1962-11-21

Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Public Works):: 
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker,
I am sure the house will welcome the announcement that has just been made by the minister, especially to the extent that it will contribute toward the establishment soon in this country of an active secondary market for mortgages. In that sense it is particularly welcome. Having regard to the offering of the 6 per cent mortgages, I think this will be welcomed and will point up the need for government action for which we have been pressing for some time-that is, the lowering of the N.H.A. interest rate-which will have the effect of bringing the chartered banks and others in this country back into the house mortgage lending business.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Stewart: 1.	On what date was the old lighthouse building on Pomquet island. Nova Scotia, demolished by the government?
2.	Were announcements made to the public that this building was available for salvage by private persons and, if so, what provisions were stated as to the filling in of the cellar excavation?
3.	Was the cellar excavation filled in by the government when it demolished the building?


Mr. Balcer:: 1. October 4, 1962.
2.	In 1960 the building was declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and was twice advertised for sale and removal, with no response from the public. In the absence of response the demolition was undertaken by departmental personnel.
3.	No.


CANADA-U.S. CUSTOMS UNION ON FOREST PRODUCTS
Mr. McWilliam: Has the government given consideration to the establishment of a Canadian-United States customs union in forest products and, if so. what decision was reached, and on what basis?


Mr. Graffiey:: No.

Questions


LAKEHEAD
Mr. Rideout: 1.	To what extent have the Port Arthur shipbuilding yards benefited by government subsidy paid under the shipbuilding subsidy act?
2.	Is there a shortage of pilots at the lakehead and, if so, what steps is the government taking to remedy the situation?


Léon Balcer: 1. The Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company has not made any application to the Canadian maritime commission for a construction contract involving subsidy and consequently no subsidy is due or has been paid to the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company.
2.	There is not a shortage of pilots at the lakehead.
(Translation):


SUSPENSION OF PILOTAGE CHIEF, LES ESCOUMINS
Mr. Legare: 1.	Has Captain Antonin Desrosiers, head of the pilotage bureau at Les Escoumins, been suspended and, if so, for what reason?
2.	For how many years was he employed by the Department of Transport?
3.	What successive positions did he hold?
4.	By what amount was his income reduced as a result of moving the station from Father Point to Les Escoumins?


Léon Balcer: 1. Yes, for insubordination.
2.	14 years.
3.	(a) April 13, 1948, to November 30, 1951, pilotage officer at Father Point pilotage station; (b) December 1, 1951, to April 7, 1960, clerk 4 at Father Point pilotage station; (c) April 8, 1960, to present, clerk 4 at Les Escoumins pilotage station.
4.	As indicated in part 3 above, Captain Desrosiers' salary did not change as a result of the transfer from Father Point to Les Escoumins.
(Text):


* THALIDOMIDE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Walker: 1.	Was a joint conference of provincial and federal health officials convened by the Department of National Health and Welfare in Ottawa last August and, if so, what provinces were represented at that meeting?
2.	Was the purpose of this conference to discuss ways and means of implementing a program of assistance and rehabilitation for victims of the drug thalidomide and, if so, is it planned to hold another similar meeting in the near future and on what date?
3.	What provinces have indicated their intention to have representatives at this second meeting?
4.	Does the government have any plans for victims residing in any province which does not participate in these conferences?
[Mr. GraffteyJ
5.	What arrangements does the government propose for a thalidomide assistance program in provinces not represented at the conference of last August or any future conference?


Mr. Monieiih:: 1. Yes all provinces were represented.
2.	The purpose of the conference was to discuss ways and means of assessing the size of the problem of children affected by the use of the drug thalidomide and to plan measures for their rehabilitation and assistance. It was recommended at that time that an expert committee on rehabilitation be established to advise the Department of National Health and Welfare as well as the provincial authorities on the best methods to be adopted for the care of these children. The committee has been actively pursuing its task and will be meeting shortly with provincial experts to make specific recommendations in this regard.
3.	To date Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have indicated their intention to be represented at this meeting.
4.	Participation in this conference is not a prerequisite to the co-operation of provincial governments in co-ordinated planning for the children so affected. For example, one of the provinces which has not yet indicated its participation in the November conference has indicated that no such disabled infants have been born within its borders.
5.	Regardless of their attendance at this conference, all governments have indicated their willingness to co-operate with the federal government in programs of care and assistance to children affected by the use of thalidomide.
(Translation):


LATE ARRIVALS OF OCEAN LIMITED AT RIMOUSKI
Mr. Legare: 1.	How many times did the Ocean Limited (No. 1) enter the Rimouski station more than 10 minutes late during the months of August, September and October, 1962?
2.	To what causes were such delays, if any, attributable?


Léon Balcer: The management of the
Canadian National Railways advise that the information requested is not readily available in the form asked.
(Text):


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS COSTS
Mr. McMillan: 1.	What was the total cost to the treasury of selling the estimated $988,958,000 Canada savings series 16, in 1961?
2.	At the latest available date, what value of these bonds has been cashed by their original owners?

3.	What percentage commission is paid tor selling Canada savings bonds, and what commission is paid when they are turned in or converted into similar bonds of a new series?


William Heward Grafftey: 1. $1,100,234,700 of 1961 series Canada savings bonds were sold. The estimated total cost of selling this issue including sales commissions, issuing fees, promotional expenses and costs of printing and distributing bonds was $11,641,158 or 1.06 per cent of the total sale.
2.	As at October 31, 1962, $181,957,000 of 1961 series Canada savings bonds had been redeemed.
3.	A commission of three quarter of one per cent is paid to authorized sales and issuing agents on sales of the 1962 series of Canada savings bonds. No sales commission is paid on payroll sales in non-commission-able establishments. When bonds of the 1959, 1960 and 1961 series are cashed, a redemption fee of one sixteen of one per cent is paid to the bank concerned. No redemption fee is paid on bonds of series prior to 1959.


TWINNING OF LOCKS, WELLAND CANAL
Mr. McMillan: 1.	What amount of money has been spent in the last 12 months toward the twinning of the single locks on the Welland ship canal?
2.	Is any on-site work proceeding at the present time toward the proposed twinning and, if so, what is the nature of the work?


Léon Balcer: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	$167,896.56 has been spent for engineering services, subsoils investigations and surveys.
2.	Only subsoils investigations and surveys.



WHEAT BOARD EMPLOYEES


Mr. Dumont: 1.	How many persons are employed by the Canadian wheat board and what is the salary of each?
2.	Will repairs be made to the grain elevator in the port of Vancouver used for the loading of grain for communist China and Poland and, if so, what funds will be required for such repairs?
3.	Has the government given consideration to the use of these funds for the construction of grain elevators at Berthier (en bas), county of Mont-magny, and other locations in eastern Canada?
4.	What accounts for the price difference in feed grain between the price received by the western farmer and that paid by the eastern farmer?


Mr. Jorgenson:: 1. The employees of the Canadian wheat board are not civil servants. They are paid out of the proceeds from the sale of grain delivered to the board by the producers, and the salaries of individuals has been regarded as a confidential matter. The publication of salaries paid to individual employees would be prejudicial to the operations of the board since the board must com-
Questions
pete with the private grain trade for personnel. The aggregate of salaries paid is shown in the board's annual report each year. In 1960-61 this amounted to $2,305,184 and was shared by 724 employees. Currently the employee total is 600.
2.	Repairs are being made to a grain gallery in Vancouver harbour owned by the national harbours board and leased and operated by a private grain company. The gallery is connected to elevators which ship grain to Britain, the European continent, South America, Asia, Africa and Canadian domestic points. This gallery was damaged recently by a vessel whose owners have given an undertaking to the national harbours board to compensate the board for the damage done, to the extent provided under the terms of the Canada Shipping Act.
3.	Under the terms of the National Harbours Act, funds available from earnings or from compensation as outlined in the answer to question 2, at one national harbour cannot be transferred to another location.
4.	There are a great many costs involved in moving grain from a producer's farm in the prairie provinces to a feeder's farm in eastern Canada. These include:
(a)	charges paid for by the western grain producer as follows: trucking to the country elevator; elevation and handling charges; Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act levy of 1 per cent; Canadian wheat board administration costs; storage and interest charges until the grain is sold; rail freight to the lakehead terminal; and
(b)	charges accruing to the buyers, as follows: warehouse receipt registration; elevation at the terminal; storage; interest; cleaning; drying when necessary; insurance; lake shippers clearance association charge; weighing and inspection; warehouse receipt cancellation; lake freight, including inward elevation charge at eastern elevator; demurrage, if any; lake freight brokerage; marine, outturn, strike and riot insurance; rail shrinkage; bank charges; trimming; wharfage; storage; insurance; selling commission; market risk; outward elevation; freight to destination; bagging; grinding; retailer's markup. There may be other charges too. It should be noted, however, that the aggregate of all charges is partially offset by the government freight assistance policy.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES NET INCOME

Mr. Malheson: What has been the percentage rate of change of net income of Trans-Canada Air Lines each six months since the granting to Canadian Pacific Airlines of a licence to operate a domestic transcontinental service?

Questions


Léon Balcer: The management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows:
The financial results of Trans-Canada Air Lines are available only on a calendar year
basis. Canadian Pacific Air Lines commenced operation over the transcontinental route on May 4, 1959. Net profit or loss of TCA for each of the years 1958 to 1961 inclusive was as follows:
Year	Profit or (loss)	Amount	Decrease from previous year	% of change from previous year1958 	
Profit	$ 547,429 152,554 (2,607,350) (6,450,082)	1959 	
Profit	$ 394,875 2,758,904 3,842,732	(72) *1960 	
(Loss)	1961 	
(Loss)	(147)
*When a transition is made from a profit to a loss position, it is arithmetically unsound to indicate a percentage difference.



FREIGHT ASSISTANCE TO MARITIME RAILWAYS

Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	What amounts were paid under the Freight Rates Reduction Act to the Sydney and Louisburg Railway Company and the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company (a) prior to their merger (b) subsequent to their merger?
2.	Will any additional assistance be given to the railway pending the implementation of the recommendations of the MacPherson royal commission?


Léon Balcer: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1.	(a) Nil. (b) Nil.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



VALUE FOR DUTY ON FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Mr. McNulty: 1.	How many requests were made for the application of a value for duty on various fruit and vegetable commodities in the years 1959, 1960, and 1961 respectively?
2.	(a) How many of these requests were acceded to (b) what was the time lapse between the date of the request and the date of implementation in each case?


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleion):: 1. Four requests were made as follows: 1959, frozen peas; 1960, cabbage; 1961, onion sets; 1961, potatoes.
2. (a) One request was acceded to, namely potatoes, (b) Approximately seven weeks elapsed between the date of request and the date of implementation.



GANDER AIRPORT


Mr. Douglas: Has the Minister of Transport received a letter dated October 26 from E. E. Thoms, president of the Newfoundland federation of labour, protesting the impending lay-off of 30 employees at the Gander international airport and, if so, what answer has been given?


Léon Balcer: Yes. This letter related to the conversion of the restaurant at the Gander international airport to a cafeteria.

It was explained, in reply, that this restaurant, which is operated by a commercial concessionaire under contract to the government, had been losing close to $150,000 a year. After careful study decision had been reached that by converting to cafeteria service, at least a large part of this heavy loss could be eliminated; while the type of service involved would be more likely to appeal to the non-scheduled passenger flights using Gander and which are more likely to be interested in speedy, low cost restaurant service of this type rather than more expensive and elaborate arrangements.



STUDY OF EFFECTS OF FLUORIDES

Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
1.	Is there any work being done in the Department of National Health and Welfare on the toxicity of sodium fluoride in relation to its action in man or other animals?
2.	Are there toxic levels established for man under the Food and Drugs Act?
3.	Has the department considered a study of the available evidence on an epidemiological scale of effects of fluorides on man in various parts of Canada?
4.	What work is now under way on the central nervous system effects of fluorides in man?


Jay Waldo Monteith: 1. The toxicity of sodium fluoride in relation to its action on animals is being studied in the food and drug directorate.
2.	No toxic levels have been established for fluorides under the Food and Drugs Act. However maximum permissible levels have been established for fluorine in some foods.
3.	Yes. Epidemiological studies of the effects of fluorides on man have been carried out in Canada and the department has participated in some of these.
4.	None.



DEVELOPMENT OF GOLF COURSE, BLAIR ROAD, OTTAWA

Mr. Tardif: 1.	Does the government or any crown agency own the land being developed as a golf course on Blair road on the outskirts of Ottawa and, if so, is the land leased to the promoters of the golf course, and what are the names of the lessees?
2.	If there is a lease, on what date was it signed, by whom, and what are its terms?
3.	If there is no lease, on what basis is the property being used for this purpose, and when was that basis established?
4.	Was construction of the golf course undertaken before any lease was signed and, if so, under what authority?


Mr. McCleave:: 1. The national capital commission owns land on the east side of the Blair road but this land is not under lease.
2.	No lease exists.
3.	The basis for use of the land for golf club purposes has been and is still under discussion by officials of the national capital commission and the Department of Justice with Mr. J. Kelly's solicitor.
4.	Construction of the golf course was started without a lease being signed. Mr. Kelly at his own risk but with the consent of N.C.C., undertook the building of a golf course before agreement was reached as to the detailed terms of a lease.



*COST OF GARDEN OF THE PROVINCES, OTTAWA

Mr. Tardif: 1.	What was the actual cost of the garden of the provinces at the junction of Wellington and Sparks street in Ottawa?
2.	What was the actual cost of the "tin can tree", which is its central feature, including the cost of installation?


Robert Jardine McCleave: 1. The cost of constructing the garden of the provinces to date is $514,000, and the cost of the land was $907,122.88.
2. To the knowledge of the N.C.C. no such feature is to be found in the garden of the provinces. It exists in the mind of the hon. member.



BAGGAGE HANDLING EQUIPMENT, MALTON AIRPORT TERMINAL

Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has a contract been awarded for supplying incoming baggage handling equipment for the new Malton airport terminal, under general contract aeroquay No. 1, project 5872, division 48, and, if so, to whom has the contract been awarded?
2.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest bidder?
3.	What was the amount of the lowest bid, and who was the lowest bidder?
4.	If a contract has not been awarded, when will the award be made?


Léon Balcer: 1. Yes. To Mathews Conveyor Co. of Canada Ltd., for $242,570.
Questions
2.	No, in view of possible departmental involvement in court actions and/or injunction proceedings arising out of patent claims.
3.	$223,906 by C. H. Mclnnis Ltd., Windsor, Ontario.
4.	See answer to No. 1.



* WELLAND CANAL


Mr. McNulty: Is there any change in the government's policy in regard to the twinning of the locks of the Welland canal and expropriation of land necessary for this twinning?


Léon Balcer: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows: No.



*LAND EXPROPRIATION, WELLAND CANAL

Mr. McNulty: 1.	Has a notice of abandonment been registered with regard to expropriation of land along the Welland canal, and, if so, does this procedure mean a change in government plans for the twinning of the locks?
2.	Does the government propose to twin any of the locks and, if so, which lock or locks respectively?
3.	What amount was paid by the St. Lawrence seaway authority for expropriation of lands which are now being abandoned?


Léon Balcer: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	(a) A notice of abandonment has been registered with regard to the expropriation of part of lot 8 in the 9th concession of the township of Grantham, now in the city of St. Catharines; (b) No.
2.	Expropriation of land has been made to permit the twinning of locks 1, 2, 3 and 7.
3.	Nil.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ESTIMATES


Mr. Pennell: 1.	What amount of the sum of $50,000,000 in the external affairs estimates 1962-63 vote 55 (Colombo plan) was allocated for aid to India?
2.	What amount of the sum of $41,500,000 in the external affairs revised estimates 1962-63 vote 55 (Colombo plan) was allocated for aid to India?


Mr. Green:: 1. No country allocations were made on the basis of the original estimates for vote 55 (Colombo plan) for 1962-63.
2. Firm allocations will not be made from vote 55 until parliament has acted on the revised estimates for 1962-63.


IMMIGRANTS FROM HONG KONG
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	How many of the 100 family units of Chinese refugees being admitted to Canada have arrived to date?
2.	When will the movement be completed?
3.	Is consideration being given to an increase in the quota?

Questions
4.	Have the provinces, municipalities, and other agencies or individuals contributed to the settlement costs?
5.	Has any community taken the full responsibility of establishing refugees in Canadian homes?


Mr. McGee:: 1. Sixty two, consisting of families, family heads whose dependants are still in China, and single persons, for a total of 139 individuals.
2.	It is not possible to say exactly when the movement will be completed but it is expected that all units will be in Canada by the end of 1962.
3.	The possibility of admitting family units in excess of the quota of 100 is under consideration.
4.	Although the federal government has the primary responsibility for this movement, private groups and individuals in Canada, including social service agencies, have contributed to the costs of settlement of Chinese refugee family units who have arrived to date in Canada. Such contributions have been in many forms and combinations, including provision of money, accommodation, food, clothing, household furnishings, and related means of aid.
5.	In a number of communities special groups or committees have been formed to raise the funds required to meet the special expenses connected with the settlement of these families and to help in other ways. The department has shared the responsibility for establishment of these families by finding housing accommodation, by efforts to place refugees in employment, by collecting household furniture and appliances, and by assisting families, wherever necessary, in the purchase of food, clothing and other necessities.


FISH MORTALITY FROM BUDWORM SPRAYING, MIRAMICHI AREAS
Mr. McWilliam: Is budworm-spraying considered to be a cause of increased mortality among salmon, grilse, and trout in Miramichi areas that have been sprayed toward protecting forest lands and, if so, what is the estimated increase in the mortality rate?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: The use of DDT
dissolved in oil as a spray for spruce bud-worm control has caused higher than natural mortalities in salmon and trout in the Miramichi river system.
The higher mortality rate depends on the amount of DDT which finds its way into the water courses which in turn depends on the method of spraying and the concentration of the chemical used. Mortalities in test areas have varied from relatively low levels to almost 100 per cent. No sound over-all estimate of increased mortality from spraying can be made from this wide range of known percentages.


USE OF NEW SPRAY INSECTICIDE, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. McWilliam: Has a new type of insecticide, or a change in the composition of the previous compound, considered to be less harmful to fish with a lower toxicity, been approved for budworm spraying of areas in New Brunswick wherein lie fish-spawning grounds and, if so, will this new type insecticide, or change in the compound, be used in next year's spraying operations?


John Angus MacLean: A new insecticide, phosphamidon, has been found to be less harmful to fish and fish food organisms (aquatic insects) in laboratory and preliminary field tests. If forest spraying is undertaken in New Brunswick in 1963, it has been recommended that one section be treated with phosphamidon in an enlarged check experiment.
It has been found that a concentration of one-quarter pound of DDT per gallon per acre is much less toxic to fish than one-half pound per gallon per acre where only one application is made. This lowered concentration was applied generally in 1961 and 1962 and will be used if a spray program is considered to be necessary in 1963.


WATER POLLUTION, MIRAMICHI AREA
Mr. McWilliam: Has the degree of water pollution Increased during the past two years in Miramichi waters and, if so, what is considered to be the chief cause, and what is the degree of the increased pollution?


John Angus MacLean: It is almost impossible to estimate the degree of pollution for fish when mortalities therefrom are not visible.
The main cause for recent concern lies in the development of base metal mines on tributaries to the northwest Miramichi. Heavy metal ions-zinc, lead and copper-are present in quantity in the effluent being pumped from the shafts and in the drainage areas around the mines.
The toxicity of the drainage water was established when caged test fish held in the tributary streams in the mine area died after varying periods of exposure time. Population studies in these areas, however, have demonstrated that native fish seem to avoid the polluted sections of the river below the mine. Continual treatment of the mine drainage has in recent months prevented any serious increase in the toxic level of the northwest Miramichi.


EXAMINATION BY MINISTER OF PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Howard: Has the Minister of Justice examined each public bill introduced by a private member during this session in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights and, if so, has he found any such inconsistencies, and what are they?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights has been fully complied with in relation to every bill introduced in the House of Commons during this session, and if any member of the house wishes to ascertain whether a particular bill has been examined, he may readily find out by consulting the Clerk of the House.


ILLEGAL CHINESE IMMIGRATION
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since April 1,	1959, and especially during
January and February of 1960, were any employees of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration interrogated or otherwise spoken to, or with, in the Lord Elgin hotel in Ottawa, in connection with the alleged illegal entry into Canada of people of Chinese origin, and, if so, upon what dates did the said interrogations or discussions take place?
2.	Was Mr. J. K. Abbott, director of inspection services of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, in attendance at any of the said interrogations or discussions and, if so, which ones?
3.	Did Mr. Abbott take part in any of the said interrogations or discussions and, if so, what are the details surrounding his activities in this regard?
4.	Were any of the said interrogations or discussions recorded by any electronic or mechanical means and, if so, what method of recording was used and by whose authority?


Frank Charles McGee: 1, 2 and 3. During February 1960, when the investigation into illegal Chinese immigration was in its formative stages, a number of meetings were held in the Lord Elgin hotel, to which individual members of the department were invited. These meetings were held at the hotel for the sake of convenience, since a number of the R.C.M.P. investigators assigned to the work had been brought in from out of the city and were living in the hotel at the time. The discussions which were held were of a general nature, their purpose being to facilitate the conduct of the investigation which was then under way. No record is available to establish the dates on which these meetings were held. Mr. Abbott was present at these discussions in his capacity as director of inspection services. The other members of the department invited to be present were officers with recent experience in the operation of the department's Hong Kong office, and with knowledge of citizenship application procedures at headquarters.
4.	None of the said discussions was recorded by electronic, mechanical or any other means: no statements were taken or recorded by any means whatsoever.


MEASUREMENT OF RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	What is the latest reading of radioactive fall-out in each of the provinces of Canada?
Questions
2.	Is milk the only index used by the Department of National Health and Welfare for measuring radioactive fall-out?
3.	Has a protest been received from the Ontario federation of agriculture to the effect that using milk as a radioactive fall-out index is giving the impression that milk is dangerous food and, if so, is the department considering the use of an alternative index?


Jay Waldo Monteith: 1. The latest readings of radioactive fall-out are given in the report of the radiation protection division, dated November 1962. This report includes the results of the measurement of radioactive fallout in air, precipitation, and milk samples collected from varying number of stations situated in different provinces within Canada. Some data refer to the month of October while others refer to the month of September.
2.	No. Measurements of radioactive fall-out are also made in air, precipitation, soil, wheat and in humans.
3.	No.



POLIOMYELITIS


Mr. Haidasz: Has the federal government taken the initiative and expressed to the provinces of Canada its willingness to resume without delay free mass immunization of the Canadian population with the appropriate anti-polio vaccine?


Jay Waldo Monteith: On November 14 the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced in the House of Commons that he had accepted the statement of the dominion council of health respecting immunization against poliomyelitis. This statement includes recommendations for the use of both the Sabin and Salk poliovirus vaccines. Specific programs for the use of these vaccines are determined by the provincial departments of health. Federal assistance continues to be available to the provinces within the terms of the national health grants for assistance of up to 50 per cent of the cost of securing supplies of these vaccines for provincial immunization programs. All provinces were represented at the dominion council of health meeting by their senior health officials, who were made aware of the developments in this field.



NEW BRUNSWICK FISH LOADINGS

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What are the total quantities and landed values of the following species of fish for New Brunswick in the years 1960 and 1961; cod, herring and sardines, mackerel, salmon, smelts, alewives, lobsters, clams and quahaugs and scallops?
2.	If available, what are the total quantities and landed values for these species for the same years taken from Miramichi waters?


Mr. Nesbitt:: 1 and 2.



LANDINGS, QUANTITY AND VALUE, NEW BRUNSWICK TOTAL AND MIRAMICHI AREA TOTAL 1960-1961

[Stage Direction]
New Brunswick Total
Quantity	Value
1960 1961	1980 1961
'000 lb.	S
Miramichi Area Total	
(Dist. 70, 71, 72 and 73)	
Quantity	Value
1960 1961	1960 1961
'000 lb.	$
Cod	
33,049	34,396	948,200	1,139,100	757	963	19,200	28,200Herring and sardines	
136,609	56,269	2,140,600	878,100	4,252	3,602	48,700	46,900Mackerel	
1,100	822	51,500	44,600	68	56	3,900	4,500Salmon	
616	584	365,800	332,800	269	267	158,100	145,100Smelts	
1,673	1,220	163,500	100,100	600	316	60,400	26,300Alew!vea	
4,055	4,278	57,800	64,800	1,732	439	21,300	5,900Lobste«	
11,913	10,873	4,059,300	3,876,700	1,223	995	405,500	316,700Clams and quahaugs	
1,259	1,024	67,500	57,600	293	170	12,200	7,000Scallops	
34	62	12,700	21,000	-	-	-	-1856	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

Mr. Berger: 1.	Has the government received information from military, scientific or other authorities concerning the effects of a nuclear defensive weapon detonating as a direct hit or near miss on a bomber or other vehicle carrying an atomic or a thermonuclear bomb and whether there would be other probable results besides the neutralization of the bomb with no resultant nuclear explosion, and, if so, (a) were any qualifications or reservations brought to the government's attention (b) what probabilities were disclosed in the information the government received?
2.	Has the government been informed of the results of any actual tests that have been conducted to determine whether a small nuclear defensive weapon, detonating as a direct hit or near miss on a bomber or other vehicle carrying an atomic or thermonuclear weapon, would neutralize the bomb with no resultant nuclear explosion?
3.	Has the government been advised by the North America air defence command that any device or devices have been developed to prevent, or means have been found of preventing, a bomber or missile bearing a nuclear or thermonuclear bomb being "cooked" (and the bomb neutralized) upon a direct hit or a near miss against it by surface to air missiles with nuclear warheads and, has such advice been received by the government from other military or scientific authorities?


Mr. Harkness:: 1, 2, and 3.
Information was given in the house on October 29, 1962, in reply to questions raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Bur-rard, that the government is advised on these matters by competent and responsible military and scientific authorities. The substance of their advice was contained in my previous reply.
As the hon. member is aware, Canada is not directly engaged in either the manufacture or testing of nuclear weapons. The information upon which the official Canadian view is based has therefore, of necessity, been obtained from other countries, and is subject to the security classification placed upon it by these countries. Specific answers to the further questions posed by the hon. member cannot be provided without revealing information which is highly classified, and would obviously be of assistance to any potential enemy.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CLOSING AND OPENING

Mr. Stewart: 1.	Has an official closing date for navigation been set for the St. Lawrence seaway and, if so, what is that date?
2.	Has an official date for the reopening of traffic been set and, if so, what is the date?
3.	Has representation for an official closed period been made by any person or organization from the maritime provinces?


Léon Balcer: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
Questions
1 and 2. The Masters' Handbook defines the navigation season as follows: "Unless in the opinion of the St. Lawrence seaway authority weather and ice conditions do not so allow, navigation on the seaway will open and close on the following dates of each year:
Open Close
South shore, Beauharnois and
Iroquois canals April 15 November 30 Welland canal	April 1 December 15".
3. No representation has been made to the St. Lawrence seaway authority.



COST OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Roxburgh: What is the total cost to the government of all penal institutions?


Thomas Miller Bell: The total
disbursements of the penitentiary service for the year ending March 31, 1962 were $22,432,979.53. This sum includes capital expenditures for the acquisition of sites, the construction of new institutions and for equipment. Revenue accruing from penitentiary industries and farms in the same year was:	$1,203,522.00. Thus the cost to the
government for operating the penitentiary service for the year ending March 31, 1962, was: $21,229,457.53.
(Translation):



LOANS TO CHARTERED BANKS BY BANK OF CANADA

Mr. Cole: Has the Bank of Canada made any loans to chartered banks since 1952 and, if so, what were the amounts of such loans?


William Heward Grafftey: The amount of advances outstanding to chartered and savings banks by the Bank of Canada is shown each Wednesday in the bank's published weekly balance sheet and the figures are also recorded in the bank's monthly statistical summary and annual financial supplement to the statistical summary.
(Text):



FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ON CORN SHIPMENTS TO MARITIMES

Mr. Stewart: 1.	Has any representation been made to the Minister of Agriculture concerning the administration of freight assistance on corn shipments to the maritime provinces and, if so, has the minister made any investigation consequent to that representation; and what were the conclusions?
2.	Does the minister plan any changes in the administration of freight assistance on feed stuffs as a consequence of such representation?

Questions


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: 1. Yes. Representations were received about one aspect of the administrative detail for the assistance policy on corn to the Atlantic provinces. Investigation disclosed that the administration was consistent with the conditions specified for that policy, as well as those under the regular freight assistance policy on western feed grains. However, the relative status of dealers in the claiming procedure for freight assistance on western feed grains is under review.
2. Answered by 1.



EMPLOYMENT POLICY, LOUISBOURG FORTRESS

Mr. MacEachen: What employment policy is followed by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources at the Fortress of Louisbourg with respect to (a) unemployed miners and (b) unemployed local residents; and how many employees in each of the categories are presently employed at the Fortress of Louisbourg?


Mr. Dinsdale:: Preference in employment is given to qualified unemployed miners and they outnumber other workers more than two to one. Requests for filling vacant positions are referred by the project manager to the national employment service in Sydney and, providing the miners are qualified to do the work, whether it be carpentry, painting, machine operation or straight labour, they are given employment. If the national employment service cannot fill the positions with exminers, then other unemployed men listed with that office and possessing the qualifications for the work are accepted. Local unemployed residents desiring employment on the project may register with the national employment service in Sydney. If there are no unemployed miners available to fill certain categories, then these local residents are given preference over any others in the Sydney-Glace Bay-Louisbourg areas.
The number of employees in each of the categories engaged on the project as of November 15, 1962, was as follows:
Location	Miners	Non- minersLouisbourg town ...	... 7	27Immediate area of Louisbourg 	.. . 1	8Glace Bay 	.. . 121	9Sydney area 	.. . 1	15Sydney Mines 	.. . 3	0Miscellaneous 	.. . 0	4Totals 	... 133	63



C.B.C. BROADCAST RECEPTION, WESTERN NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. MacEachen: 1. Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation conducted any surveys to determine the extent to 
which the signals of the C.B.C. French language radio repeater stations are received by the Acadian residents in western Nova Scotia and. if so, what are the results of these surveys?
2.	Have any complaints been received by the C.B.C. on the adequacy of these surveys and the extent of reception?
3.	Has the C.B.C. given any consideration to relocating these stations with a view to providing service for a greater number of Acadian listeners?


Mr. Halpenny:: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes. The surveys made have revealed that inadequate signals exist in some areas and as a result changes are being made (see part 3).
2.	Complaints have been made about the quality or lack of reception.
3.	Yes, a new transmitter is to be put into operation at Wedgeport. It is expected to begin broadcasting next month. A change in broadcast wave length and a change in location of the Meteghan transmitter has been authorized. The new facilities will, it is expected, begin operating in January next. As a result of these changes a considerable improvement is expected. The corporation is hampered in its efforts to solve this problem of radio reception in this part of Nova Scotia by the lack of useable AM frequencies available and the highly directional antenna arrays required to provide protection to existing stations in Canada and U.S.A.



WATER POLLUTION, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Nicholson: Have any complaints been received by the Department of Fisheries that the degree of pollution in the coastal waters, rivers or lakes of British Columbia has increased during the past year and, if so, what is the nature of the complaints, and from whom were they received?


John Angus MacLean: No specific complaints have been received that the degree of pollution in the coastal waters, rivers or lakes of British Columbia has increased during the past year.
Recently the annual meeting of the united fishermen and allied workers union passed a general resolution requesting the development of an expanded efficient pollution control body supplied with the necessary scientists and technicians. This resolution according to the preamble was motivated by the expectation of increased pollution resulting from expansion in industry of all types.



FLAVOURING OF POSTAGE STAMP MUCILAGE

Mr. Mather: Is the Postmaster General considering the addition of flavouring to the mucilage backs of postage

stamps on a trial basis, and, if so, will consideration be given to the use of such distinctive Canadian flavours as maple and blueberry?


Mrs. Fairclough:: No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many National Housing Act loans have been processed through the Peterborough office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1962?
2.	What were their total value?
3.	How many loans were processed in 1961, 1960, 1959?
4.	What lawyers handled these loans for Central Mortgage and Housing in each of these years, and what were their fees?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Return tabled.


IMPORTS OF BUILDING STONE AND GRANITE
Mr. Frenette: What was the price paid for building stone and granite imported into Canada during 1959-60-61, and to what extent were such materials used in the construction of federal government buildings?


LAND EXPROPRIATION, TWINNING OF WELLAND CANAL LOCKS
Mr. McNulty: 1.	Were any persons, companies or municipalities issued with notices of expropriation in connection with land required for the twinning of the locks of the Welland canal and, if so, with respect to each
(a)	what amount of land is to be expropriated
(b)	what offer was made by the St. Lawrence seaway authority (c) was a cash offer made (d) was such offer accepted and what was the settlement price?
2.	On what date were these expropriation notices mailed to each property or person affected, respectively?
3.	Have any workmen acting under authority of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, entered and worked on private land under expropriation notice, prior to an offer or acceptance of price or settlement?
4.	On what date or dates respectively will the recipients of expropriation notices have to vacate their land?
5.	Did any persons whose land is under notice of expropriation and to whom an offer was made, accept a down payment on the basis of a promise of the payment of interest on the balance of the settlement, and, if so, will interest payments also be made to persons refusing acceptance of a down payment?


Léon Balcer: Return tabled.


AWARDS OF SCHOLARSHIPS, ETC.
Mr. Laing: 1.	What agencies of government are empowered to award scholarships, fellowships, studentships and bursaries?
2.	In 1961 (a) what number of awards (b) of what definition (c) of what value; were made by each government agency so empowered?
Motions for Papers


CANADIAN EXHIBIT AT COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE, LONDON
Mr. Stewart: 1.	Was the exhibit that represents Canada at the commonwealth institute in London, England, planned, approved or financed to any degree by the government of Canada?
2,	If so (a) has the government received reports on the quality of the exhibit (b) what is the nature of such reports?


PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving
pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20 per month (b) $20 to $29.99 per month (c) $30 to $39,99 per month (d) $40 to $49.99 per month (e)	$50 to $59.99 per
month (f) $60 to $69.99 per month (g) $70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80 to $89.99 per month (i) $90 to $99.99 per month (j) $100 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $249.99 per month (m) $250 to $299.99 per month (n) $300 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired federal civil servants and also the number of widows of retired federal civil servants presently residing in each province?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Lamoureux:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of the international air agreements between Canada and the United States of America and between Canada and Great Britain.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. Chevrier:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any legal opinion or opinions given by the Department of Justice or any other counsel consulted concerning the jurisdiction of the B.B.G. or its ruling about the Grey cup broadcast.
Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have unanimous consent to move this motion for the hon. member for Laurier.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the request that has been made. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinion):: Stand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe the Minister of Justice wishes the motion to stand. That procedure is quite agreeable to me.


Mr. Speaker:: I will put the motion. Mr. Pickersgill, on behalf of Mr. Chevrier, moves

Inquiries of the Ministry that an order of the house do issue for a copy of a legal opinion, and so on, as more particularly set out under No. 42 on the order paper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Stand.
Motion stands.



LETTERS TO TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT FROM ONTARIO LIQUOR BOARD CHAIRMAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Haidasz:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all communications addressed to the Department of Transport and to the Trans-Canada Air Lines Corporation from the Honourable Allan Grossman, Q.C., commissioner of the liquor control board of Ontario.
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the motion relates to correspondence with T.C.A. reported in the press on November 15 last. When the consent of the province is obtained, there is no objection to this motion passing.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations indicated by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is able to bring the house up to date on the most recent developments in the China-India conflict.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the announced
Chinese intention to effect a cease-fire today and to begin withdrawal of its forces on December 1, is of course, known to the house. This declaration is being studied. I might say that the Chinese program announced in this unilateral declaration carries with it certain political, territorial and strategic implications which the Indian government will examine carefully. Indeed, Prime Minister Nehru, while maintaining India's consistent position that a cease-fire must be based on the status quo before hostilities began, has stated that when the Chinese proposals are officially received they will be given full consideration.
For our part, Canadians will welcome any arrangements that will be acceptable to the governments of India and China. However, until we have fuller information it would be premature to express further views. In the meantime we shall carry on with our plans and actions to provide India with defensive material assistance.

(Translation):

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. P. Cook (Monimagny-L'Islei):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put to the Prime Minister a question pertaining to the conflict between China and India. Apart from the military assistance that the Canadian government will give to India, would the Prime Minister tell the house if India asked Canada to supply it with foodstuff, wheat or other kinds of food products? If not, does the government intend to offer foodstuff to India?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, there has been a review in connection with the requirements of India. We are endeavouring to achieve a reasonable degree of unity as among the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada so there will be no unnecessary duplication or triplication.
In so far as food is concerned, there has been no request so far. There has, however, on a previous occasion been a request for consideration of certain clothing items. Further than that, I have nothing to add to what I have already stated. If anything takes place in the next couple of days I will continue the answer to the hon. gentleman at that time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles M. Drury (Si. Anioine-Wesl-mouni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
address a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of the television program "Inquiry" last night. Would the minister say whether it is the policy of the government to have a senior service officer rather than the minister himself attempt to explain and defend government defence policy on television programs?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I answered this
question yesterday. There was no discussion of policy. The officer in question, Admiral Brock, was there to answer questions with regard to giving factual information at the request of the people putting on the program, and with my concurrence.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: May I ask a supplementary question. The minister has said Admiral Brock explained the facts last night. I wonder whether the minister would offer the house

the same privilege of examining Admiral Brock on the facts in the proposed committee on defence.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Essex East: May I ask
a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of National Defence if he will kindly table the letter which he wrote to the moderator of the program over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television facilities so that we can ascertain if that letter is a violation of the practice which this government condemned a few years ago in another instance?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will be glad to table the letter, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the hon. member there is no violation of any previous practice with regard to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are now getting into an argument on extraneous matters which are not applicable to orders of the day.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In this connection perhaps I had better make it clear that the letter was addressed to Mr. Davidson Dunton, the program moderator and president of Carle-ton University, not to the C.B.C. As a matter of fact I assumed he was taking responsibility for the factual correctness or otherwise of the statements made on the program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are getting into a debate on this subject.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I shall be glad to table the letter, and I do so now.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister seeks to table the letter; is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister report to the house on the resolution passed yesterday by the United Nations general assembly concerning the Canadian plan for the measurement control of atomic radiation?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The house will recall my statement of November 12 on the success achieved by the Canadian delegation to the general assembly of the United Nations in having the political committee of the assembly give its unanimous approval to a resolution concerning the effects of atomic radiation. I then gave an explanation of the purpose and aims of that resolution, which seeks to promote further advances
Inquiries of the Ministry in scientific research and international exchanges of information on human exposure to radiation and its harmful effects, through the United Nations scientific committee and also the world meteorological organization.
I am now pleased to inform the house that the general assembly in plenary session on November 20 gave its final approval and formally adopted the resolution by a unanimous roll-call vote of 86 in favour, none opposed, with 11 abstentions, most of which were communist countries. As a result the plan to which the hon. member has referred will be pursued in final technical consultations between the United Nations agencies concerned with a view to its implementation at the earliest possible time.
In view of the wide interest in this subject, it might be helpful to the house if the text of the resolution were printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has proposed that the text of the resolution be appended to today's Hansard. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of resolution see appendix "A".]


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he tell the house if the government proposes to change the number of times when it will report on the radioactivity levels in the country? I understand there is to be a change from four times a year to twelve times. Is that the case, and if it is the case is a proposal being made to other countries to follow a similar practice?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The frequency of the reporting has been changed from quarterly to monthly.
(Translation):


ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION IN STAFF APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the statement made by Brigadier Price at the United Nations fifth committee to the effect that some countries do not enjoy adequate advantages concerning the promotion of their citizens at the United Nations Organization, would the minister tell us whether Canada has been discriminated against in this regard and whether certain positions have not been offered to Canadians when they should.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when I was in New York on Monday I looked into this situation, and at the present time the proportion of Canadians on the staff of the United Nations is about in line with what it should be.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of urgent national significance and of importance to all members of this house, regardless of party, and to the country. In view of the announced visit of the Minister of Public Works to British Columbia this coming week end, would he inform the house if this visit is for the purpose of laying the foundation for a new public building or for a new political career?


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It is with regard to employment too, but it is much simpler. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has under consideration at the present time the appointment of Mr. J. Bertrand of Missisquoi to the ministry.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Turner (Si. Lawrence-Si. George):: I wonder if I might direct a question to the Minister of Finance, or in his absence to his parliamentary secretary. Will the parliamentary secretary advise the house when he or the minister expects to table the papers relating to the foreign exchange transactions and reserves as well as forward commitments entered into by the Bank of Canada pursuant to motions standing in my name as Nos. 29, 30 and 31 which became orders of this house on October 24, 1962, four weeks ago today?


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to inform the hon. member that my minister will be doing this in due course.


Mr. R. J. Teillet (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. It relates to a question placed on the order paper on October 19 which was made an order for return and was inquired about subsequently on November 12. It is question No. 366. Could some approximate date be given when this question will be answered?


George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had a list of all unanswered questions but I do not seem to have it here. I will look into the matter.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. It has been brought to my attention that the government will be appointing a director of the income tax bureau in Ottawa. Is it the intention of the government to appoint a bilingual person?
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: I said the other day that such a question could not be asked on the orders of the day.


TRANSLATION INTO FRENCH OF WORK BY BEAUCHESNE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what progress has been made with regard to the translation of Beauchesne's?
(Text):


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I have given him very short notice, but it is a simple question and I know that with his usual skill he can answer it very quickly. What provision has the Department of Citizenship and Immigration made to assist prospective immigrants who may not have the necessary education, training, skills or other special qualifications to enable them to fit usefully into the Canadian economy but are otherwise qualified?


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I would welcome the opportunity of making a speech on this important subject. I think you would probably not wish me to do so, Mr. Speaker, on orders of the day, but I shall be glad to do so when my estimates are before the committee.
(Translation):



SOUTH AMERICA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

Does the Canadian government consider trading goods with Brazil or other South American countries which are anxious to develop such an international trade policy?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and answer it tomorrow.
(Text):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in view of the rising unemployment in many local areas. Can the minister give the house a progress report on the work of the Gill committee that was set up to investigate the unemployment insurance fund?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the only sector in which there has been a rise in unemployment in recent days-I know the hon. member has been out of touch with Canada in the past few weeks- has been in the farm labour sector. The Gill committee report is now being translated into French and, as I told the hon. member for Essex East, I am extremely anxious, as he is and as the hon. member is now upon his return, to have the translation completed so that we can receive the report.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the minister that I have been quite in touch with Canada and that I have been looking into a very serious matter that the Department of Transport-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -should be attending to at this moment and which has to do-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would also beg the indulgence of the hon. member that when the Chair stands on a point of order the hon. member will cede the floor and not continue to make his remarks.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of Bill No. C-49, to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
27507-3-118
Combines Investigation Act


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister had something to say, and was rising.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would draw to the attention of the hon. member that the Chair can only judge by what is happening, and if the minister or no one else rises to speak then the Chair must put the motion.


Mr. Nicholson:: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see now that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is on his feet and this points up a matter to which I drew the attention of hon. members previously and with regard to which I crave their indulgence. When the Chair rises to put a motion members should resume their seats, because it is quite contrary to the rules to have anyone standing or moving about when a motion is being put. This resulted in inconvenience to an hon. member the other day and has now resulted in further inconvenience to another hon. member. I can assure you it is quite impossible to tell whether an hon. member is standing up to go out of the chamber or to speak unless, of course-and I make this suggestion-he calls out "Mr. Speaker". The hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I am sorry; I will call on the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the purpose- of this bill is to extend for an additional year, to December 31, 1963, the moratorium relating to the application of the anticombines legislation to certain arrangements between fishermen and fish processors in British Columbia.
This provision was first made in 1959. At that time a statement of evidence had been submitted by the director under the Combines Investigation Act to the restrictive trade practices commission and to various fish packing companies, associations and individuals, alleging that certain arrangements and activities in the British Columbia fishing industry had been in violation of the provisions of the anti-combines legislation. Because of the doubt thus cast upon the agreements relating to the prices and other conditions under which raw fish is supplied to the processing companies, the companies declined in 1959 to negotiate prices with the fishermen's union as they had done in earlier years, and it appeared that a strike would ensue with the possible result that the British Columbia salmon catch, and possibly that of other species, would be lost to the Canadian fishing industry.

Combines Investigation Act
It would have been impossible, even under the most favourable circumstances, for the commission to hear argument on the points in issue and submit its report in time to avoid a fishing strike, and parliament was therefore asked to provide that the anti-combines legislation should not apply to agreements between fishermen or associations of fishermen in British Columbia and persons or associations of persons engaged in the buying or processing of fish in British Columbia, relating to prices, remuneration or other conditions under which fish should be caught and supplied between the 1st day of January, 1959 and December 31, 1960. It was hoped that by the latter date the remaining steps in the inquiry would have been concluded and a report would have been made.
The commission was unable to proceed, however, because of a series of court actions in Ontario and British Columbia for injunctions bearing upon the procedure in the inquiry. These actions are described in detail in the annual reports of the director of investigation and research for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1961 and March 31, 1962 respectively. The last of these actions has just been concluded. In the meantime two extensions of the moratorium were approved by parliament.
As hon. members will be aware, the combines act provides that persons against whom an allegation has been made in a statement submitted by the director will have full opportunity to be heard before the commission, and that no report may be made by the commission until such opportunity has been allowed. In compliance with this provision and in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the injunction actions, it is necessary for the oral and documentary evidence to be examined to determine what evidence should be made available to the respective parties. Consequently it is manifestly impossible for the commission to hear argument on the merits of the statement of evidence and to make its report in this calendar year.
May I point out in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the bill has the effect of changing one figure in the statute which it seeks to amend. It asks to change the figure "2" to "3", and accordingly the date December 31, 1962 to December 31, 1963. That is the entire effect of the bill.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has pointed out, this is not the first time this or similar legislation has been before this house, but I think facts have been omitted from the minister's


statement, not intentionally, that might be helpful to the house in coming to a decision on this bill.
I might say that the four companies concerned and the union have their head offices in the riding of Vancouver Centre, and on a recent visit to Vancouver I made it my business to go in and get the history of the events that led up to the original introduction of this legislation. I think it would be useful if this information were passed on to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members of the house. The course of conduct that led to the earlier introduction of this legislation in 1959 had been continuing over a period of nearly 60 years, and in the year 1956 or 1957 some independent fishermen lodged a complaint with the authorities that they were suffering an injustice in being on the outside.
The practice in question is unique. I am informed that British Columbia is the only place in the world where negotiations of this kind are conducted. Annually, usually in the spring, the fishermen-and now their representatives, the unions-get together with the cannery operators and agree on a minimum price for the whole catch, provided it is of good quality. In addition to that, as part of the arrangement there is agreement reached that the packing companies concerned will take the entire catch of the season at not less than the minimum price.
Some five years ago some independent operators complained to the authorities, and the mounted police looked into the matter. They first went to the offices of the union in Vancouver, and perhaps elsewhere, and impounded certain documents. At that time no one knew what was the purpose of the seizure. After a day or two it was made clear that the investigation was being conducted under the combines act, and then the suggestion was made by friends of the union that the mounted police should search the offices of the companies concerned. So a similar investigation was carried out there.
As a result of the seizure of the documents an investigation was instituted in 1957 by the director of the combines investigation branch. The investigation lasted approximately two years. At the end of that period the director alleged in his report that several transactions justified investigation under the act. One of them was this annual meeting that had been going on over a period of 60 years to negotiate the price of fish, a bargaining negotiation between the representatives of thousands of fishermen and the cannery companies concerned.
When the report was made the fishing companies, which obviously had not considered that there had been any offence up to that

time, felt that if there had been any technical breach of the combines act or of any other legislation they should put an end to it, because if they persisted in the face of the warning given by the director they might find themselves in serious trouble; they might aggravate the offence. So they decided to terminate this arrangement that had worked so satisfactorily for nearly 60 years, and what they did instead of having this annual negotiation was to post on the walls of the canneries the prices they would pay from day to day for the fish. Of course there was no obligation on their part to buy the whole catch, under those circumstances.
The fishermen naturally were concerned that a practice that had worked so well should be discontinued. It had not only worked well for them but also for the Canadian economy, since it had ensured that every ounce of fish went to the market. So the union representatives immediately appealed to the Department of Justice and other branches of government concerned. The fishing companies stuck by their guns, and the matter eventually came before the then minister of justice, who was one of the members of the cabinet from British Columbia. The fishermen even threatened that if the old practice was not restored they would go on strike and there would be no fish caught in the year 1959. As a result the government of the day saw fit to introduce what the minister has just referred to as a moratorium.
There have been proceedings in the courts, as has been pointed out. These proceedings have run the gamut of the courts from 1959 through to just a month or two ago. Proceedings were helpful, of course, to the lawyers; one cannot object to that. But the problem is still there, and it does seem to me that if the government has consistently seen fit- and this is the fourth time-to recommend to parliament that they condone or forgive any possible breach or, in other words, legalize this course of conduct, surely the happenings prior to 1959 should be disposed of.
Anyone who has had any appreciable experience in the criminal courts or who has had anything to do with the combines act would know that the chances of convicting people, whether they are fishermen or fishing companies, of an offence which is contrary to the public interest are not going to be very successful if the government has recommended to parliament, and recommended successfully, that the actions for a period of three years should be approved. It seems to me the time has come when we might settle this once and for all with regard to what has happened in the past-that is, prior to the act that was introduced in 1959- and with regard to the future. Surely a long 27507-3-118J
Combines Investigation Act standing custom of bargaining between trade unions and the canneries concerned, where millions of dollars in annual value are concerned-this value ranges in amount from $30 million, I believe, to $70 million-should be taken into account. My colleague from New Westminster could perhaps give a more accurate figure, but it is somewhere in that range. If it has been in the public interest to condone this practice, or legalize it, for three or four years, surely it is in the public interest to legalize what transpired prior to that date and to legalize it for the future. As the minister has properly said, this is the fourth time this bill has been brought before us. Surely we ought to put an end to this situation by amending the measure so as to take care of the situation permanently. I think this would be an appropriate time at which to do so in order to save parliament from having to deal with this situation year after year.


Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, also, to say a few words about the proposal before us and which our party has supported in the past for reasons I shall give. The situation had its origin five years ago in British Columbia where six or more gill net fishermen-that is the number required under the provisions of the act-applied for an investigation to be made into the dealings between the organized fishermen of British Columbia and the fisheries association. I do not know the intent of these people in setting this matter on foot, but I think the idea behind it was that in their negotiations the fishermen's union and the association were, in effect, setting prices. We all know that the intent behind the Combines Investigation Act is to protect the consumers and the working people of Canada generally against price increases and hardship brought about by price setting. Nowhere in the act is it suggested that this protection enables action to be taken against unions or organizations of working people; there are several exemptions mentioned in the act with reference to workers who band together for their own protection.
However, an application for an investigation under the act having been made, the authorities have no alternative but to proceed. An investigation has been made-this was four or five years ago, as we have heard- but no report of its findings was ever made public. I know, as has been suggested, that the fishermen's union asked that the hearing be conducted in public, and that the fisheries association objected to this. I also know that various legal proposals have been made and some judicial measures set on foot the effect of which has been to delay any public settlement of the matter.

Combines Investigation Act
We are confronted today, as the house has been in previous years, with this stop gap amendment. It has been brought up three or four times over the years-a patchwork moratorium protecting the fishing industry of British Columbia from a threat or a smear which I believe should never have been made in the first place. In effect, for several years the workers in the whole fishing industry of British Columbia have had a gun pointed in their direction by this legislation, basically because the workers in that industry, like the workers in so many industries, have decided to bargain collectively for rates and working conditions. I really think the government should, at this time, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Nicholson) put an end to a situation which is becoming farcical and take steps to remove this blot upon the fishing industry of British Columbia. Possibly an amendment should be proposed removing the time limits which appear in the bill before us. If we do have to vote in favour of this measure, I hope it will be for the last time, and that steps will be taken shortly to remove this smear against the fishing industry of this country.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared-


Mr. Speaker:: With the Speaker in the chair, the hon. member is permitted to speak only once.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: do not wish to be repetitious, and I shall not go over any of the ground covered by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and the hon. member for New Westminster. However, the riding of Burnaby-Richmond does contain a great many of the people concerned. One of the greatest fishing ports in the nation is in the riding and, for the benefit of the minister I should like to add my voice to those of the two hon. members who have just spoken. We should like to see this disability removed at once. We are very concerned about it, and we think it is a little ridiculous that this question should come up each year.


Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry in British Columbia which is one of our main sources of income is at the moment under a legal cloud. The combines commission has questioned the legality of these annual negotiations between the fishermen, who might be regarded, in one sense, as the employees of an industry, and the cannery operating companies. This practice of conducting negotiations has been going on for a long time-the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has mentioned 60 years.


Surely, an exception must be made. This practice must be legalized. I believe we must think in terms of the revenue to the fishermen being a sort of wage which is fixed annually. The fishermen have a legitimate objective. I should like to see these negotiations made legal for all time, not subject to an annual review. This can only be done by an appropriate extension of the legislation under the Combines Investigation Act.


Mr. S. P. Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the possibility of amending the proposal before us, I should like to say that such a tradition has been built up with respect to the situation in British Columbia that there should, in my view, be a special and permanent extension made to take care of the situation. I am pleased, therefore, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano having spoken cannot second.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Seconded, then, by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Pennell) that an amendment be made to this bill. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to line 3 of the last paragraph of clause No. 1 of the bill before us. I should like to move that the following words be struck out after the word "fish"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I could tell the hon. member immediately that his motion is out of order because he is amending a particular clause and anticipating the committee stage.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on second reading because, included among my interests over the years, have been fisheries matters and matters relating to conspiracies and the like in restraint of trade.
It was originally thought by many that the present section 4 of the Combines Investigation Act was sufficient to protect unions, workmen and employees from the effects of certain provisions of the act when they conducted their collective bargaining to establish wages, hours and working conditions for themselves.
Section 4 of the act says:
Nothing in this act shall he construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.
However, as is usually the case with statutes, it is ofttimes discovered that the intent parliament had when it enacted a particular statute has been clouded and lost when it comes to the time to apply it. That has been the case, I submit, in this instance in that the initial investigation was engaged in contrary to the desire of the people who

passed this particular section in the first instance. As I said in 1959 when this moratorium section was first before us, as I said in 1960 and also in 1961, and as I say again in this session, parliament should take into cognizance the desires of the original drafters of this legislation and should make sure that the fishermen, the fishermen's union on the west coast and the native brotherhood of B.C., who are also cited in the statement of evidence by the director, and the fisheries companies and their associations should not be harassed every time they enter into negotiations or discussions to establish prices for fish. In 1959, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that this party was the only party that made any suggestion whatsoever to establish this so-called moratorium on a permanent basis.
If I could now indicate to the house what our intention will be on committee stage- and like hon. gentlemen opposite we have also drafted amendments to move at that stage- it is to ensure that fishermen on the west coast are protected in their traditional way of collective bargaining for fish prices. We also feel that, regardless of the fact that at the moment this may be the only place in the world where such discussions take place, it does not prevent the possibility of similar sets of negotiations developing in other parts of the country. Accordingly, we propose in our amendment to move that the provision which restricts this moratorium to British Columbia only should also be lifted, and that permanent legislation applicable to all fishermen in Canada for all time will guarantee to the people engaged in this industry that this parliament takes into account their basic fundamental rights. Mr. Speaker, when we get to the committee stage, if I happen to catch the eye of the Chair I intend to move such a motion as I have generally outlined here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Application of acts to fishing agreements.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on clause 1 and indicate to you similar contentions to those I indicated to the house when Mr. Speaker was in the chair, only I shall do so in a much more brief manner because this committee have been apprised of our opinions. I merely want to say that in essence we think the principle contained in the clause, namely that nothing in the Combines Investigation Act shall be construed to apply to any contract or the like between fishermen or associations of fishermen and people buying their fish, is a
Combines Investigation Act correct one, and that it should apply not only to fishermen in the province of British Columbia, who have been the ones directly affected for some six or seven years now, but it should apply to all fishermen in Canada, because this law is applicable to all of Canada. Also, the time limit should be eliminated.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I accordingly move:
That clause 1 be amended by deleting therefrom the proposed section 1 and substituting therefor the following:
"1. Nothing in the Combines Investigation Act or in Section 411 of the Criminal Code shall be construed to apply to any contract, agreement or arrangement between fishermen or associations of fishermen, and persons or associations of persons engaged in the buying or processing of fish, relating to the prices, remuneration or other conditions under which fish will be caught and supplied to such persons by fishermen."
The effect of this is to remove the words "in British Columbia", so that the principle which we endorsed a moment ago will be applicable throughout all Canada. It will also remove the time limit of December 31, 1963 so that the section will be applicable for all time.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out, if I may, that some hon. members may have a typographical error in their copy of the amendment. The word "act" has been omitted inadvertently, and it should read "Combines Investigation Act".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is evidently intended to have two effects; first of all, to remove the territorial limitation of the bill now under discussion and to make it of general application, and in the second place to remove the time limitation and to give this bill effect without any limitation as to time whatsoever. In either case I should like to submit to the committee that the amendment is ill-advised.
To pass the amendment at this time would, of course, immediately bring into question the operations of any branch of the fishing industry in any part of Canada. Something was said earlier in the discussion about the fishing industry in British Columbia operating under some kind of cloud. As a matter of fact, if I remember it correctly, the expression under some kind of "smear" was used. Well, Mr. Chairman, if that is true let us not extend that inferential effect, as this amendment would certainly do.
Now, how did this situation come about? It came about because six citizens made application to the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act alleging the existence of a combine. Under the provisions of the act, which are mandatory in this respect, the director was



Combines Investigation Act compelled to make an investigation. Had that investigation been permitted to take its ordinary course and to reach an early conclusion, presumably either there would have been a finding that there was no infraction of the act, in which case that would have been the end of the matter entirely, or there would have been a finding on the part of the director that there was something in the nature of an infraction. Had that been the case, it would have gone to the restrictive trade practices commission for further hearings and, in the light of the report of the restrictive trade practices commission, it would have been the responsibility of the Minister of Justice then to decide whether or not there should be a prosecution.
That ordinary procedure has been precluded in this situation because of a great deal of litigation in the courts of British Columbia and Ontario which has prevented that ordinary procedure from having its normal way. We have now emerged from the results, or we have now reached an end evidently of the litigation and it is possible now for the normal procedure to be resumed. It is not possible to complete it between now and the expiry of the legislation which the House of Commons is now asked to amend. It cannot be done before December 31. However, if this measure is passed as submitted, then the ordinary procedure will be followed and there is certainly every reason to believe that the matter can be concluded next year. If it should result in findings that there are no infractions of the act here, I suggest to the hon. member who introduced this legislation or to any hon. members who might have been tempted to support it, that they would have done a disservice to the fishing industry in general by seeking to extend the provisions of legislation which is very special and which was introduced into this house for one purpose and one purpose only, namely to allow the ordinary annual agreements in this particular industry to continue until the conclusion of these proceedings. That is all that was involved. It is regrettable, of course, that it was necessary to extend the moratorium on several occasions but this was because of the existence of this involved litigation which has now been terminated.
I therefore suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it would be a very great mistake to make this legislation in effect permanent. The moratorium in each case was given but very temporary life, partly because there was on the part of the house a desire to avoid doing anything that made it look as though there were, on the part of parliament, a finding that there was in existence a combine in this

fish packing industry on the British Columbia coast and second, to maintain in the hands of parliament control over the situation.
It is quite true that the first time the moratorium was given a two year life. This was when the litigation was in its early stages. It was obviously a reasonable period of time. The subsequent moratoria were limited to one year each and for a very good reason, namely that control of a situation like this should be kept in the hands of parliament.
If the bill is passed in the form in which it has been introduced we may expect that, before the year is out, the matter will have reached its conclusion. I am not attempting to forecast the outcome of the investigation. It may be that it will be found that there is no occasion for prosecution or no occasion for proceedings on the assumption that there has been a breach of the act. However, let it be remembered that the inquiry which was embarked upon here was an inquiry that the statute required, because an application was made by six citizens.
I therefore suggest that on both counts parliament will retain full control of the situation. If within this next year it should be found that there has been a breach of the legislation here, it may well be that parliament would wish to pass legislation in quite different form from this. If, on the other hand, it is found that there has been no infraction of the legislation, then I say it would have been a very great mistake to have put on the statute books legislation without a time limit and without a territorial limit, on the assumption that there is otherwise a breach of the legislation which can be cured only by passing legislation of an exempting nature such as this.
There is one further point that I trust hon. members will bear in mind. This is legislation of a very special nature. There are many industries-and I refer not only to secondary industries but to industries as well, such as the fishing industry-which would be very glad to be exempted from the provisions of this act. I think it would be a very serious matter indeed for the house, in dealing with a highly particular situation, to make that the occasion for writing into the legislation exemptions applicable to the entire industry and in that way to set precedents which I am sure would be of great interest to other industries. That is the way in which to break down the principle of important legislation such as this. I earnestly suggest to hon. members that is no way to consider questions in relation to the applicability of this legislation to entire industries.

I therefore suggest to the committee that the course of wisdom here is to recognize the particularity of the legislation or the extraordinary nature of this legislation to take care of a particular situation so that the provisions for the packing of the fish pack for the year may proceed, and that there may be no strike. This was the threat which led to the introduction of the moratorium in the first place. I refer to the prospects of a strike in a particular industry in a particular place. Parliament wisely confined the effect of the legislation to that particular situation in that particular place for a particular short, specified period of time in order that parliament might have control of the situation and in order that no cloud might be placed over the entire industry.
In the light of these circumstances I earnestly suggest to the committee that it would be a great mistake to go beyond the terms of the bill. However much hon. members may feel that they do not want legislation like this coming back another year. I hope it will not be back in another year. I hope this situation will be resolved within the year. However, I do not think any member of this House of Commons can be very certain, sitting in his place in this chamber this afternoon, just how it will end. I therefore think the committee will be much better advised to await the outcome of these proceedings rather than to enact exempting legislation applicable to the entire industry-otherwise the proposed amendment has no point to it-on the assumption that there is an infraction of the legislation. I do not think that that kind of assumption should, in its effect, be more widely extended by the proposed amendment. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Speaker, a better course is to report the bill in its original form and not accept the proposed amendment.


John (Jack) Davis: I have been impressed by what the Minister of Justice has said. I am sure I would have been equally impressed, had I been a member over the last four or five years and heard the previous minister of justice plead repeatedly to do the same thing; grant a year's delay in the application of this act. I agree that we should not attempt in a relatively few minutes to draft legislation which could more effectively result from the regular proceedings under the Combines Investigation Act.
However, I would like to hear the Minister of Justice tell us why at the beginning of his remarks he was so sure this matter could be cleared up within a year, while at the end of his remarks he hoped that it would not be necessary in 12 months time to introduce a similar short term amendment to the act.
Combines Investigation Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not believe I said positively it would be ended; I said I did not believe anybody could say positively the result that would ensue within a year. Now that litigation has run its course, it is possible to look within the measurable future to a conclusion of the normal proceedings. This is the point I was making. I do not believe anyone can foretell the precise outcome of those proceedings. This was one of the points I sought to make.
There is one other point I should have mentioned. I think it will be of interest to hon. members, particularly those who represent constituencies in which the fishing industry operates, to learn that the whole matter of the policy in relation to the fishing industry is under study at the moment by the Department of Fisheries. It would be most desirable that the report that may be expected from the restrictive trade practices commission should be very carefully studied by the Department of Fisheries before any settled action ensues. The benefit of such a study, I think, will be evident to all hon. members in contemplating future policy in this regard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am
not, as hon. members know, as well versed in the law with respect to this amendment as other hon. members. However, there is another principle involved. I am aware, as is any other member from British Columbia, of the importance of the fishing industry having a clearly established right in respect of a custom which has worked satisfactorily over a great many years and which ought to be perpetuated if it is possible to do so. There is another principle of which we must not lose sight and that is that under the law as it exists six citizens felt their interests were being damaged and they took advantage of the law to request an investigation. Apparently they felt, and perhaps still feel, that they had a legitimate cause to use the law as it existed to secure an investigation of the situation and to determine whether or not their interests were being injured. This investigation has not yet been completed.
Now, what happens to those rights of those citizens if, in the midst of the investigation, they are told the law has been changed as it affects their rights which they believed were injured. By taking this action, do we not remove from these six citizens who made the original complaint their legitimate right to an investigation of the situation? I think there is a point of principle here about which we must be careful before we suddenly move an amendment that might affect these people. We might have to say to them, well you were

Combines Investigation Act right, under the old law hut you are wrong under our new law, so you have no right. I believe we must avoid this situation.
I trust that the necessary moratorium is applied to the industry now in order to have it proceed as it has always proceeded until such time as the investigation is completed. The interests of the industry are not being damaged in this period and will not be damaged until the investigation is completed. The rights of these citizens who felt that they had a case are protected. Then, in due course, as a consequence of the investigation, parliament can determine whether or not a further study ought to be undertaken. I do not believe we should accept the amendments that are proposed here. I do not believe we should act in that fashion until the report is in our hands and then parliament, by applying study to the situation, can perhaps take whatever action is necessary to protect the rights of the industry. In the meantime, I think we have a duty to protect the rights of these six citizens.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There are two aspects of the matter that may have been overlooked. One is the direction to the chairman in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada and which directed that the restrictive trade practices commission should consider the thousands of exhibits that have been entered and decide which ones should be given to the representatives of the union and which should be given to the industry. The personnel of the restrictive trade practices commission has been changed, so they now have to consider the matter de novo. There is only one member of the three member commission left. There are months of work, perhaps longer than that, involved in this study. It does seem, therefore, that we can terminate this matter at this stage.
If the government, in its wisdom, sees fit to initiate a new policy two years or five years from now, that is for the government to decide. There is a further aspect to the matter. I had hoped the minister, in his remarks, might deal with what happened prior to the amendment in 1959. This practice which has continued since the last decade of the last century, or possibly longer, has been legalized for a period of three years. It cannot be a very serious offence or parliament would not have been asked to condone it. If anything, it is a technical breach of the act. Surely, we can put an end to what happened prior to 1959 by an appropriate amendment.
I believe that anyone who has any trial experience in the courts, particularly with the combines act where the question of public interest comes into the picture, would think


that if parliament in its wisdom has seen fit to legalize the practice it could not have been a very serious offence in the first instance. It could not have been contrary to the public interest. I believe a good trial lawyer could do pretty well under these circumstances. It has been five years since this investigation began. There was first an investigation by the director and then there was the institution of proceedings by the commission, and court proceedings. One could very well write "finis" to this situation by the appropriate amendment.
If after the government has studied this policy on fisheries or the combines legislation generally, the minister were to invite members of this house to bring forward their suggestions, I believe this would be one suggestion which would be welcomed by the minister. Let us get rid of this thing that has given us so much trouble in the light of the changes that have taken place. The minister has had considerable experience in the courts. What chance does he think he would have before a court when parliament has legalized this practice for four years. Surely, we can get rid of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member would agree that if he or I were engaged in the fishing industry the goal we would most hope to achieve, in the light of these proceedings which have been suspended now for some time as a result of litigation, would be an end of that procedure and a successful outcome of it. If the outcome is successful, then there is no need for any exempting legislation and parliament in that event would not be asked to enact any more exempting legislation. There would be no more moratorium. As to the extent to which the whole proceedings have operated as a cloud over the industry, that would be removed by the conclusion of these proceedings themselves.
I think that the hon. member on reflection may be disposed to agree with me that it is only under the most extraordinary circumstances that this legislative approach to a problem would be justified. It was justified in this particular case because it was introduced to avoid a strike, a strike which I think he will agree would have certainly resulted. In these succeeding years during which the moratorium has been in effect I suppose a strike would have resulted or the pack for the year would have been delayed, or perhaps it would not have proceeded at all. I do not know.
But this is not the kind of method by which one would wish to proceed very often or very far. You have legislation, the principle of which has been accepted by the

house for many a year, and it would be only under the most extraordinary circumstances that you would introduce legislation to say: All right, we accept the principle of the general legislation but it is not going to apply to a particular industry. I think the hon. member will agree that would be a very dangerous kind of approach. This is justified now and it has been justified in the view of parliament on these three previous occasions over the last four years because of a particular situation which was quite extraordinary in itself, and had this welter of litigation not ensued this would have been all over long ago.
I think there is reason to expect an end of this within the next year. If there were doubt about it, I think I might have been bold enough to ask the house to extend the moratorium for two years, but the government was anxious to avoid any suggestion that we were trying to take this out of the control of parliament. That is why it was proposed that it should be for a year. This was a period that would ensure the maximum of parliamentary control and it was a period within which it was not unreasonable under present circumstances to expect that the matter might have reached its conclusion.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that the minister and his predecessor would never have joined in the recommendation they have made if they had felt there was any likelihood of a serious breach of the act. It was a technical breach. Where the threat of the strike arose was that the industry felt that if they proceeded to negotiate, having been warned by the director of investigation that there had been in his opinion a breach, they would be aggravating matters and then a serious situation would arise. They could not very well act in the face of the director's opinion, so that it does seem to me that if there has been a technical breach the government would be quite justified in saying, let bygones be bygones and let us get rid of it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to all those concerned, both the industry and the fishermen, I would prefer to avoid making any kind of pre-judgment of that nature, and I think in fairness to them it is very much better that the house should not do so. That is why I suggest to the hon. member that this method is infinitely to be preferred because it allows these proceedings which were begun to reach their conclusion, and provides meanwhile that no harm shall befall that industry by reason of what it is now doing. But would it not be infinitely better, instead of in effect interposing legislation to blot out proceedings that were started 27507-3-119
Combines Investigation Act in accordance with legislation created by parliament, to make this provision that no one is to be hurt in the meantime? These proceedings will now be allowed to reach their conclusion and I have no doubt that it will be the hope of the hon. member that the result of the proceedings will be a finding that there has been no breach. That would be a happy issue from the point of view of the industry and it would in that way dispense with any need for further legislation. So why put on the statute books of this country continuing legislation because of a situation that we hope will be resolved within the year? Doubly, Mr. Chairman, I suggest it would be a mistake to extend the territorial effect of legislation which was introduced in the first place to meet a particular local situation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As the minister knows, I have not suggested any extension beyond the province where this unique situation arose.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But the amendment has that effect.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I agree with that, and I would not want to express an opinion on the amendment without the most careful consideration, particularly when there is no urgency. But in the light of what has happened, more particularly the changes in the personnel administering the Combines Investigation Act, I think the minister might at least give consideration to extending the moratorium to 1964 rather than 1963. There are thousands of documents involved here and we are going to be back here again a year from now.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word in support of the amendment that the hon. member for Skeena has offered to the committee. I was startled by the suggestion by the Minister of Justice that for the committee to accept the amendment would be to imply that the arrangements made in the fishing industry of British Columbia between the fishermen and those who buy the fish that they catch were in violation of the law.
The purpose of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Skeena on behalf of the members of this party was to clarify the law. Surely the minister does not contend that any amendment which is offered for the purpose of clarifying the law is one which leaves the implication that some of Her Majesty's subjects whom it is sought to relieve by passing the amendment were acting in violation of the statutes of this country.
The minister has suggested that the house should wait until there has been some conclusion to the investigation now taking place. At the same time he admits, and these were
1872	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act the words he used, that "no one can foretell the outcome". If the principle of the legislation was acceptable to the house on previous occasions and if it is acceptable to the house on this occasion, than I suggest that the amendment offered by the hon. member for Skeena should likewise be acceptable. The minister has suggested that if we await the outcome of the investigation it may turn out favourably to the people who have been relieved by the legislation that the house has before it today and has had before it on previous occasions in other sessions, but I suggest we should not have to wait for the outcome of the investigation. If it is in the public interest to exempt the fishing industry of British Columbia from the provisions of the act, then the amendment that has been offered by the hon. member for Skeena ought to be accepted. The minister has said this is legislation of a very special nature, and I gathered he felt it was legislation which the committee ought to pass only with extreme caution because it was of a special nature.
The amendment that has been proposed would remove that deficiency from the legislation. It would make the legislation of general application, applicable to the fishing industry throughout the country. It would make the exemption unlimited in time and it would remove the sword of Damocles that has been hanging over the fishing industry of British Columbia for some time past. The minister has suggested that if the fishing industry is exempted from the provisions of the combines legislation there will be requests from other industries for a similar exemption. We are dealing with one industry only in this particular case. The amendment to the legislation that the minister has offered deals with one industry only. The amendment to the amendment that the hon. member for Skeena has offered to the committee deals with that same industry only. When other industries put their claims before the Minister of Justice, no doubt they will be given fair consideration and if the minister feels it legitimate to bring in further legislation exempting other industries, no doubt he will do so. But at the present time we are considering only the fishing industry. In the view of the members of this party, if it was legitimate and proper to exempt the fishing industry for one year and for additional years, as has been done, then surely it is legitimate and proper to exempt that industry for all time to come or until parliament chooses to alter the policy of the combines act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the minister a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was just going to make an observation, if I may, first. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre suggested in his last intervention that the legislation might be extended for two years instead of one. I am quite willing to accept that suggestion, and if the amendment now before the committee is withdrawn or rejected I will be quite prepared to ask the committee to amend the bill by changing "1963" to "1964".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before any decision is made on that point I would like to ask the minister a question. It is this. Is it not true that collective agreements for wages are exempted from the Combines Investigation Act?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In general, yes, that is true, Mr. Chairman. In my remarks I have tried to emphasize the extraordinary nature of this particular situation. The inquiry was instituted. It is not for me to say now what the outcome of it will be, but it was lawfully instituted in accordance with the provisions of the act. There is more involved here than merely a collective bargaining agreement. I think that is only one of the elements in the situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said there is some other element involved, and perhaps he will explain to the committee what it is. If there is no other element than the mere question of exempting another kind of collective agreement, I would point out to the minister that unemployment insurance for fishermen is based on precisely the same principle, that the price paid for fish is a wage. That is, I think, the ground on which this parliament has seen fit to agree to these bills year by year, that in these agreements prices are really analogous to remuneration by wages. There is also, of course, an analogy with the operations of the wheat board. There does not seem to me to be any very new principle. It looks rather as though the Combines Investigation Act has been deficient- and I am not criticizing anybody by saying that-in this particular, that it covers collective agreements for wages and, of course, it does exempt all these agricultural arrangements, but the fishermen, with their peculiar situation, were just not taken into account; it was assumed that they were analogous to those others I have mentioned.
Would the minister tell us what special circumstance there is in the litigation that makes it important to have the litigation proceed, because if parliament made this exemption for good and all that would end the litigation and the whole problem, it seems to me. If the exemption is really analogous to collective agreements for wages, then it does

not seem to me that we should hesitate, though I go a long way with the minister in his view that we should not hastily make a change of a general character without considering all its implications. Perhaps the minister could be specific about what special feature there is in this matter, because I certainly do not think there would be any objection to applying it to the whole of Canada. The principle is either good or bad, and if it is good there is no reason why it should be confined to British Columbia.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the situation is not as simple as perhaps the hon. member might have supposed in his approach. If it had been simple then I doubt very much if the proceedings would have gone this far. They are much more complex than any mere question of collective bargaining as ordinarily understood. I am reluctant to discuss the issues, because after all the rights of parties are either under adjudication or are awaiting adjudication at the present time. I think the hon. member will understand why I am reluctant, for that reason, to discuss the issues. But it is not as simple as he indicated and that is the reason the inquiry was commenced under the mandatory provisions of the act. It was so serious as to threaten a strike at the beginning of the following year.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there are some very amusing things taking place this afternoon. I listened with great interest to the initial remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I understood him to say firmly and definitely, "Yes, this should be a permanent part of the legislation." After he was duly impressed by the Minister of Justice he then said, "Well, maybe it should be a permanent part of the legislation." Then after a while he quietly and meekly said, "How about to 1964?"
This sort of weaseling on the part of the Liberal party is quite in keeping with its general practice and attitude on these things. Either the Liberal party believes in what it says, or it does not. We are here simply to determine whether or not we desire to protect the inherent rights of the working people, the fishermen in this case.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: You may not think you are here for that purpose, but that is my conception of what we are trying to do in this particular amendment that is before us. Second, with respect to this question of whether or not collective agreements are exempt from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act-
27507-3-119i
Combines Investigation Act


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Chairman,
I rise on a question of privilege.


Frank Howard: -that is a matter which-


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for High Park is rising on a question of privilege.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I object to the word used by the hon. member. It is very objectionable to me and I think it is very objectionable to all hon. members on this side of the chamber. I refer to the word "weaseling" used by the hon. member for Skeena.
I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to rule on that, because it is a very objectionable thing to say to any hon. member of any party, that they are weaseling on any matter he is debating. If the Minister of Justice has been able to convince the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that there is more to this argument than the hon. member thought there was in the first instance, I think that is no reason for the hon. member for Skeena using such an objectionable word. Furthermore, I think it is quite unparliamentary.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On the same question of privilege, I think it is irresponsible for the hon. member to say such a thing. If ever I saw any weaseling it was on the part of that group when they supported the Tory government not long ago.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I address myself to the point of order raised on the issue of relevancy, because the hon. member was not dealing specifically with the clause under consideration in committee. As to the use of the word "weaseling" I can recall hearing it used before, and as long as it has not got a specific application I do not think I can find it to be unparliamentary.


Frank Howard: I use the word specifically, Mr. Chairman. I meant it to apply specifically to the Liberal party. As to whether or not what I was saying was relevant, I would merely point out I was dealing with the same questions as were dealt with in the exchange of views between the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Surely, if they were relevant when those hon. members were discussing them they are equally relevant when I am doing so.
The Minister of Justice, apparently on an invitation to give a legal interpretation-an interpretation which, I understand, he is not competent to give within the rules of the house-


An hon. Member:: Or elsewhere.
1874	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act


Frank Howard: Whether he is competent to do it in another place or not is not for me to decide. However, he did give a legal interpretation, so called, to the effect that collective agreements as I understand them are exempt from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. I may be wrong in gathering that interpretation from what the hon. gentleman said, but if that is what he said I should like him to tell us where he finds that opinion supported in the act, unless he is deriving that interpretation from section 4.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is in section 4 of the Combines Investigation Act which reads:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.
I read this clause because it was requested. I really think we are altogether outside the ambit of the bill now before the committee, however.


Frank Howard: I thought that was the one the minister was referring to. I shall merely say, in passing, that I, and others who are more knowledgeable in this field than I am, think he is incorrect in his interpretation.
I should like to deal, briefly, with the points raised by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, whose case appeared to be that if we enact as law the bill now before the committee, the right of those six individuals, if there were six, who initiated the particular inquiry on the west coast will be denied and removed. I think that is not the case. This would only become effective on and after the date upon which the legislation applies and, as I understand it, is in no way applicable to the inquiry taking place into the fishing industry in British Columbia. So the rights of these individuals will be protected to the extent that the investigation which they were instrumental in starting will be completed.
I think we cannot place too much credence in the argument of the Minister of Justice that it is necessary to maintain parliamentary control over this particular question. Surely, what parliament enacts, parliament can repeal or alter later on. That is the principle upon which the whole progress of statute law is based; parliament is supreme to undo or alter what it has done. If it is found in future years that it is necessary to alter the provision which is before us now, surely, whoever is minister of justice then will come before parliament and present a bill to that effect.
I should like to make one or two comments about the position taken by the Minister of Justice in arguing on both sides at the same


time when he talked about exempting a particular industry from the provisions of this act. The amendment is not one to exempt an industry from the provisions of the act, but to amend the act so that it will not be considered as applying to the collective bargaining process, which is an entirely different thing. In any event, the Minister of Justice is a member of the cabinet which in 1960 exempted practically the entire export industry in Canada from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. One of the sections of industry which was involved in that decision was the fishing industry of British Columbia, and the legislation was hardly dry on the statute books before the fisheries association of that province issued public pronouncements thanking the government for giving sanction to what had, before, been their illegal activities. What else is that but the exemption of an industry by way of the back door? So if we are to give any credence to the hon. gentleman's arguments at all that we are seeking to exempt an industry, we have only to look back to 1960 when he was minister of finance and consider what was done then to exempt an industry from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
This present proposal only seeks to exempt the collective agreements made for the protection of workmen themselves.


Mr. Leboe:: I should like to ask a question for information only. Could the minister tell us whether or not for income tax purposes the fishing industry-I am speaking about the people with boats-is treated in the same way as are farmers who own machinery, with regard to depreciation allowances and so on? Maybe the Minister of Fisheries knows the answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member will realize it is hardly appropriate for us to embark on a comparison of the relative tax positions of fishermen and farmers when we are engaged in discussing a bill of this kind. I can assure the hon. member we would be glad to supply any information he wishes on this subject. However, I do not think it is relevant to this question at the present time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In my earlier remarks I advanced three reasons why I thought a certain course of action should be followed. The minister replied to one of them, I think, satisfactorily. That was when he explained that with the change of personnel on the restrictive trade practices commission the volume of documents had accumulated until they could not be cleared up in one year. For this reason I thought the suggestion made by the minister that this measure should be

extended until the end of 1964 was an appropriate one. The remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena are still not justified, in my opinion, because I have not changed my position with regard to the main objection. I agreed with the minister on one point with regard to which I thought his suggestion was most constructive.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the question is put I should like to say another word. If in fact, there were any such collective agreements, or any immediate prospect of such collective agreements being made in any other parts of Canada, I would be very reluctant to go along with this limited and restrictive amendment. I am sure that in the end this parliament will exempt all collective agreements of this character from the operations of the act. I am sure, too, that it was intended from the beginning to exempt them.
I must say, however, I was impressed by what the Minister of Justice has said about the desirability in all the circumstances of allowing this matter to be determined. Because if the permanent legislation does in fact exempt them, the amendment would be quite redundant. We are perhaps in some ways-this may be only a technicality-prejudging litigants engaged in litigation. Therefore, since the minister, in a fashion which may be a change for the better since he changed his portfolio, has shown himself rather more conciliatory than he usually is and has agreed to the substance of the suggestion made by my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre, I would feel very much disposed to go along with the suggestion of the government in this matter and not insist upon what I think in principle would have been the proper course to take. I hope the minister can say to us that, if there is any difficulty about this, the government, if it survives that long, will seek to deal with the problem, and deal with it very promptly, because it would not be desirable to have another crisis such as the last one. I think the minister ought to assure us, because we have had some rather extraordinary examples of cabinet solidarity in these last few months, that this measure has the support of all his colleagues, including in particular the Minister without Portfolio, who is known to take a very personal interest in the Combines Investigation Act.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I am in the position where I have pretty well had to judge this matter from what I have heard this afternoon. I have not been a member for the past four years, and therefore some of these matters have not been brought to my attention. Therefore as the debate has taken place, I have listened with a great deal of interest
Combines Investigation Act and tried to assess the picture on both sides. I must be frank and say that I am in agreement with the principle of this amendment and that the fishermen should not be in the position where from year to year they are faced with this uncertainty and this problem. However, on the other hand, I have listened to the arguments which have been put forward on the other side. Reference has been made to the litigation that is now in progress. I think some reference has been made to the redrafting of fisheries legislation. Another matter was also interpolated, and that was the question of its possible effect upon other segments of our economy.
Mr. Chairman, as I say, I believe that the principle here is right, but in view of these other situations which have developed and these other arguments which have been made, I am inclined to think that we should allow this measure to go through, as suggested in the amendment to the bill, so that the whole picture can be clarified. Then after the picture has been entirely clarified, we can go ahead and attend to the other matters which may arise therefrom. So as I say, although I agree with the principle here, I also think that we ought to allow the picture to be entirely clarified, these other things cleared out of the way, and then we can declare our position from there on.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the question is put, can the minister give the assurance for which I asked, because I think it would make many people in the fishing ridings happy?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There were a couple of points raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. May I say in reply to the first one, by way of emphasizing what I said earlier, that I am advised by the director of investigation and research that what is involved here is not an ordinary collective agreement at all. On the second point, I can assure the hon. member that nothing would give the government in this situation, and myself in particular, a greater sense of relief than to see this matter come to an early conclusion. The hon. member will appreciate that the government has no control over the proceedings before the restrictive trade practices commission; but as to any such proceedings as the government has control over, I can assure the hon. member and this committee that the early conclusion of these proceedings would make us very happy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is quite what I meant. I may not have phrased my



Combines Investigation Act point very well, but I did not intend to suggest to the minister that I was asking the government to interfere in any way with the operations of the restrictive trade practices commission. To put it plainly, what I was asking the minister was this, that if it turned out that the law did prohibit collective agreements, would the minister take the view that that would be a good law to maintain? Because we would not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman, the act is quite clear on the point. If it were the fact that this was only an ordinary agreement of the kind we are discussing, then obviously section 4 would apply and would have its full operation. But we are told that this is not this type of agreement; otherwise presumably the matter would have been resolved long before this, and might never have been started.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that the minister has indicated that the government has serious reasons for wanting to obtain a result from this litigation before dealing finally with this matter. My personal opinion is that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is being wise and practical in this matter and not at all irresponsible, as was indicated by hon. members in the far corner.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one or two words in this connection, with particular reference to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I am in the same position as he finds himself in, having been away from the sittings of this house for some time, but I am sure that he will recall, as I do, that the subject matter under discussion resulting from the introduction this afternoon of this amendment to the bill is not new. In fact, it certainly was a matter which was initiated and which received considerable discussion during the time when both he and I were members of this house at a previous parliament.
I am rather surprised that there should be any hesitation on his part in expressing agreement that this matter should be brought to an end. I recall very well having urged on the government of the day when this matter first came forward the proposition that the intent of the combines act was certainly not one which should involve the fishermen of British Columbia in this sort of thing. I recall very well having urged upon a friend of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who was then minister of fisheries that he should see to it that the government of that day should take immediate action if legislation were necessary to clarify the position of our fishermen. Now both the hon. member for

Fraser Valley and myself find ourselves back in this house again, and this matter is, in effect, still where it was at the time when a former member for Coast-Capilano was minister of fisheries, and our fishermen are still essentially in the same position. For that reason I cannot see why the hon. member for Fraser Valley, or indeed any other hon. member of this house, should hesitate at this time to take action which will permanently clarify the position of the fishermen of British Columbia.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I should like to say that I, like he, am still in agreement with the principle. I did not give any intimation that I was opposed to the principle; in fact, I made it abundantly clear that I was in favour of it. I had just made the observation that, in view of the statements which have been made this afternoon and the circumstances existing at the present time relevant to the ramifications, it would perhaps be advisable to go along with this extension so that this matter could be cleared up and then the whole problem could be resolved.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment negatived; Yeas, 9; nays, 141.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall clause 1 carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Labour to move the following amendment:
That clause 1 of Bill C-49 be amended by striking out the figure "63" in line 21 and substituting therefor the figure "64".
This amendment will have the effect of extending the effect of the amendment until December 31, 1964.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour has not moved it.


Michael Starr: I so move.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house. The government might wish to filibuster it.



JUDGES ACT


Donald Methuen Fleming: 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 for salaries for two additional judges of the supreme court of Nova Scotia, including one chief justice, and for one additional judge of the court of appeal for British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Paul in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister has some explanation to give.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amendments to the Judges Act proposed in the bill have two purposes, namely to provide salaries for two additional judges of the supreme court of Nova Scotia required by reason of recent changes in the organization of that court, and to provide a salary for an additional judge of the court of appeal for British Columbia, thus bringing the Judges Act into conformity with existing British Columbia legislation.
In April of this year royal assent was given to a measure enacted by the legislature of Nova Scotia to amend the Judicature Act. Until now the supreme court of Nova Scotia has been a single court with trial and appellate jurisdiction; the trial jurisdiction has been exercised by single judges, and the appellate jurisdiction by the judges sitting en banc. Under the new legislation, which is to come into force on proclamation, the supreme court of Nova Scotia will be divided into two divisions, namely, the trial division and the appeal division, as in the case of Ontario. The total number of judges under the new legislation will be increased by two, and it is therefore necessary to provide salaries for two additional judges.
In 1957 the court of appeal act of British Columbia was amended to provide for a chief justice and eight other judges. The Judges Act at present, however, provides salaries for a chief justice and only seven appeal judges. The purpose of this amendment is to authorize the provision of a salary for one additional judge of the British Columbia court of appeal, so as to bring the Judges Act into conformity with provincial legislation.


Rémi Paul: Shall the resolution carry?


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Five o'clock.
National Flag


Rémi Paul: Order. So that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It now being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.



FLAGS OF CANADA


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat) moved:: That this house is of the opinion that the government should agree within one year to a design for a suitable distinctive national flag and introduce legislation in this house for the adoption of this emblem.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the house for allowing this motion to stand by unanimous consent until I returned to the capital. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is very short. I think it is very simply stated. Further, I think it is completely self-explanatory. For example, you will note that it does not ask for any specific design in a national flag. As a matter of fact, I have not any pet design that I should like to promote. However, I am concerned about drifting along from year to year with no action being taken by our government to designate some particular emblem as the flag of Canada.
We have had committees investigating and attempting to come up with a suitable and acceptable design. We know now that there were several hundred designs submitted, in fact someone has told me there were over a thousand designs submitted. Certainly, therefore, there is any number of choices. Even now, Mr. Speaker, there are Canadians flying flags of several different designs, even over some public buildings. We do not have one design for a Canadian flag.
The passage of this motion would simply do one thing. It would put a one-year time limit on the introduction of legislation to adopt a specific design which would, from then on, be the Canadian flag. The government has indicated it is interested in introducing legislation in this field when, in the speech from the throne, the following appeared:
My government will ask you, as a significant step in rounding out the concept of confederation, to consider a resolution to provide for the "repatriation" of the constitution of Canada-

National Flag
Then, farther down, I read this:
As another means of making manifest a Canadian identity, my government will invite the provinces to a conference for consultation regarding the choice of a national flag and other national symbols.
There have been suggestions in speeches from the throne in the past which did not come to fruition. I am interested, therefore, in putting a time limit on the adoption of a flag. The government can set up a committee to bring in a design that is suitable to the committee and to the government. Certainly, it is going to be difficult to have unanimity amongst all Canadians. However, I believe if we did get a design approved by the house, from that date forward Canadians would learn to respect that flag as the flag of Canada. I urge support of this motion, therefore, to set up a committee with a specific task and a specific time limit on that task.


Barry Mather: Speaking in favour of the proposal before us, I think it should be a matter of wonder to all members of the house and to many people in Canada that almost 100 years after we were born we are still debating whether it is possible for us to have our own flag in Canada. I think we are a remarkable people in that regard, Mr. Speaker, because if we have any national characteristic it seems to be the one that we do not have any national characteristic. This is the most distinguishing thing about us, that we do not take unto ourselves national symbols as other people do.
At the same time, Canada is the second largest country in the world geographically and a middle power. Its people and achievements are known throughout the world and respected by everybody, with the exception it seems by our own selves. The time, I believe, is long past when we should be still talking about whether we can have a flag of our own. In the past ten years many new nations have been bom, and many of them have at once unfurled their own national flags and taken unto themselves their own national emblems. As I say, we are still discussing, as we did a week or two ago, whether it is possible for this country which is nearly 100 years old, to have our own national anthem. We are still wondering whether we should sing "O Canada", when for years the natives have been singing "O Canada". Our school children, as we read a few weeks ago, are asking, why can't we have our own anthem and our own flag.
I think our hesitancy about going ahead and establishing these national symbols for Canada lies somewhat in the past and in the feelings of the two older groups of people who originally settled this country, the French

speaking and English speaking Canadians. This situation, however, has changed radically in the last 15 or 20 years. As we know, a flood of immigrants from European lands have come to Canada and they do not share the old ideas in regard to the old symbols which we have had in the past and which have always loomed so large in the eyes of French speaking or English speaking Canadians. These newer Canadians from Europe are looking to the new land to give them some rallying point in one flag or anthem to help them say this is their own country. I agree that we need a national flag for Canada, not from any sense of petty nationalism but as a rallying point or community emblem to help us come together to form a nation in the best sense of that word.
I agree with the mover of this motion when he says we should not get ourselves concerned with the details of the proposed flag. This is not for us to decide. What we should decide is the principle, and go ahead and take steps that will establish this flag for Canada. Finally, I have one additional reason for taking action at this time and that is to produce a flag for the Canadian centennial celebration. In a few more years we will be celebrating our national birthday, and I think it would be most fitting, on January 1, 1967, for a new Canadian flag to be unfurled not only across Canada but around the world. I have very great pleasure in supporting the good motion moved by my friend opposite.


Mr. R. G. L. Fairweather (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat said we are drifting along in the discussion of this subject, that of considering a national symbol, and of course he is correct. I had a great deal of pleasure in reading the debates of 1865 of the parliament of Canada, in what was then the province of Canada, when proposals were being considered with a similar end in view. Obviously, no results were forthcoming 97 years ago. I do not share the view that suddenly, say on November 21, 1963, all Canadians can be patriotic or loyal to a certain design.
My approach admittedly is perhaps unorthodox. I realize there are tender feelings when we are considering national symbols; but with great respect may I say I share some of the sentiments so well expressed by the hon. senator from Temiscouata when he spoke in the other place on November 7. I think Canada would be poorer if the endless debates of individuals and groups were finally resolved by the adoption of what this motion calls a suitable distinctive national flag. For instance, the mail of members of parliament would become less voluminous. We should think of all the designers whose ideas would

be frustrated. Then, too, what of all the organizations whose annual meetings and conventions would be greatly shortened if there were no debates and no resolutions on a distinctive national flag? I can think of wives who would send their husbands off to this or that convention expecting an absence of days because there would be the inevitable jousting about the design of a national symbol. What would happen? The meetings would be that much shorter.
I wonder whether we need a statute designed flag to increase our feelings about this country. Personally I think not. It seems to me that this debate is 100 years too late. Surely we cannot compel men to assume a mantle of feeling for a flag just because a design becomes law by statute. It so happens that most of my constituents would prefer the red ensign, but most of the constituents of many other members of the house would prefer another symbol.
Dr. Frank Underhill, in his 1962 founders' day address at the University of New Brunswick, reminded us of the search for an image in Canada. It is not a new phenomenon for Canada. I should like to quote a paragraph or two from what he said. He in turn was quoting a distinguished Canadian who was a member of the assembly, Henri Joly de Lotbiniere. Professor Underhill said in part:
He was Henri Joly de Lotbiniere, a French-Canadian, an urbane sceptic about a good many of the enthusiasms and passions of his contemporaries.
Apparently the passions have lasted for 100 years.
Here is a part of what he said; and I quote his words because here already in 1865 is a man making use of the concept of 'image'. The concept, you see, is a good deal older than our contemporary advertising and public relations agencies.
"I propose the adoption of the rainbow as our emblem. By the endless variety of its tints the rainbow will give an excellent idea of the diversity of races, religions, sentiments and interests of the different parts of the confederation. By its slender and elongated form the rainbow would afford a perfect representation of the geographical configuration of confederation. By its lack of consistence-an image without substance-the rainbow would represent aptly the solidity of our confederation. An emblem we must have, for every great empire has one; let us adopt the rainbow."
We didn't adopt Joly's rainbow as our emblem, though as far as I can see, no one has since come up with a better one. Sometimes I play with the idea of submitting my own design for a national flag to the authorities in Ottawa. It would consist of a green maple leaf in the centre, surmounted by Joly's multicoloured rainbow, the whole upon a background of pure white-white to signify our Canadian innocence of colonialism, imperialism, militarism, Americanism, capitalism, socialism, and all the other twentieth century sins.
I would also refer to another discussion about a flag and its symbolic effect. In a book of essays written in 1945 the distinguished
National Flag
author, E. B. White, discusses man's search for a universal symbol. The book is entitled "The Wild Flag". One of his approaches is that perhaps the time of national symbolism is past in man's history. He suggests the idea that a Chinese brought to a great meeting; of survivors of a nuclear war. This idea was for a flag that would be symbolic because it could be found in all the countries of the earth. The Chinese, not a red Chinese or one from Taiwan-this was in 1945-says:
That is a wild flag. In China we have decided to adopt this flag, since it is a convenient and universal device and very beautiful and grows everywhere in the moist places of the earth for all to observe and wonder at. I propose all countries adopt it, so that it will be impossible for us to insult each other's flag.
I suggest that we continue our wonderful inconsistency of permitting the use of almost any flag a particular citizen may want to fly. If we are honest with ourselves, are flags really not about as relevant to the nations of this period of the twentieth century as the banners of the knights of old are to the contemporary scene?
I think it is a fine thing that Canada has a flexible flag policy. Some would say we have no flag but this I dispute. We may not. have a flag which is all things to all of us, but history does not yet permit a flag that is all things to all of us. Perhaps our people in another generation or two will find themselves in a climate or in a mood where they may be able to create an image for Canada which we can embody in a design for a flag, but I suggest that the public interest will not suffer because this time has not yet come. (Translation):


Mr. Leo Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I wish good luck to the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) who is asking the government, through his motion, to give Canada a distinctive flag within a year.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that any opposition to such a measure will not come from Liberal members. My party took a definite stand on this matter in the last election campaign and committed itself to submit to parliament, within two years after coming into power, the design of a distinctive flag that could not be confused with the emblem of any other country. This commitment still stands and, furthermore, it is in keeping with the position taken by the Liberals for a long time. The flag issue is still in our program. That wish has been expressed by all active supporters of our party, regardless of their racial origin.
Several attempts made previously by the Liberals fell through because it was revealed that public opinion was not unanimous on this question. But we feel today that the idea

National Flag
advocated by our party has gained way and that this same public opinion is now ready to accept almost unanimously a really distinctive flag. I might even add that public opinion expects this flag and that it will feel frustrated as long as the Canadian government and the House of Commons do not assume their responsibility in this field.
I have scrutinized the program submitted by the Conservative party to the voters last June, and nowhere have I seen any reference to a flag. So I take it that this is not in the Conservative program, and I think I understand why. How indeed can you give Canada a distinctive flag, recalling no other emblem, when you simply refuse to compromise? I found in Hansard for November 13, 1945, Vol. II, page 2089, the following statement by the present Prime Minister:
I cannot see eye-to-eye with those who say we must not have a national flag. On the other hand, I cannot see eye-to-eye-and my sentiments so carry me that I must be restrained when I say this-with those who would deny the union jack a permanent and a prominent place on the flag of this country; and the place of honour on any flag is the upper quarter. Some say, why not compromise? I will compromise on anything, but not to the extent of the removal of the union jack from our national flag.
Mr. Speaker, if there is no compromise, there will not be a national flag. That statement has to be confronted with the one made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), on November 6, 1961:
The Liberal party intends to restore national unity by taking into account the aspirations and the recent evolution of our two main racial groups. It is time to give that unity the symbols it should have. That is why the Liberal party will endow our country with a distinctive Canadian flag and will ratify "O Canada" as our national anthem. Those symbols will not prevent Canadians, on the contrary, from paying tribute to the Queen and from maintaining their ties with the commonwealth.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the leaders of the two main parties represented in this house have taken completely opposite stands. The leader of the Conservative party was still going back, in 1945, to the time when Canada was considered a colony and a plantation. We of the Liberal party fully appreciate the complete evolution towards sovereignty which we have achieved in Canada. To this entirely free country, we wish to give the required national symbols. That is why our program includes a definite pledge in this regard.
As far back as November 6, 1945, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King introduced a motion in this house providing for the setting up of

a joint committee of the House of Commons and of the Senate to look into the matter. If we look at Hansard, we see there were discussions on the matter in 1931, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1937, 1938 and on several occasions afterwards. Besides, the setting up of a committee of officials was suggested in 1925 to study that matter.
All this means, Mr. Speaker, that the question of a flag has been a recurring topic for over 35 years. It could have been settled earlier. The people are getting impatient and already, their representatives stand indicted. Old arguments which had some value in years gone by should not be brought up any more. In Canada, a time limit is proposed to us by history, as was said a little while ago. In four years, the Canadian confederation will be one hundred years old. In my own province, it seems sure that a world fair will climax the celebrations. I wonder which flag will fly over Canada's pavilion.
We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about a distinctive and truly Canadian flag. Throughout the world, people consider that as a symbol. The flag we would choose, after an agreement it is so hard to reach, would give our collective and often boastful statements about our national accomplishments, a ring of undeniable truth. What little pride we have left would slowly come back to life. We could rally round something respectable and universally accepted. I, for one, would be happy to recognize my country on the roofs of buildings in Vancouver, Quebec city or Halifax.
That symbol, Mr. Speaker, would mean that millions of Canadians, of British or French descent, as well as a great many new Canadians, have felt, at one time, a common ideal strong enough to bring them together in a particular nation. It would mean that one day, freely, of its own accord, and sovereignly, the Canadian nation will have taken its place in history.
Our inability to decide upon a symbol may, on the other hand, very well develop into another symbol, that of division which undermines us from everywhere, the symbol of parochialism, the symbol of our ineradicable prejudices, the symbol of our lack of brotherhood.
I would not want, Mr. Speaker, to end these remarks without urging every hon. member here to put aside, in the near future, his false modesty, his complexes, his sometimes concealed parochialism. In 1944, I attended the first November 11 parade of the French liberation troops on the Champs-Elysees in Paris. Very early in the morning, the pavement in all the streets of the French capital resounded with the host of people who crowded the

route already. Churchill and de Gaulle would be there. It was a solemn moment where the value of the symbol we are talking about was amplified by the occasion. All these people waited for hours for the parade. And when the French, British and American flags were raised slowly to the sound of a military march, all those present were deeply moved. Tears of pride were shed by thousands of people that day because the sight of the national standard was a reminder to each and everyone that the fatherland was born anew. What would we do in similar circumstances?
Mr. Speaker, every day we hear somebody talk about the march of history. In many fields, Canada is not even part of history. That is why it is urgent to take at least certain symbolic steps. Let us settle the question of the national flag. In Canada, like everywhere else in the world, the ordinary citizen is on the move. A common understanding and brotherhood have been established among common people which goes beyond frontiers and continents. From various lands, people look forward to the achievement of long-suppressed legitimate hopes. The earth is shaking under the footsteps of those masses. Each group can be identified by the flag which unites its members.
As members of the House of Commons, it is our belated duty to give our people the symbols they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, like most hon. members, I had to make certain sacrifices that I am not permitted to regret. Public life has its burdens and rewards. In spite of my modest means, I have felt it necessary to ensure, within an honourable party and the limits of my riding, the representation of an important but minority ethnic group, in the parliament of a nation which has not, in spite of the great progress it has accomplished, found the courage to define its own identity. This house has done a lot of work and I have no intention of minimizing anything. Yet, as far as I am concerned, I will regret having been a member of this parliament if we cannot further the cause of national unity by adopting at least its most elementary symbol.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, following the nice speech we just heard, we, in this corner of the house, are a bit disappointed that the study committee set up by the Liberal party in 1945 did not
National Flag
number among its members as convincing a man as the hon. member who just resumed his seat. He could have explained to all Canadians, from Halifax to Vancouver, the importance of having a flag.
If this matter has been under study for 35 years while we have had a Liberal administration for 22 years, we are convinced that at that time, the Liberal party could at least have given this great Canadian, who defended our rights overseas, the necessary means of convincing his fellow citizens that unity and brotherhood must come about in Canada.
Hon. members always seem more efficient when they sit with the opposition, especially when the passing of legislation needed by the Canadian people is involved.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer also to some remarks made by a government member and I want to be as accurate as possible on this point because I believe the mover did not mention a distinctive flag.
He simply asks for a flag. Let us agree on the principle of a flag, the details can come later.
What would you think of a world fair being held in Canada without a national flag? That would not be very interesting.
It is high time the people of Canada behaved as adults. Let us stop acting like nursery children.
A flag is the sign of a mature people, knowing where they are going. Without a flag our country looks like a man without clothes, and that is not very nice.
We need a truly Canadian flag for 1967 and it would be sacrilege to delay motion.
I therefore ask that it be passed immediately.
(Text):


Robert William Prittie: am sorry this discussion appears to be developing into a political debate. I notice Liberals accusing Conservatives about the stand they took with regard to a flag, and the last hon. member who spoke said something about the Liberal viewpoint.
Our party does have a stand on this question. It simply asks that there should be a distinctive national flag, while being careful not to say just what it should be. My hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) says he is in favour of a distinctive national flag as long as one quarter of it contains the union jack. In this country

National Flag
there are three viewpoints on the flag question. There are those who insist the flag must contain the union jack. I think that is the view of the Royal Canadian Legion, and I heard some desk banging on this side when this point came up earlier. There are those who say there should be no union jack in any Canadian flag, and there is a third group which does not have strong feelings one way or the other.
I rather think that when a distinctive flag is adopted for this country it will be one without the union jack. I suppose I am as British as anyone here, and I like the red ensign well enough, but I rather think there would be no acceptance in this country of such a flag. Eventually, that is what we shall come to. It is probably a question of wearing down the opposition.
How does one select a flag? It seems to me it is an almost impossible task. I think that someone has to be a little authoritarian somewhere along the line; some government or prime minister will have to pick a flag and say: this is it. Then his party must be persuaded to give backing to the choice. I do not know how we shall get one in any other way. That is how we got a flag in British Columbia. We have one. I do not like it very much. However, Mr. Bennett liked it, and so we have a flag. Perhaps it was a lot easier then to make a decision than it Would be at the present time.
In all seriousness, we must get down to this question one of these days. Even if this resolution, which calls for the adoption of a flag within one year, is not adopted, we must certainly aim to adopt a flag by the centenary of this country in 1967. I think the cabinet or someone in authority needs to look at a few designs, pick what seems to be a suitable flag in his view and present it to parliament. Otherwise, we shall go on and on-thousands of designs will be made and we shall never reach any decision.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, the question of choosing and ratifying a flag for Canada is supposed to be one too hot to handle. I do not think it is. The only reason I hesitate at all to speak on the subject is because I do not want a flag or anything else to become a dividing point for my country. I, for one, came to knowledge of affairs of Canada at a time when we had what we thought was a flag. It was somewhat surprising to me to hear a controversy arise, well on in my lifetime, the point of which was that we did not have such a flag, or, at least, that we did not have one which would stand up as a legal flag of Canada. I suppose that is the contention.

I wish to keep the discussion to the point. Everyone says we want the flag to be a symbol of union. If we are putting unity ahead of any other consideration I do not know why we should object to any specific object being on this flag. What is a flag? It is a standard, a rallying point of the nation. At one time it was considered particularly useful in time of war. The same people who want a new flag, most of them anyway, are also very interested in peace; so I say we want a flag which is not only a rallying point in time of war but something which is symbolic of Canada today, in 1962, in 1967 and, we trust, forever.
My own opinion is that a flag should be more than just a piece of cloth. It must be more than the product of a federal statute. It must represent the very best traditions; of our nation. I was satisfied with the union jack in the corner of the red ensign as a symbol of British freedom and British law. Since I am of English extraction I should like to spend a moment or two in discussing what the union jack means. Before we discard it, I think we should understand what we are discarding. The union jack was the symbol of unity under Christian ethics and Christian leadership. Sometimes the British commonwealth of nations has fallen far below the standard which the union jack was intended to set. Nevertheless, that standard is still there and it remains the same.
If you break that flag down the first element is the Christian cross of St. George. Te this was added the Christian cross of St. Andrew. When Ireland was brought into the union-it was customary in those days to bring countries in by force of arms-the British and Scots decided to honour Ireland as part of the union and include the Christian cross of St. Patrick. In this threefold cross we have attained the highest standard of liberty that the world has ever seen. I claim this standard was retained because behind it was the Christian ethic symbolized by this Christian triple cross. And if England should go down and be never heard of again, if England should disappear in the north Atlantic, this symbol will, I trust, remain in history as a standard for many people throughout the world. The nations of the earth which have grown and achieved independence from the mother nation will see in the union jack something to revere, something to honour.
I do not insist that the union jack be retained in a national flag, the flag which is to be ratified and, I hope, soon. I am fully in favour of this move to ratify a flag for Canada, but I want hon. members to feel

strongly about leaving this symbol out. Certainly no matter what symbol we decide to honour, this triple Christian cross will always be at the back of my mind as indicative of the Christian ethic. Under this standard we can move on. It is a standard that the United Nations itself would not be ashamed to adopt.
Our great sister dominion, New Zealand, is proud to have the union jack in its flag, and so is Australia. I do not think we lose anything in the eyes of the world as long as we put first things first. As long as we put the symbol-


Mr, Ryan:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I would.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Why would adoption of a distinctive flag necessarily mean discarding the union jack? I do not follow that.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: He did not say it did.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I say that if I had my way I would be quite happy to have the red ensign as it is. I served under this flag myself, and actions speak louder than words. The flag of Canada is not an empty piece of bunting to me; it is a rallying point for Canadians everywhere. If we in the so-called enlightened age of 1962 think that the red ensign no longer is our flag, I am ready, willing and able to discuss this matter, I hope as unimpassioned as possible, and if we can agree, and I hope we can, I am willing to ratify any flag which this group determines upon. After all, the onus is upon us; we cannot hand it to our school children, to the Royal Canadian Legion, or to anybody else. We are the cross section of Canada. It is our responsibility to decide this question. I say without equivocation that I am ready now to meet in committee of the whole, or in a committee specially appointed, to discuss this question; and if and when we ratify a piece of cloth with the same design as now or with a new design, I only hope that it will be the kind of rallying point that the red ensign has been. I for one will give of the same kind of loyalty and energy in keeping the flag flying for all that it has always meant.
(Translation):


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part in this debate on the adoption of a national flag, because I live in a province where this matter is the subject of the most lengthy, impassioned and instructive discussions.
I must make it clear, first of all, that it is not my intention to show partisanship in the discussion on a motion of such importance as the adoption of a distinctive flag for
National Flag
Canada. As a matter of fact, I was surprised a moment ago to note that the Liberal member tried to make us believe, in the course of his remarks, that the leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Diefenbaker) was against the adoption of a distinctive national flag for Canada. I would rather that this discussion of concern to all the Canadian people took place with dignity and was not allowed to become a partisan matter. That is why I readily endorse the motion introduced with pride and sincerity, I am sure, by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson).
However, I must make a reservation. The motion reads as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the government should agree within one year to a design for a suitable distinctive national flag.
I make reservations with regard to the words: "agree within one year to a design".
Mr. Speaker, while all Canadians recognize the necessity of having their own flag, they do not all agree on its design. That is why I was interested by what I found in the speech from the throne in that respect. This is what it says:
As another means of making manifest the Canadian identity, my government will invite the provinces to a conference for consultation regarding the choice of a national flag and other national symbols.
I am not one of those who want to impose a flag design to the rest of the nation. I feel that each group desiring a particular design should try to make the rest of the Canadian people understand that such a design or such an emblem should be chosen as the distinctive national flag of Canada.
A Canadian flag is a symbol of unity, it must not divide our people. Therefore, when we have reached a compromise that will enable us to submit a distinctive flag to the country, we can rest assured that it will be flown with pride in all the provinces of Canada, as well as in the province of Quebec, to the honour of the Canadian nation.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out once again that this flag must be a symbol of unity. In view of that fact, the design of our flag must take into account the aspirations of the main groups in our country. It will have to express our sovereignty, our accession to the rank of a state and that any tie of political bondage is broken.
I congratulate the government for contemplating the selection of a distinctive flag, as stated in that part of the speech from the throne I read a few minutes ago. In my opinion, the wisest way to choose a flag or

National Flag
distinctive emblem for Canada, is to call the provinces to a conference that will bring together the people's elected representatives at all government levels, federal or provincial.
(Text):


Mr. H. F. Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the mover of this motion for bringing this matter to the attention of the house, and for this reason. I think that what he is really expressing here is his desire that the Canadian nation as a whole come to a conclusion on this matter, rather than, in the strict terms of the motion, insist that the matter be decided in one year. Because after all, we have been a nation since 1867. We have got along for some time with the flag we have been using, and I believe the formal adoption of a new flag by this house should not be hurried by the arbitrary adoption of a time limit. But the motion does do this, and I think it is very useful in this regard: it does bring to the attention of the Canadian people the opinion of the hon. member and the opinion of the government, as it is expressed in the speech from the throne, that the time has come for the adoption of a national flag which will be nationally accepted.
The hon. member who has just spoken gave, I thought, very wise advice when he suggested to the House of Commons and to this country at large that this should not be a matter of partisanship, a matter of partisan contention. This question of a flag is one that moves very deeply the people of this nation, no matter from what part of the country they may come. The matter of the flag is a most serious matter to the Legionnaires particularly and those who fought in the war under that flag. It is one which they feel should not be treated lightly and one which they would not wish to have treated in a partisan way. When I hear hon. members speaking in this House of Commons start to deal with this matter of a national flag as though it were a question of party, I say to them that, as we approach the adoption of a flag in the way set forth in the speech from the throne, the time has come for us to drop partisan labels with regard to this matter and to move forward seeking the unity of the people of this country on this great issue.
I was very much interested to listen to the words of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) wherein he stated that this is more than just a piece of bunting and more than just a federal statute. Those are wise words. The question of a flag goes deep into the hearts of all of us. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a resolution passed

by the Royal Canadian Legion at their last dominion convention in Halifax this year. This motion ratifies what a previous dominion command convention of the Royal Canadian Legion had endorsed a couple of years earlier. It was adopted unanimously with the firmness of resolve and deserves our utmost attention. It reads as follows:
Whereas the 18th dominion convention of the Royal Canadian Legion endorsed a resolution asking that the Canadian red ensign be officially recognized as the Canadian flag,
And whereas the dominion command has taken no action on this resolution apart from sending it to the Secretary of State:
Therefore be it resolved that dominion command be requested to organize a publicity campaign in an effort to have that resolution implemented.
That resolution indicates the strength and the depth of the feeling of this great body of people who fought under this flag in both wars. Not only is it their view that the Canadian red ensign-which, of course, as all hon. members know, is different from the British red ensign-is the flag to be adopted and officially recognized as the Canadian flag, but they feel so deeply about it that they have requested and instructed their dominion command to organize a publicity campaign in an effort to have that resolution implemented and adopted in the hearts of Canadians as well as put on the statute books of this country. I feel that I would be remiss in my duty as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and having a special interest in the feelings of veterans on this question if I did not bring that motion to the attention of the house.
The feeling expressed by the Legion has also been expressed by other veterans organizations. We in this house are in a position in which we must suggest measures to deal with this problem. It is a problem, as I have said, with regard to which we hope we shall achieve a solution. As has already been pointed out, the speech from the throne contains this paragraph:
As another means of making manifest the Canadian identity, my government will invite the provinces to a conference for consultation regarding the choice of a national flag and other national symbols.
This is a procedure that commends itself to me. I can imagine, as I am sure can each other hon. member, a conference of the provinces of this country with their provincial premiers meeting together with the Prime Minister of Canada and others of his cabinet in a discussion with a view to reaching a solution of this problem. At such a conference one can imagine being put forward the various views which have been put forward in this house from time to time by various hon. members, some favouring one flag and some favouring another. Here in such a conference, with the embodied wisdom of the law makers

of all parts of this country, from both sections of government which are accorded the authority of governing this great nation, their collective wisdom should arrive at a solution which, in their opinion, will be most satisfactory to all. It seems to me that such a gathering as that, putting forward a motion to the Canadian people, giving a dimension to this matter and embodying as it would their collective wisdom, would be one that would prove most acceptable to the people of Canada. I would point out that in such a conference you would have represented people in all walks of life in all parts of Canada, and from every background, by persons who are charged with the responsibility of governing the people of all the diverse races, origins and emotional attachments, and Canadians who have in the past, as I said before, fought twice under the Canadian ensign.
It also seems to me that it would be remiss on my part if I did not make one comment on some of the speeches made previously. I think it would be very poor taste on the part of this House of Commons if we, by not accepting this motion or some other specific motion for some particular flag, adopted the view that Canadians are behaving as children. That is not the case.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Henry Frank Jones: I must bring to the attention of all hon. members that, this matter, being one which engages the fundamental emotions of the Canadian people, is not one to be trifled with and labelled as being childish.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might ask the house
Business of the House leader if he could let us know what the government is proposing for both tomorrow and Friday.


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow we will start off with third readings of the following bills: Bill C-4, Bill C-71 and Bill C-49. That business will be followed by the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour, No. 28 on today's order paper, dealing with the problems of manpower adjustment and so on; and Bill C-70, in the name of the Minister of Labour dealing with the safety of persons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What number is that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is No. 14 on today's order paper. If this business happens to go through quickly we would then come back to two resolutions in the name of the Minister of Justice, namely No. 23 on today's order paper dealing with an amendment to the Judges Act and No. 24 dealing with an amendment to the Admiralty Act. Although I will be precise and definite about this matter tomorrow and will not make any firm commitment tonight, on Friday I think we will start off with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the national economic development board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister any plans for resuming the debate on Bill C-81, which was urgent a couple of weeks ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Plans will be announced in due course, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
Resolution adopted by the special political committee at its 347th meeting on 9 November 1962.
The general assembly,
[Stage Direction]
Recalling its resolution 1347 (XIII) of 13 December 1958, and subsequent resolutions relating to the useful work of the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation,
Noting with satisfaction the scientific committee's unanimously adopted second comprehensive report,
Conscious that advances in scientific knowledge have been made concerning the effects of radiation since the publication of the scientific committee's first comprehensive report,
Noting with special concern the disquieting conclusions of the report and in particular that much remains to be learned about the long term effects of radiation,
1.	Commends the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation for its work and for the valuable report it has presented;
2.	Expresses its appreciation to the international atomic energy agency, to the specialized agencies, to the international nongovernmental and the national scientific organizations and to the individual scientists who have assisted the scientific committee in its work;
3.	Calls particular attention to the scientific committee's finding that "the exposure of mankind to radiation from increasing numbers of artificial sources, including the world wide contamination of the environment with short and long lived radionuclides from weapons tests, calls for the closest attention, particularly because the effects of any increase in radiation exposure may not be fully manifested for several decades in the case of somatic disease, and for many generations in the case of genetic damage";
4.	Urges all concerned to take note of the suggestions made and the views expressed in the report of the scientific committee;
5.	Requests the scientific committee to continue its assessment of radiation risks as well
as its review of those studies and further investigations that should be undertaken in the interests of increasing man's knowledge of the effects of radiation, and to report to the general assembly at its eighteenth session on its progress and on its future program of work;
6.	Calls upon the international atomic energy agency, the specialized agencies, the international non-governmental and the national scientific organizations, individual scientists and member governments to continue to co-operate fully with the scientific committee in carrying out its further important responsibilities;
7.	Recommends to the governments of member states to prepare and carry out according to their means large scale information programs on the effects of atomic radiation;
8.	Requests the secretary general of the united nations to continue to provide the scientific committee with the assistance necessary for the conduct of its work;
347th meeting, 9 November 1962.
[Stage Direction]
Recalling section II of its resolution 1629 (XVI) of 27 October 1961,
Having considered the report of the secretary general of the world meteorological organization on the proposal for a scheme of world wide monitoring and reporting of levels of atmospheric radioactivity,
Noting that the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation will examine this scheme at its twelfth session in Geneva in January 1963,
Encouraged to believe that a feasible scheme for this purpose can be implemented in the near future following final technical consultations between the world meteorological organization and the other organizations concerned,
1.	Commends the world meteorological organization for its prompt and effective response to the invitation addressed to it in resolution 1629 (XVI), and the international atomic energy agency and the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation for the valuable co-operation and assistance they have extended to the organization in this matter;

2.	Invites the world meteorological organization to complete its consultations with the scientific committee on the development of its draft plan, contained in document A/5253 of 8 October 1962, and to implement this plan, if found feasible, at the earliest possible date;
3.	Urges member governments and all others concerned to co-operate fully and to
take all appropriate action to enable the world meteorological organization to carry out its task;
4.	Requests the secretary general of the world meteorological organization to report to the general assembly at its eighteenth session on the progress achieved in the implementation of the scheme.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 22, 1962