinate to a lesser position those portions of the bill having this characteristic.
It was in accord with that sentiment that it was decided to put the title, which is in a sense a legalistic part of a statute, in the position of clause 4.
With respect to the clause now appearing as clause 1, an amendment was made in the

introductory words by way of the deletion of the word "always" in line 19. The original bill read:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have always existed and shall continue to exist-
And so on. It was the feeling of a number of witnesses, concurred in, I think, by the majority if not all the members of the committee, that perhaps this was an over-statement of the case. I expressed my own view that there was good justification for the word "always". But as we were trying to achieve a bill of rights that would be in so far as possible the unanimous opinion of members concerned I indicated my agreement with the deletion of the word "always". I do not think it changes the effect greatly, and therefore it was a change in which I was prepared to concur.
The next change in clause 1 is again in the introductory words. There was a considerable body of opinion expressed in the committee that the non-discriminatory features of the bill were not sufficiently emphasized, and an amendment was moved to clause 1 to insert a special provision with regard to non-discrimination. I pointed out in the committee that in our view the non-discrimination feature was really adequately protected by the provision in paragraph (b). This ensured the right of the individual to equality before the law as it was originally phrased, "without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex". In this way, having firstly defined in paragraph (a) the basic rights of the individual, then giving the individual the right of recourse to the courts and protection of the law without discrimination, in effect that would enable the individual to enjoy these rights without discrimination.
However, there was, as I say, this substantial body of opinion which felt it might be desirable to re-emphasize the intent of the parliament of Canada to ensure non-discrimination as a feature of the bill of rights. We accordingly worked out a proposal under which the non-discriminatory feature could be inserted in the introductory words, and I presented that to the committee and the committee adopted it.
So the introductory words now read:
-that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,-
Then they are enumerated. The effect of that change is to provide that the rights enumerated in all the subparagraphs are now thus qualified by the words "that those rights

shall be enjoyed without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex".
There was then a consequential amendment to subparagraph (b), which I read earlier in its original form, and which now appears in amended form in the reprinted bill.
The next major change was with respect to clause 2. If hon. members will compare the introductory words of clause 2 with the introductory words of clause 3 as it appeared in the original bill, they will see there has been a considerable shortening of the introductory words. This again was in keeping with the feeling of the committee that in so far as it was possible this part of the bill of rights embraced under the heading of Part I should be readily capable of reproduction in a form which would make it suitable for framing and hanging up on the walls of schools and similar places, and that we should as far as we could eliminate all legalistic phrases and expressions.
I think hon. members will agree with me that there is no reflection or criticism of the draftsmanship because we were drafting a statute to have legal effect. I think they will agree that the words of clause 3 in the original bill as they appeared would be, shall I say, rather difficult for school children to memorize. So we agreed that this might be solved by taking some of those words out and puttting them in an interpretation clause which appears in a later part of the bill, now appearing in clause 5, the effect of which has been to shorten and simplify the introductory words of present clause 2.
Then there were a number of minor but still important changes in the particulars of subparagraphs (a) to (f) as they appear in clause 2, the details and import of which I think will be quite apparent as they are read and compared with the original wording of that clause.
The next important amendment I think I should mention is with respect to clause 3 as it appears in the reprinted bill, clause 4 of the original bill. This is the clause which imposes on the Minister of Justice the obligation of examining every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the clerk of the privy council and every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of that part of the bill.
It was suggested to us in committee that while this might impose an obligation on the Minister of Justice to satisfy himself with regard to the existence or the non-existence of any inconsistencies, there seemed to be no concurrent obligation imposed upon him 79951-0-466i
Human Rights
to bring his views by way of report before the House of Commons. Mr. Chairman, to my mind that was implicit in the earlier part of that provision which said that:
The Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council-
I felt it was an inescapable and necessary implication that in the regulations that the governor in council might make as to the manner in which and the means by which the Minister of Justice would discharge this obligation, the way in which the minister would report the results of his examination to the House of Commons or to parliament would also be covered. However, hon. members felt that this specific obligation of reporting should be imposed upon the minister by specific provision in the bill, and since this seemed to me to impose no greater obligation than I thought was implicit in the clause in any event I felt there was no objection whatsoever to the insertion in the clause of a specific requirement that the minister should make the report to the House of Commons with respect to his examination at the first convenient opportunity.
Then the next change is the change in present clause 5 of the reprinted bill. As compared with clause 5 of the original print it will be observed that that clause is now divided into two subclauses. This is made necessary by the addition as subclause 2 of many of the words formerly contained in present clause 2 of the bill which, as I have explained to the committee, were taken out of the original draft and are now to be found included as subclause 2 of clause 5.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Formerly in
clause 3.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Quite so, in clause 3. Those words were found in clause 3 of the original print.
Mr. Chairman, I think those are the major changes which I wish to bring to the attention of the committee. Many other changes indeed were suggested in the committee. Some of the changes which I have reported were agreed to as the result of suggestions made by hon. members of the opposition. Many of them, however, were the result of further consideration by the government itself.
The feature to which I should draw attention in particular with respect to the changes suggested in the special committee is that those changes in almost every case constituted what I have described as an attempt to reduce the bill of rights to a bill of particulars. With respect to most of those suggestions I think two observations should be

Human Rights
made. First, in many cases they were already covered in the wording of the present bill and therefore it was unnecessary to include them as specific matters. Second, they were in almost every case taken from specific clauses of the universal declaration of human rights as adopted by the United Nations.


Mr. Regier:: The Tories have all gone home.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In case that observation was recorded in Hansard, I can say even without pausing to look around that I am quite sure there are enough Tories here to take care of hon. members opposite.
What I was saying was that in most cases these suggestions for amendments were taken from the universal declaration of human rights. The interesting thing to note, and I am sure we will have occasion to discuss this here, is the selection made by members of the opposition who suggested these changes. One might just as well ask, "Why did you choose certain articles, for instance articles XV, XVI, XXII, XXIII, XXV, and why did you leave out other articles?" Hon. members opposite are going to say that the government majority in the committee rejected provisions of the universal declaration of human rights which have already been subscribed to by Canada.
Mr. Chairman, that is perfectly true. We rejected many of them because they would have constituted a bill of particulars instead of a general bill of rights, and because in many cases they were covered already in the bill of rights. In many other cases they were inapplicable to the kind of bill of rights which was before the committee. But if hon. members opposite persist in that criticism and say, "You rejected clauses in the universal declaration to which Canada has subscribed", I would return the answer to them by saying, "Why is it you only picked certain of these clauses from the universal declaration for inclusion; why are you picking and choosing between what is in the universal declaration and suggesting that only some of them be included in the Canadian bill of rights? If they are all desirable, as we say they are, as a statement of objectives and you think some of them should be included, what do you think about the rest?" This means, with the necessary implications, that those who have said that the others should be rejected, if they apply that criticism to us that by refusing to accept them as part of our bill of rights, we are therefore necessarily rejecting them as matters of general application or statement of general objectives to be achieved by the freedom loving nations.

So I simply conclude by saying that I think the bill as it came out of the committee is an improved bill compared with the form in which it went into the committee. In saying this I merely repeat what I have said before, that there is much advantage to be gained from the calm and deliberate study of proposals such as this by members of parliament in an atmosphere where they can bring their collective judgment to bear upon proposals which are of interest to all members of the house and to all parts of the nation, where the proceedings are not merely party documents.
I know the Prime Minister in moving this proposal

a proposal which has been dear to his heart and mind in all the years he has been in public life-was proud, as any one of us would be proud, to bring this proposal to fruition. He has, nevertheless, regarded it as a document for Canadians and a document for the representatives of Canadians in the Canadian parliament, particularly in the Canadian House of Commons of which we all share the privileges as well as the responsibilities of membership. It is in that spirit that these matters were discussed with the members of the committee. I am glad there have been changes made. I am glad that a preamble which carried the unanimous judgment of the committee has been set out, a preamble which, I believe, constitutes a splendid declaration of the views of the parliament of Canada as to the principles and bases on which it is founded and by means of which 'it will ensure its continuance as a free and Christian democracy.


An hon. Member:: And what a phoney it is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I gather that a member of the C.C.F. party does not agree with those principles. I should be interested to hear from him as to the respects in which he is opposed to them. However, I know that to the majority, if not to all the members of this house, these principles will commend themselves as being the best declaration that this house can make as to the bases upon which it was founded and the principles to which it subscribes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When this bill which is' now before us was given second reading we were told by a long list of Conservative members beginning with the Prime Minister himself that this bill would be a landmark in Canadian history and that it would be a monument to the Prime Minister who introduced it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what we were told. This bill which is now before us after consideration in committee is a very different bill from that which we discussed on second

reading and therefore we have some reason to be surprised that this discussion in the committee of the whole was not initiated by the Prime Minister in whose name the bill stands.
Mr. Chairman, we on this side have declared our position on second reading in regard to the principles embodied in the measure which is now before us. We voted for this bill on second reading because, naturally, we approved of the principles which the bill seeks to sustain, protect and extend-human rights and fundamental freedoms. We voted for the bill, also, because that is the way by which it could be referred to a committee where the changes, for which we hoped could be made to the measure now before us in order to make it a better bill. And changes have been made.
There are, of course, various ways by which our freedom and our rights have been and could be protected, but there are many people in Canada, no doubt, who feel now that a statute of this kind-a declaratory statute, because that is all this bill is-is important in view of the changed situation of today, important, if you like, as a rallying point for a crusade against those forces which would weaken our rights and liberties; as a bulwark against attack by those forces or, as an antidote against what is more important, perhaps, than a direct attack-erosion based on indifference to those forces.
Feeling that way, we naturally hoped on this side that if parliament was to proceed in this direction we would have the best bill possible leave this house. That is our view, stated from 1958 when the first bill was introduced. It meant, in our judgment, a bill of rights which would in its terms cover all Canadians. That would mean a national bill of rights with provincial participation so that it could cover all Canadians in all jurisdictions.
We have pressed for that course from the very beginning, from September 5, 1958, when the predecessor of this bill was first introduced into this house by the Prime Minister. Speaking at that time in September, 1958, as reported on page 4652 of Hansard, I ventured to make certain suggestions to the Prime Minister and the government. One was that there should be the widest possible circulation of the bill to organizations and to individuals who had shown an interest in this question. Second, I suggested that there should be set up at the next session to consider the measure a joint committee with broad powers. I draw attention particularly to the third suggestion which I made on that occasion, namely:
Third, and this is something even more important that might be done, we should try to secure
Human Rights
the support and co-operation of the provinces for any Canadian action in this field. Indeed, as a result of consultation with the provinces it might be possible to widen the action so as to include both the federal government and provincial governments in a joint declaration on individual rights and freedoms. Then indeed we would have a powerful symbol.
The Prime Minister intervened to ask:
What are the hon. gentleman's hopes in that direction, on the basis of his own experience?
To which I replied:
I would not like to put my hopes either very high or very low, but I have learned over the years not to give up the search for an objective because it does not seem easily obtainable.
Then, a little later, I said:
I am putting forward the possibility at least of making that approach-
That is, to the provinces
-in connection with all the interest which will now be raised in this matter through the introduction of this bill. Between now and the next session of parliament consideration will be given to it by private organizations and individuals. Perhaps it is not too much to expect that the provinces will also give consideration now to this fundamental question in the light of the move that is being proposed by the federal government.
I returned to this aspect of the question on February 10, 1959, as reported at page 857 of Hansard. I asked the Prime Minister on that day:
Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether any approach has been made by the government to the provincial governments in respect of the adequacy or otherwise of this particular bill?
The Prime Minister replied:
The answer would be a simple no, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think that would cover the situation. The hon. gentleman will remember that some years ago, while one or other of those committees was sitting, the provinces were communicated with and the attorneys general of the several provinces asked for their opinions and reactions. At that time it seemed to be generally accepted by the government of that day that a bill of rights in the form of an amendment to the constitution which would cover not only those rights that are specifically allotted to parliament but as well those which fall withm provincial jurisdiction was not acceptable to many of the provinces.
As recently as July 1 of this year, as reported at page 5648 of Hansard, only a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said:
As far as constitutional amendment is concerned, it is impossible of attainment at this time.
The hon. member for Vancouver East interjected, "Why?"
The Prime Minister replied:
Simply because of the fact that the consent of the provinces to any interference with property and civil rights cannot be secured.
We know that as late as July of this year no effort was made by the government to approach the provinces to see if some progress

Human Rights
could not be made in converting this bill into a national bill of rights. We were told that it would be a waste of time, that there would be no possibility of success in that direction.
Surely the events of last week at the conference between the federal and provincial governments demonstrated conclusively that it would not have been a waste of time during those two years to have consulted with the provinces on this important matter. The government has now been prodded by the provinces themselves to do what this government should have been doing during the last two years and that is to discuss together the possibility of a national bill of rights made possible through constitutional amendments.
Instead of taking that course the government decided to press ahead with the passage of a federal bill or rights limited to matters under federal jurisdiction. The government having taken that position, as I said, when the bill was brought before us on second reading we supported it and we supported sending it to a committee so that it could be examined but we did object strenuously to the procedure which was followed in regard to the consideration given to this matter as a federal matter. That procedure as we see it has been entirely unsatisfactory in regard to the importance of this matter and the time that should have been allotted to its consideration by this parliament and by those outside parliament who are as interested in this matter as we are. Indeed, in our view that has been an example of how not to proceed in regard to a matter of such vital importance.
We recall, and it is already on the record in the debate on second reading, that an assurance was given by the Prime Minister last September that early this session the bill would be submitted to a joint committee of both houses. That is what we had asked for and what we continued to ask for in this session. As early as January 19, 1960, I believe only four days after parliament convened, I asked the Prime Minister if he would:
-inform the house whether it is his intention to send the bill of rights to a committee, and if so, what kind of committee?
The Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, when the bill of rights is introduced there will be a discussion and an indication as to the procedure to be followed.
I then asked:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if he does not think it would be fair to the opposition to let them know in advance of the introduction of the bill and the procedure which will be followed with regard to its later consideration.

The Prime Minister said:
I agree entirely.
The question was brought up again on February 10 by the hon. member for Cartier, who asked the Prime Minister:
Can the Prime Minister inform the house when he plans to introduce the bill of rights, and does he plan to set up a parliamentary committee to which he will refer the bill for study?
The Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, when the house leader is here and it becomes convenient to indicate the date of introduction, the entire process to be followed will then be made clear to members of the house, well in advance of the beginning of discussion.
We waited for a while. The next question asked on this side of the house was asked by the hon. member for Skeena on March 11 when the hon. gentleman inquired:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask if he could give any indication to the house as to when we might expect the introduction of the proposed bill of rights.
There was a characteristic interjection by an unidentified hon. member who said:
As soon as you stop talking.
The Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter I am most anxious to have proceeded with at the earliest possible date, but for some reason we are not making the progress that would permit introduction of this important measure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Quite right, too.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then on June 8, after a lapse of some weeks, I asked the Prime Minister if he could tell us then and we were told, as reported at page 4661 of Hansard that in a few days he hoped to be able to let the house know when the bill would be proceeded with. On June 22 the question was brought up again and the Prime Minister said he hoped to be able to tell us the next week on Wednesday or Thursday subject to considerations arising out of conversations between the party leaders.
This is the record of our attempt to find out when the bill would be introduced. Having been assured that it would be introduced as soon as possible and that there would be ample consideration in advance so hon. members of the government and the opposition could prepare for the work of the committee, on June 28 we were told that on July 1 the bill would be introduced and that the committee which would be set up could take all the time that was required to consider it no matter how long they were required to meet in session during the summer. As we know the committee was set up. It obviously worked under great pressure because of the timing of its setting up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The only pressure was that of the hon. member for Essex East.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was a committee that we were promised would have every opportunity to do its work, carefully assess the bill, summon witnesses from outside and carry on its work without unnecessary interference with hon. members' duties in the house. That committee was set up in the first week of July. The minister may say what he likes but that is the way the government carried out its promise and the commitment we had every reason to believe we had secured as to the way this matter would be dealt with in this House of Commons, this matter which was of such vital importance, so we were told, to the people of this country.
No one can say that in the way the committee worked, because of the pressure of time and because we were approaching the end of our session, there was the same opportunity for careful consideration, with witnesses to be summoned from all the provinces if they were interested, the kind of consideration that could have been given if the committee had been set up earlier in the session. That is no reflection on the work that was done in the committee because it worked under great pressure and in the face of those difficulties some very splendid work was done. As a result of that work we have a much better bill.
The minister mentioned some of the changes that were introduced in the committee. He did not mention all of them. The record of the committee hearings will show how those changes were brought about, and the constructive efforts that were made by members on this side to improve this bill, and the results of those efforts.
Tonight the minister had something to say about the improvement of the bill with regard to the inclusion of a preamble, a preamble couched in such terms that it would be suitable for display to school children, for wall display, and all that kind of thing. I think it is a good preamble. But the minister may also remember that when on second reading we on this side talked about the desirability of having a preamble, of making this bill an impressive one for the very purpose which the minister mentioned, we were laughed at and the minister asked, did we want a bill or poetry.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That had no relation to the preamble.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have a preamble now, and I say it is a good one. It is one change which makes it a better bill. There are other changes which will be dealt with by my colleagues on this side, particularly by those
Human Rights
who worked on the committee. Many of the other proposals that were made on this side were rejected. We shall have an opportunity to bring them forward, if we so desire, during the committee proceedings. One thing we would like to have seen done, and had there been more time for consideration perhaps it might have been possible, I do not know, was this. The suggestion was made that it would have been a good thing if this bill could have been divided into three bills: the first a declaratory bill which would stand by itself on its own merits; the second a bill which would deal with the Interpretation Act, and the third a bill which would deal with amendments to the War Measures Act. That, however, was not possible; certainly it would not have been possible at this time.
We on this side attach very great importance to the amendment which has been made and the amendments which we have proposed to the War Measures Act and we shall return to those amendments during the discussion of the bill in committee.
I did not have the privilege of attending the hearings of the committee, but I read most of the record of those hearings and I well remember how Professor Lower emphasized that there could be no sure protection of the rights of the individual in any bill or in any legislative enactment that does not deal with war measures, which does not deal with emergencies of wartime and the necessity for protecting rights and freedom during the atmosphere of war or apprehended war. During the hearings in the committee we on this side did try to get some further amendments, or would have tried to get some further amendments, to the War Measures Act along the lines that we had proposed on second reading, but our proposals to that end were ruled out of order on what seems to me the extraordinary ground that this bill was dealing with rights; that it was a bill of rights and therefore it was out of order to move anything that concerned the War Measures Act, even though in this bill of rights there had already been made one amendment to the War Measures Act. We shall have an opportunity now, as I have said, to bring forward again some of those amendments, to discuss them and I hope to convince the committee that they will mean further improvement to this bill, if they are adopted.
As I have said, a study of the proceedings and evidence of the committee will show not only that this bill has been improved but how the improvement was brought about. Some of the confusion and uncertainty which we feel would have been created by the terms of the bill originally in regard to the legal

Human Rights
situation in Canada have, I think, been removed by the changes that have been made. There have been some additions to the bill which I think strengthen its provisions and are designed to strengthen rights and freedom. It is a better bill as the result of the work the committee has given to it. It could have been an even better bill if the committee had more time to consider this matter, and had there been more witnesses called before the committee.
I understand that-perhaps I will be corrected if I am wrong

there was not a single witness from the province of Quebec before the select committee except Professor Scott.


An hon. Member:: What about Cohen?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Shall I put it this way. There was not a single French speaking witness before the committee; I do not think there was one.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Dorion was there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Dorion was a member of the committee, and a very valued one, as anyone will gather from reading the record. It seems to me he played a very constructive part in the work of the committee. It is a better bill, Mr. Chairman, because of what the committee has done. We are now in committee of the whole. It is our aim on this side to make it a better bill still.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, over the years the C.C.F. has been interested in parliament adopting a bill of rights. As a matter of fact, even before the Prime Minister advanced a case for a bill of rights members of this group had been promoting a Canadian bill of rights.
The bill before us this evening is entitled "Bill C-79". Of course, it has the same number and the same title as the original bill, but it is a measure that has had prolific changing and I would think on a quick glance that the bill has probably about 50 per cent of the words that were in the original bill, and about 50 per cent of them have been added since the bill went to committee.


Mr. Spencer:: The hon. member had better look again.


An hon. Member:: Take a longer look.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have in my hand the bill containing the deletions and the bill containing the additions. I have not counted the words, but I venture to say about half of the words in the new bill were not in the first bill that came before this house and I think that is all to the good. I think the bill is a better bill because of the changes made in the committee.

One particular amendment that I think is valuable is the one having to do with clause 2 which reads:
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the bill of rights, be so construed and applied-
And so on. I think this is a particularly good amendment which strengthens the bill of rights.
We have advocated over the years that a Canadian bill of rights would be better embedded in the Canadian constitution. We still hold that view. We feel that the government has not taken every opportunity to accomplish this desirable end but rather there has been a determination on the part of the Prime Minister and the government to have a second-class measure when a first-class measure might have been attained. As I see it, the original bill presented to the committee was a rather naked bill. The committee has partially clothed the bill but if we are to have a fully clothed bill of rights then in my judgment it must be a bill of rights that is embedded in the constitution.
The Prime Minister has not been in a rush to put the bill through parliament since he took office. The rush has occurred toward the end of this session. A similar measure was introduced in the house in 1958 and almost two years have elapsed until our discussion now of this bill in its nearly final form. What has the government done in that two-year period to obtain an agreement with the provinces so that we might have an amendment to the constitution? As far as I know, it has done nothing. As far as I know the government has made no effort whatsoever to obtain from the provinces their consent to an amendment to the constitution.
When the bill was introduced for the first time this session I said in the debate that, although the premier of Saskatchewan had written to the Prime Minister in January, 1959 setting forth the position of that province and asking the Prime Minister to take the initiative in calling a federal-provincial conference, the Prime Minister had not so much as replied to the letter of the premier of Saskatchewan up to then or, in fact, up to the present time. It is true that an executive assistant acknowledged the letter of the premier but I think it is not an adequate reply to delegate the government's answer to an executive assistant when the premier of Saskatchewan had made a sincere proposal that certain action should be taken in order to bring about an amendment to the Canadian constitution.
Many witnesses came before the special committee and I think the deliberations of

the committee were very valuable. I believe that a suggestion was made to the committee as to how a constitutional amendment might in time be obtained even if agreement on the part of all the provinces could not be achieved at this time. Professor Frank Scott in his evidence as reported on page 24 of the proceedings of the committee, put forward the idea that there should be an amendment to the Canadian constitution which would remove from parliament the right to interfere with certain basic rights and fundamental freedoms and that along with such a constitutional amendment, which was in every way the right of the federal parliament, there should be provision made whereby a provincial government through its legislature could by legislative action forego the authority within the provincial jurisdiction to interfere with the same kind of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The immediate result of this kind of provision would be to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms is so far as the right of parliament to interfere is concerned and to enable the provinces, if they wished, further to protect human rights within the provinces from interference by the legislatures. It was the opinion of Frank Scott, and I think it is a sound opinion, that after a few years one province after another would take this action and that within the near future we would in fact have a constitutional bill of rights that would apply, not only to the federal jurisdiction but also to the jurisdiction of all the provinces after action by the legislatures of those provinces.
This the government has not done. Instead we have before us tonight this bill of rights which in my view is not the best way to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Prime Minister has not canvassed the provinces. Even when one provincial premier wrote to the Prime Minister asking for action to provide a method of obtaining a constitutional amendment there was no reply.
At the federal-provincial conference just concluded it was suggested by the premier of Quebec that there should be a conference for the purpose, not only of domiciling the Canadian constitution within Canada but also so that action could be taken to obtain a constitutional bill of rights. I think that may be the break-through in obtaining a constitutional amendment to provide for a Canadian bill of rights. In my opinion this presented a great opportunity to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister could have informed the provinces that there would be a federal-provincial conference called at
Human Rights
the request of the provinces to hear their views on this question and to take a concrete step forward by agreement to provide a bill of rights in the constitution. Instead, orders have gone out to the Conservative party: "We are going to have this bill of rights, admittedly with amendments, but this is to be the bill of rights".
I expressed the opinion in the committee, and I hope I am wrong, that once this bill becomes law it may in fact delay the time when we can have a constitutional amendment because some of the provinces may well say: "We have a bill of rights so let us not do anything more; let us wait until it is tested in the courts; let us give it time to see whether or not it works." By giving it time, perhaps a very long time, a constitutional amendment may not be possible.
I think the government has taken a rather arrogant approach by its attitude that parliament will pass this bill of rights here and now, that although it was admitted in the committee by the Minister of Justice that a constitutional amendment is preferable they will not take steps at this time to bring about a constitutional amendment through consultation and action with the provinces. This attitude, which is one of they will do it themselves even if it is second best, is the attitude that the government has taken on this question for a period of two years now. I believe that the bill is a better bill than when it went to the committee. There is no doubt in my mind that parliament will give this measure its overwhelming approval but nevertheless this is not the best type of bill of rights that in my view might have been obtained.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with it?


Hazen Robert Argue: The government has said: "No, we will not consult the provinces, we will not have a constitutional amendment; we will be satisfied with merely another statute on the statute books of the country". We in this group look forward to the day when there will be a constitutional amendment. The fight for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms has been a long one and will be a continuing battle.
This bill is not perfect and its imperfections are bound to be seen in the days ahead. If we had the most perfect measure within our constitution, then the great battle within Canada for equality, human rights and fundamental freedoms would still be a continuing one; would require the support of the Canadian public; would require a view of tolerance by all Canadian

Human Rights
citizens. This battle for equality, for recognition, for human rights and fundamental freedoms will be continued. Undoubtedly this measure marks for Canadians a step, even though an inadequate step, forward.
We look to the day when we shall have a constitutional amendment. We think the attitude of this government has delayed that kind of amendment; but we think if the provinces, led by Saskatchewan in 1947 by its provincial bill of rights, continue to press the federal government, if public opinion continues to impress itself upon the government, and if this government should remain in office long enough perhaps we shall see initiative from this government toward a constitutional amendment.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words on this all-important question. I am glad this bill has been introduced. I am glad that we had a committee. I am glad that it has been so much discussed, because I think it is a good thing for us to turn away occasionally from finance and taxation, from combines and tariffs, and to spend some time in thinking about the basic things that enter into the society in which we live together. That is what I have been doing. I was not a member of the standing committee, but I was able to attend a good many of the sessions. I really feel it was worth while to be spending time hearing our own members and others whose opinions were worth while discussing these grave matters.
Of course, when you begin to discuss rights and freedoms you immediately run into duties and responsibilities, and when you have those four united you have a very large part of our life together. I should like at the very outset to say what the Minister of Justice has already said, that I think we owe a great deal to the Prime Minister in this matter. I shall refer to this later; but at the very outset-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -I want to quote what Professor Lower said. He was formerly in the west and is now at Queen's University:
I would like to pay my humble tribute to the Prime Minister of the country for having brought in this bill. He has forced discussion on an issue which I suppose in ordinary times most people do not give much attention to. I think it was commendable on his part and I am sure it will be infinitely useful in the future.
The Prime Minister, year after year after year, has brought up this matter, ever since I have been in this House of Commons and before.
I suppose it is merely stating the obvious to say that it is of special importance for us

to try to turn our minds back to the serious things in our society in this strange new world in which we are living today. If one looks back half a century he realizes that at the end of the Victorian era the world seemed a settled world in which parliamentary democracy would spread over the whole world, and progress was assured.
What has happened in these last 50 years? Everything seemed set fair in 1909 or 1910. We had no knowledge of the explosions which awaited us. Therefore, I say it is a good thing for us to recall our rights and freedoms and how they arose.
I am often astonished at the height to which our forefathers rose in establishing justice and I would like to recall this. I propose to read' to you a few words from the great Earl of Chatham, describing in eloquent terms the position of the law in England. Incidentally, I might mention the fact that Voltaire, when he visited England, pronounced the laws harsh, but noted that they were the same for all. Having found out that that was not the case in Prance, he thought it was a good thing. While speaking about the rule of law, I should like to read a few sentences from the Earl of Chatham, in his speech on the excise bill, where he puts in eloquent terms the position of the law in England:
The poorest man may In his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter-but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.
I think you will agree that that is an astonishing tribute to the rule of law, and yet it is a plain statement of fact. I want to add a word also from that great politician, and I might say he was a Conservative politician, Edmund Burke. If it sounds highfalutin', let me say it is a statement of fact. Here are his words:
God who gave our nature to be perfected by our virtue, willed also the necessary means of its perfection. He willed therefore, the state,... but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection.
These are noble words, and we hardly feel that pedestrian people like ourselves can keep up with them. But nevertheless our rights and freedoms never would have arisen

but for the fact that generation after generation produced such men who could induce other people, for the moment at any rate, to rise to their own level.
Some of you will remember with affection and respect one of our former fellows in this House of Commons, the late John Hackett. John Hackett served a term as chairman of the Canadian Bar Association. He tried hard to make the legal profession feel that law was not merely a means of earning a livelihood, but one of the pillars of the state. John Hackett used to say the law was just Christianity put into practice. It sounds very highfalutin', as I said a moment ago; but if you take some of the circumstances of law and look at them, I think they reach the highest standard of fairness between men.
I always think of the law of trusteeship in this regard. I will give you one illustration. Trustees, as we all know, are limited to certain types of investments usually called trustee investments. If a trustee makes an unauthorized investment and by so doing makes a loss for his beneficiary, he is responsible. On the other hand, if he makes a profit, he cannot keep that; he has to hand it over.
I think that is a very high standard of conduct, and I like to think that is demanded by law. Furthermore, I think if we pause to think of rights and freedoms, duties and responsibilities, we reach human affairs at the highest level, and I think we also reach international relations. I think we reach the question when we are reflecting on that; as a nation have we any serious purpose; what are we doing?
Not long ago this question was easy; we felt we were pioneers developing a new country and we felt that was a serious purpose. The world has shrunk since then. Even 15 years ago, when Wendell Wilkie wrote his book "One World", it was very unconvincing to us. It seemed very unreal; it did not seem to come home to us very much. Now, by jet plane we live next door to each other; foreign relations become a matter of day to day consideration.
I have already quoted in this house remarks of that remarkable woman Barbara Ward, and I want to quote one paragraph again now.
As the world enters the 1960's one fact seems sure. The pace of revolutionary change in every sphere of human affairs will gather momentum.
And again:
What, in these circumstances, will be the response of the western powers? The answer depends not only upon the new political leadership available in the west; it depends profoundly upon the sort of people the free nations have become as they face the mounting crises of their age.
Human Rights
I make no apology for these quotations because I think we are either going to live up to them in some measure or we are going to suffer. Because of this I feel grateful to the Prime Minister in forcing upon us through this bill a discussion of this matter.
We all know that the Prime Minister has devoted himself to the subject. One of my earliest recollections of my first parliament in 1945 was the Prime Minister bringing up the question then, I think in connection with emergency powers. I have checked the intervening years and I have been amazed to find that in practically every year this question has been raised by the Prime Minister. When I first heard him speak on this I was one of those who was a little afraid of putting rights and freedom in writing instead of relying on custom and tradition for fear that the written word might unintentionally have a limiting effect. But I have changed my mind as I have heard this question debated and advocated through the years.
When I read the Prime Minister's speeches of July 1 and July 7, I found in it a moving culmination of many years of patient advocacy. Let me quote briefly from Hansard of July 7:
I view this bill of rights as a statement of a Canadian sense of history and of the objectives and standards that we accept in the fashioning of the society in which we believe. I know it has been said before by the cynics, who believe themselves realists, that declarations mean nothing... My answer to those who hold that view is that the same arguments could have been used against the sermon on the amount and compared with the actual practices of those of us who are Christians... I am a realist, but X do hold this to be true-that in the years ahead we shall look back upon this as a measure that showed we had faith in our institutions; that we intended to assure the individual that the rights that he has inherited will not be diminished...
Those were my aspirations as an ordinary Canadian now having the opportunity, in a country that gives opportunity, to bring before parliament that which X believe to mean much to Canada.
I would now like to go back for a moment to 1947 and indicate to you how the Prime Minister has followed up the principles he has expressed. As reported on page 3158 of Hansard for May 16, 1947, the Prime Minister said:
To be effective, a bill of rights must represent, as my right hon. friend said today, the philosophy of the human being, and of a free people. It must deny the right of any government to interfere with my right to speak within the law; my right to serve my Maker as my conscience demands; my right to be free from the threats of a police state, whether consciously or unconsciously administered; my right to live my own life within the limits of the law, without regard to race or colour or creed; my right to belong to an unpopular minority anywhere in this country; my right to have recourse to the courts to guard me against the intrusions or the invasions of the state.

Human Rights
So, Mr. Chairman, you will see how views have remained unchanged, and how this has carried on down through the years.
I propose to say very little about the legal points in this bill; I will leave that to others more qualified than myself. But I would like to refer to two witnesses who came before the committee. One of them was Professor Frank Scott, and while it is quite true that Professor Frank Scott was critical of the bill, he said one thing which interested me and which I think is worth quoting, because it seems to me to be an answer to the criticism of colonialism. He said:
We are going to have to bring to Canada the power to amend every portion of the British North America Act by some agreed procedure, a procedure which will undoubtedly involve some degree of provincial participation. However, until we do that I do not think there is anything un-Canadian or unpatriotic, or unnationalistic for us to utilize the machinery we have, and the United Kingdom parliament is still part of our constitutional machinery. We turn it on when we want to, and turn it off again. It is an odd situation only explainable in historical terms. For that reason I do not think we should hesitate to employ this procedure where it is appropriate.
I would also like to refer briefly to Professor Lower. He was very definite as to the desirability of going ahead with the bill although he had certain criticisms of it, particularly with regard to the War Measures Act. There was a conversation between him and the Minister of Justice on that point, as a result of which Professor Lower professed himself much more satisfied and less worried. I think the Prime Minister has cleared away that difficulty now by agreeing that the War Measures Act may be reviewed.
As I see it, this bill before the committee has been improved and has been studied by the special committee. It has now come back to us. The Minister of Justice appeared before the committee on several occasions and showed two things; first of all, a mastery of his subject and, second, courtesy and patience in dealing with criticisms and the amendments, accepting certain of them. In these circumstances it seems to me the situation before us now is that the bill has been studied and therefore there is no reason for delay.
These constant references to the provinces leave me somewhat unmoved, because experience has shown that it is not too easy to get eleven governments to agree. One must remember also that there are provinces which are Liberal, provinces which are Conservative, two I think are Social Credit and one is C.C.F. It is conceivable that when they all get together they may have differences between them. In any event it seems to me that this bill as it stands before us deals with matters which go to the very roots of our

life at a time when we need to consider the basis of our life very seriously.
I remember being struck very much with a speech made some years ago by a well-known journalist, a man whose attitude towards communism is the same as that of any hon. member in this committee. He said that we faced one thing. He said that the communists have a something; we may find it abominable but nevertheless they have a something to which they are devoted, and he said that we will never defeat a something with a nothing. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am glad we have had the chance to examine some of our basic principles. I hope we will find time to think about this, and if we do not think about it in this chamber, who is going to think about it? I read an article the other day by an American who had just come back from Moscow. He had flown from Moscow to Miami and expressed great shock. In Moscow he found what he thought was a much better way of life, superficially at any rate, than that in Miami. He found people worked hard in Moscow. I understand, for example, that the sale of books in Moscow is far, far ahead of this country. This American found the Russians hard working and devoted to serious things, and that when he got to Miami he found that the most obvious thing was the pursuit of pleasure-two, three or four cars in the garage, and so on. He did not think that was showing any sign of serious purpose in life, and he thought a serious purpose was necessary. Therefore if consideration of this bill moved us in the slightest toward that end, I think it has been well worth while. (Translation):


Mr. Deschaieleis:: Mr. Chairman, during the previous discussion on second reading of the bill, I made a few remarks and, on that occasion criticized the legislation then submitted to us, which of course did not contain the amendments it now contains. I now want to recall a few of my criticisms.
At that time, I first of all said that the bill was too limited in scope; second, that it gave rise to uncertainties with regard to constitutional problems; third, that I was among those who thought it preferable to try, by all means, to have a national bill of rights by amending the constitution in order to obtain provincial co-operation in working out such an amendment; fourth, I mentioned, like other members of our group, that the bill of rights submitted to us provided nothing with regard to the War Measures Act, that is, with regard to that troubled period where a bill of rights and fundamental freedoms is so
AUGUST 1. I960	7383
Business of the House
much needed; and in the fifth instance, I seriously criticized the government for presenting this legislation when the session is drawing to a close.
I shall now elaborate on each of those points with regard to the amendments now submitted today.
The scope of the bill, even with the amendments to which we contributed, is still much too limited. I think it is very unfortunate that certain people should have tried to exaggerate its importance because I am absolutely convinced that, when the bill is passed, it will give rise to much confusion and disappointment.
I shall give a few instances in which the bill does not take care of the requirements of Canadian life in 1960. First of all, it is written, right in the preamble, that the bill is limited to the legislative jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament. Therefore, if after this bill is passed by this house and by the Senate and has become law, a coloured person in any province is refused admission to a hotel on account of his colour, this bill will be of no help at all, because Bill C-79 has no provisions on the basis of which corrective action could be taken against racial discrimination.
Second, if this bill comes into force tomorrow and the very next day, close to Ottawa, as happened recently, a witness called before some organization is refused the services of an interpreter, thus preventing that person from giving evidence in his mother tongue, then Bill C-79 could not correct such an unpleasant situation, although that witness would obviously not have received a fair treatment.
I shall give another example with regard to freedom of religion.
Should this bill be passed tomorrow, the next day it might be decreed, as happened a few days ago in Quebec, if I remember correctly, in the case of the Quebec attorney general v. Laurier Saumure, that the matter is a provincial responsibility as decided by Hon. Justice Lizotte.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are three cases which have arisen within a few days and for which this Bill C-79 offers no remedy.
I shall even go a little farther. When the bill was introduced and discussed on July 1, hon. members will recall that it contained no reference to the word "family".
Not once in the bill placed before us by the Prime Minister on July 1 can we find the word "family".


Georges-J. Valade: It is mentioned now.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I would ask my hon. friend to wait a few moments, as I am developing my argument.


Georges-J. Valade: Developing it?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me one moment to complete my explanation, I shall be brief.
The family, which is the cornerstone of our society, was not even mentioned in the bill laid before us by the Prime Minister on July 1. Later, we took up the bill in committee, and now-this is in reply to my hon. friend from St. Mary (Mr. Valade)-we find the word "family" in the preamble, but the preamble does not provide any rights for the family.
Mr. Chairman, before we call it eleven o'clock, I would ask the hon. member who interjected a moment ago to try to find, in the bill as amended today, a safeguard and a protection for the Canadian family which, I repeat, is the cornerstone of our society.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it eleven o'clock. (Text):
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and the next day?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue tomorrow with Bill No. C-79 an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. On Wednesday we shall commence with the estimates of the Department of National Defence, and I am suggesting a change in the order of estimates for this week. The next department will be trade and commerce followed by finance followed by the privy council.
As this is Monday, the house might like to know what further business may be before it, and I might list the items now. We have for consideration at any time which becomes available during the course of the week the second reading of Bill No. C-89, an act to amend the Judges Act; concurrence in the report of the civil service commission concerning the House of Commons staff, and the report of the committee on procedure.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes past eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, August 2, 1960