1962-12-18

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.
Second report of sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and controlled by the government-Mr. Rowe.
(Translation);


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the house has been told, the president of the Canadian National Railways, at my request, has brought before the board of directors the problem of the promotion of French Canadians in the C.N.R. organization.
Following a meeting of the board of directors, the president has sent me the following report:
I am informed by the chairman of the board of directors of Canadian National Railways that, at its meeting on December 13, the board carefully reviewed the company's methods and procedures for the recruitment, appointment and promotion of supervisory and management employees, having particularly in mind the current discussions respecting the status of French Canadians in the organization. Included in the review were the present methods and procedures for appraising the qualifications for and the performance of personnel in positions throughout the organization and the existing delegation of authority to approve appointments and promotions.
The board considered that, while the present methods and procedures are designed to produce fair and equitable treatment of all the company's employees and applicants for positions, it is of prime importance that a thorough-going study be made to ensure that, in the practical application of these methods and procedures, their objectives are in fact being achieved. In particular, the
study should seek to determine whether more effective measures can be adopted
(a)	to attract to the company's service qualified French Canadians in larger numbers, and
(b)	to see that French Canadian personnel have full opportunity to enlarge their experience and qualifications for promotions to positions of greater responsibility at all levels in the company.
The study is to be undertaken by a committee of the board consisting of the chairman and Messrs. Charbonneau, Koerner, Levesque and Stewart. All necessary staff assistance will be furnished to the committee to enable the study to be completed and a report made to the full board as quickly as possible.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to learn through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) about the decision taken by the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways to undertake a thorough-going study of the situation in order to find out whether the present promotion system in that company is satisfactory and, especially, to see whether it should not be amended, considering the way many positions can be filled and considering the qualifications and specialties existing among French Canadians in the province of Quebec and elsewhere.
We are all very happy about the decision reached. That decision is all the more important, Mr. Speaker, as yesterday we almost had complete unanimity in this house, not so much concerning this matter referred to by the minister, but about the whole field of bilingualism and our two cultures in Canada.
That discussion was initiated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and all hon. members who spoke after him were unanimous to conclude that the existing standards should be changed.
I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that this decision is complementary to the interview given by the president of the C.N.R. to a reporter of La Presse.
I am convinced the whole house will be happy about that decision which we hope will achieve good results.
2758	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) in expressing the congratulations of our party to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) and to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways for the action taken today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that the committee set up to find a solution to the treatment given French Canadians at all administrative levels in the C.N.R., will not have any difficulty in finding among French speaking Canadians men with the necessary qualifications to hold those important positions in the management of the C.N.R. There are such men in the two great nations that make up our country.
That committee will have an easy task, even an agreeable one if he will make it so.
We want also to warn those who are entrusted with that mission that the role of the members of parliament is not over now that a committee has been set up; they will have to see to it that measures follow the decisions taken on December 13.
A lot has been done already. But the work must go on until the great nations that make up our country can realize that their rights are entirely recognized, which will bring about understanding and harmony between our two great races.
(Text):


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, it is more than two years since I raised the issue, in this house and in the railway committee, concerning the fact that French Canadians were not represented on the executive board of the C.N.R., but at this time I would like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire); because previously when I raised the issue it did not seem to get the response that it has met very recently, and I think the hon. member for Lapointe and his colleagues may take some credit for the fact that there now seems to be a firmer and keener interest in biculturalism in the Canadian National than there has been in the past.
I would also like to express the hope that this move by the Canadian National, appreciated as it is, will not get in the way of the government's consideration of the other suggestion made by the chairman of the C.N.R., that we have a royal commission on this entire problem. I hope the government will not let this step interfere with serious consideration


of that point, and I particularly hope it will not take seriously some of the carping criticisms made in the house, especially by the official opposition, that there have been too many royal commissions. I know my party would welcome one in this particular field.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that so many of us on this side of the house are concerned about having the minister appear before the external affairs committee, I wonder whether events in Point Grey yesterday would have assisted the minister in changing his mind about leaving the federal cabinet?
Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Public
Works): Not at all, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, it seems to me the events in British Columbia yesterday have effectively disposed of the myth that there is only one alternative to socialism in British Columbia, namely the Social Credit party. That myth has been exploded.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is related to questions asked yesterday by myself and the hon. member for York South, and following perusal of the NATO ministers' communique which was tabled yesterday. Will the minister consider making a statement to the house, before we rise for Christmas, on Canada's position with regard to Portuguese actions in her African territories, in view of the absence of any reference to that question in the NATO communique?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position with regard to the situation in Angola has been very clear from the start. We have been against the action that has been taken there.



ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the

Secretary of State for External Affairs, based on an article which appeared in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen. Can the minister indicate to the house whether Canada is now prepared to join the organization of American states?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows this question has been under consideration for some time. When a decision is reached it will be announced in the usual way.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INJURIES TO CANADIAN JUDGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the house whether his officials have received any further report on the incident which took place in Brazil, in which two Canadian judges were injured?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no further report. I sent off a message this morning expressing sympathy for and admiration of the president of the Exchequer Court, and in addition giving our ambassador instructions to do everything he can to help.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF TERRITORIAL WATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether in his recent conversations with the secretary of state of the United States he had any opportunity informally to find out whether it would be possible to open active negotiations to secure a 12 mile fishing limit without further delay.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. That subject was not discussed in Paris.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege following the reply given by the Canada Council, which has violently denied charges that the Canada Council is illegally disposing of funds to loan companies.
Mr. Speaker, as recorded in Hansard of last Friday, I have never said that the Canada Council was disposing of funds to loan companies. I did say, however, that the Canada
Inquiries of the Ministry Council was lending money to companies at interest rates as low as 3i per cent. And, in order to support my contention, I should like to table the Canada Council report. You will note on page 167 that $300,000 was lent to the Industrial Acceptance Corporation on a promissory note bearing a 3\ per cent interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. An hon. member may rise on a question of privilege only if he can indicate that his words have been wrongly interpreted. There is no question of providing evidence and the hon. member cannot table these documents now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is not only a matter of interpretation. The statement I made has been denied, and I have the Canada Council document here to prove-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it is permissible to an hon. member to deny what has been said in the house but, in this case, he is denying something that has been said outside the house, thus raising a controversial issue.


Mr. Jean-Paul Cook (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister.
Can the right hon. gentleman tell the house whether he has received from the chairman of the Canada Council board of directors, Mr. Weldon, a communication explaining the policy of the council? And if such is the case, could he summarize it for the benefit of the house?
(Text):


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I have a lengthy statement here which was sent me by Dr. Trueman, director of the Canada Council, and by leave of the house I shall read that statement.
The Canada Council does not lend money to governments, corporations or individuals. It invests its funds, subject to the terms of the Canada Council Act, in securities which are sold in the market place, having due regard to the return from these securities, their term to maturity and their quality. These investments include the employment of funds for temporary periods in the short term market, and among the securities purchased are treasury bills, short term bonds and commercial and finance company notes. The investments in short term securities, as indeed in all the securities purchased, are made with the objective of maximizing the fund's income, and the selection of securities depends on their relative yield and quality at the time of purchase. The council is very much concerned that it obtain the highest possible return from its investments in its efforts to meet the urgent and growing demands upon it for scholarships and grants.
The investments of the Canada council are made on the recommendation of an investment committee, four members of which are appointed by the governor in council and one by the members of the council itself. At present the membership of

Inquiries of the Ministry the investment committee is as follows:	Mr. Graham Towers, former governor, the Bank of Canada; Mr. G. Arnold Hart, president and chief executive officer, the Bank of Montreal; Mr. Marcel Faribault, president and general manager, le Trust General du Canada; Mr. J. G. Hungerford, president, National Trust Company; and Mr. Weldon as chairman of the Canada Council.
The council's investments are carried out and supervised by the firm named in this statement. If there is any further information necessary in this connection it could be secured when the accounts of the Canada Council are before the public accounts committee.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger J. Teillei (St. Boniface):: Mr,
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Did the government first authorize, then rescind, an order for an air lift of food supplies to Indians in northern Manitoba, as reported from Winnipeg under date December 17, in the Toronto Globe and Mailt


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister tell us, because of the great public interest in this matter, what is being done about it?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, immediately there was any suggestion of difficulties in this particular area I instructed that an officer of the department, the assistant superintendent at The Pas, should go to the area and personally inspect the problems the Indians are alleged to be encountering. He has been there since last Thursday. He has been around and through more than half the homes in the area. There is no doubt that the economic conditions of some Indians in this area are not the best, but the reports which I have received by long distance telephone as late as this morning do not indicate that there is any emergency or that there is urgent need. The Indian agent has the fullest authority, on specific, direct instructions from me, to provide welfare when needed, and he is doing so. Arrangements are being made for a community development officer to be stationed in the area, and everything which can be done is being done. We will welcome the assistance of Christmas comforts from the Salvation Army but it did not seem necessary, or indeed realistic and practical, to have an air lift at the present time.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to direct to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the government investigated the charges made by Mr. Dins-more in the Toronto Star of December 15, regarding the exploitation of Indians in Manitoba? If so, what were the results of this investigation, and what action is contemplated?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with any charges made by Mr. Dins-more. I think the hon. gentleman would have to identify the matter more closely before I could reply.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of identifying for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the source of a question asked a moment ago, the charges are contained in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may pass it over, but he cannot proffer information in asking a question. If he has another question to ask he may do so, or he may send over the information.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: With all due respect, if I may I will repeat the question I asked earlier and identify it more clearly, which is what the minister requested me to do. The question I asked a moment ago was, has the minister or the government investigated the charges contained in an article written by Mr. Dins-more from Gods Lake Narrows, Manitoba under date of December 15, which appeared in the Toronto Star and is headed "Indians Sell Potatoes at 15 Cents and Buy Them Back at 25". If the government has investigated these charges what were the results and what action is contemplated?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the house this afternoon of the action which was taken. A senior officer of the department is in the area. He has been reporting to me daily and I have indicated that he has not found any suffering, privation or urgent need. He is under specific instructions to do everything possible to see that the welfare of these Indians is properly attended to.
(Translation):

USE OF FRENCH IN CORRIDORS BY MEMBERS* SECRETARIES
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Before putting it I might say that it could be made

a question of privilege, but I shall make it an ordinary question.
Following publication in the newspaper La Presse of December 12 of an alleged statement by a member of this house during a conference in Toronto, would the Prime Minister tell us if it is true that secretaries were not allowed to speak French in parliament halls before the totally unexpected arrival of Social Crediters, as Mr. Caouette suggested when he spoke to university students in Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the hon. member will admit that his question is out of order.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A moment ago, when I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, I said that if it was out of order, I would make it a question of privilege.
I should like to call to your attention a statement made by the hon. member for Villeneuve while he was addressing university students in Toronto. In fact, he stated that the members of his group had done a lot for French Canadians in parliament, and he went as far as saying that from now on the secretaries would not have to be ashamed to talk French in the corridors of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I have checked with the personnel of secretaries, and I have been informed that no member, either French or English speaking, had ever forbidden them to speak another language than English. In fact, they have always been free to speak the language they choose.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can discuss this point with the member for Villeneuve, but I suggest he has no question of privilege. In any case, he has made his statement.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, for I notice that the hon. member for Mercier is trying to look more important than he really is. That is why he picks on people who are more important than he is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to call the hon. members' attention to the rule dealing with the order which must prevail in this house. When a member rises on a point of order or on a question of privilege he is given the floor first, but when a question is out of order, like the one which was put a moment ago, there is a violation not only 27507-3-175
Inquiries of the Ministry of the procedure of the house, but also of the rights of other hon. members who may wish to put more serious questions.



REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HOLIDAYS FOR SESSIONAL STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Prosper Boulanger: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. We all know that there are only three working days between Christmas and New Years, that is December 26, 27 and 28. Here is my question.
Since several members' secretaries, messengers and pages live in eastern or western Canada, could the Prime Minister give those people a holiday during that period? Could he not get into the Christmas spirit and give them a well deserved holiday.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that this matter does not come under the Prime Minister but under the internal economy commission. All decisions in that regard have already been announced.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenfeuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. It concerns a statement made in the house last night by the hon. member for Villeneuve, to the effect that he would tell us a month ahead of time the date of the next election.
Can the right hon. gentleman tell the house whether he has arrived at an agreement with the hon. member for Villeneuve on the date of the forthcoming general election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I trust the hon. member was not expecting to get an answer to his question.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In order to check subversive ideas in this country, is it the government's intention to interdict the Liberal party, as there are socialists with communist tendencies within its ranks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish to bring to the attention of all hon. members the first and second paragraphs of Beauchesne's citation No. 171, because I have the impression that they are forgotten from time to time. It must be remembered that the rules of the house have to be observed and that we are not in school.
2762	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question on an urgent matter of national interest. Does the Prime Minister intend to carry out the wish expressed yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), by establishing a royal commission on bilingualism in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is aware that no question concerning a previous debate may be asked at this stage of the proceedings in this house.


Vincent Drouin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The question asked follows from the debate which took place yesterday. That debate will be continued, if ever we can get to that stage of the business of this house.
(Text):



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked me to see whether all three periods of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey games could be televised both on Wednesdays and Saturdays. I am advised by the officers of the corporation that they have no intention of altering the programming this year.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question relating to word that the Ontario government is presenting legislation which would effect an increase in remuneration for judges in Ontario. Could the minister indicate whether this initiative for higher incomes for judges is to be followed by other provincial governments or by the federal government?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the bill which was recently introduced in the Ontario legislature; I know only what I have


read in the newspapers about it. What is proposed in the measure introduced by the attorney general is that the payment made by the province to judges exercising jurisdic-diction in the surrogate courts of the province be increased. This is not new. The province has always either made a payment to the surrogate judges in lieu of fees or allowed them to receive the judicial fees from the business of the surrogate courts. This, then, represents simply an increase in the amount provided from that source. 1 have no knowledge whether other provinces intend to follow this example. As far as the federal government is concerned anything of this nature, of course, is a matter of government policy to be announced in the usual course.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles M. Drury (St. Antoine-Westmount):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Some time ago in answer to a question concerning the nomination of commissioners to the centennial commission the Prime Minister expressed the hope that he could get some unnamed gentleman on the payroll very soon. In view of the right hon. gentleman's impending departure for the sunny south, could he make an announcement soon?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is not going to be any departure to the sunny south. There is simply going to be an absence for a few days on official business. As to the hon. member's question, I can only say that the appointment is about to be made.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan).
Could the minister tell the house when it will be possible to rectify the gross injustices that exist in the industrial development bank, Where there are only two French Canadians among sixteen directors and only one French Canadian senior officer out of thirteen in the general manager's office in Montreal?

(Text):


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisier of Finance):: I have no personal knowledge of this matter. The industrial development bank has branches in various places, and I have no idea how the personnel is divided in particular areas.
I will be very glad to take a look at the matter and discuss it with the hon. member as soon as I get the information.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has the Canadian government made any formal representations to the government of the United States with respect to the decision of defence secretary McNamara to reduce foreign purchases for the United States defence department and his personally supervising and deciding on all orders over $100,000?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minisier of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been followed very closely and there has been a full discussion with Mr. McNamara and Mr. Rusk on just this question of production sharing and the other questions relating to research and development activities of the United States government here in Canada.



STATEMENT ON FURTHER SALE TO CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister advise the house, in so far as he is free to do so, with regard to the details of the most recent contract which the wheat board has negotiated with the government of China for the sale of wheat to that country?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for some time for that question to be asked from the official opposition. I am very glad to be able to give that information.
The recent contract was for 870,000 long tons of wheat. The amount is roughly 34 million bushels. The estimated value is approximately $65 million. This is part of the long term agreement. This is the seventh contract under the agreement which, as hon. members know, allows for purchase of up 27507-3-175J
Inquiries of the Ministry to 187 million bushels of wheat. This particular contract brings the total contract under that long term agreement up to 145 million bushels.
As previously, payment will be made in sterling. The terms are 25 per cent cash and 75 per cent on 365 days' credit with interest. This is an extension of three months from the previous credit terms granted. This transaction was completed within the $100 million credit guarantee made by the government to the wheat board in order to facilitate the sale of grain to China.
The wheat under this latest contract will be shipped from west coast ports, including Prince Rupert, during the first half of the calendar year 1963. I hope the railways and all those concerned will co-operate in meeting the heavy orders that will be moving through the west coast in the next few months.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question.


An hon. Member:: Peanuts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has a supplementary question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question following the very welcome announcement that has just been made by the Minister of Agriculture. May the house take it that the sale is a firm one, without it being necessary for the Minister of Agriculture to fly to Hong Kong in order to add his signature to the agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Spadina.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think this is an important question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Spadina.



INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE OF POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. P. Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Since the recent trouble in Cuba has there been any change in government policy with regard to trade with Cuba?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the policy with regard to trade with Cuba has been set out on a number of occasions in the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, in order to add a touch of colour to this question period, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General (Mrs. Fairclough). Is it a fact that the Conservative candidates who were defeated at the last election are keeping the patronage and contracts in the ridings where they were defeated?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member should put his question on the order paper if he is seeking some information or would he be only making an allegation?
(Text):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, as the government benches seem to be concerned about the lack of questions from the official opposition I should like to direct an urgent question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the report of the Gill committee which was commissioned to investigate the unemployment insurance fund was to have been tabled early in the fall, will the minister assure the house that if perchance this report is completed before the recess is over, he will mail the report to the members so they may study it during their absence from Ottawa?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think an assurance has been given, and will be carried out, that after the report is in the hands of the government hon. members will be given an opportunity to study it during the recess. I imagine that the only way they could study it during the recess would be if they received it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since we were supposed to have received this report last fall, can the minister assure the house that we will receive it soon?



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Nicholson (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. On


November 26 he replied to a question which I had asked earlier in the month with regard to appointment of a land use committee in connection with the land surrounding Vancouver harbour. This committee was promised in October, 1961. The minister stated that he expected shortly to announce the government's decision. May we expect that decision before the end of the year?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I would just repeat the answer which was previously given, namely that it will be announced shortly.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to either the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary secretary. On Wednesday, October 17, over two months ago, the house passed a motion of mine calling for the tabling of all correspondence with ministers of the government regarding pay increases and negotiating procedures for the civil service. Can something be done to expedite the tabling of this return?


George Ernest Halpenny: I will check into it, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what the situation is right now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State could give a progress report on the laborious task of preparing a list of returns that have not yet been made to the house.


George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, I suggested to the hon. member earlier this week or late last week that it would be tabled.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has his department been instructed to speed up the admission of immigrants since he became the minister in charge?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the department has been expeditious at all times.

Interim Supply
PUBLIC SERVICE	(Translation):



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SALARY INCREASES NOT ACTED UPON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position now to answer my questions of last week, as he indicated on Thursday and Friday he would try to do, with regard to whether there are any categories of civil servants for whom pay increases were recommended by the civil service commission but which were not granted by the government?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a report on this matter. I have been tied up with treasury board all week and have not had a chance to look into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Finance if he will do his best to have an answer to these questions before we adjourn on Thursday.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member knows that I always do my best.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $330,089,511.93 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, finance items 45 and 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources items 10, 45 and 90, public works items 5, 45, 70, 100, 105, 125, 145, 168 170, 180, 190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5, 15 and 25, transport items 35, 40, 60, 80, 85, 100, 125, 222 and 225 loans investments and advances item L20 $292,175,958;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of defence production item 25, external affairs item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 105, of the said revised estimates, $1,842,041.67;
(c)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(A)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, except external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, $8,738,178.92;
(d)	ten twelths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(B)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, $27,333,333.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.
["The hour for the consideration of private members' business having now expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.\n(Translation):", 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Paul in the chair.']
Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned last night, I was speaking of the joy of hon. members of the House of Commons at the thought of being able in 1967 to approach the centenary of our confederation, in a bilingual and bicultural atmosphere in this our Canada, which can certainly give the best way of life to a people who wants security and freedom, which is everybody's aim.
To come back to the budget we are now discussing, I understand that this budget was submitted last spring when there was no Social Credit member in the house, and when those who had had an opportunity of privately discussing monetary problems from the Social Credit angle at the time were also but few. That is why we are now asked to approve a budget which comprises such important amounts as $1,616,412,380, for national defence. We also see there other very large amounts like $788,181,300 for servicing the national debt, and we will be asked at the same time, to vote only $536 million for social security, under the Family Allowances Act.
As do quite a few other Canadian citizens, I consider social security as important as national defence. I also realize that, as in today's tormented world, whole nations have, under the pretext of ensuring their security, accepted to be crushed and dominated by world communism, the democratic countries must come to the fore, and that Canada in particular, because of its immense opportunities for the development of its natural wealth, should show leadership, but Canada should also give security and freedom to the Canadian people, to the fathers and mothers of families, by providing an amount higher than the $536 million which it has earmarked this year for family allowances, so that, thanks to this raise in family allowances, our Canadian families may enjoy a better standard of living, and all our small business people, in our villages and cities, may benefit every month from this increased buying power and keep their businesses at a sufficiently high level to make it worth their while.
I do not want to repeat what I said before on family allowances. But I mention it a second time because I consider this eminently social piece of legislation which was voted several years ago, extremely significant. I shall not quote any figures, this year, with regard to a substantial increase under that legislation, because I want to prevent the present minister from committing the same

Interim Supply
error as the Liberals in 1957, when they increased family allowances by only one dollar, hoping to persuade every Canadian into voting for them again.
Now, as I said a moment ago, we are called upon to vote a budget on the preparation of which we have in no way been consulted. However, I suppose it will be our duty to approve it since we shall have to approve or reject the current expenses, required by this government. However, knowing that another budget will be prepared during January, February or March, I hope that the Christmas and New Year spirit will inspire those responsible for the budget to provide more for family allowances so as to somewhat rejoice the hearts of many mothers who are now suffering from insecurity.
Yesterday, I made reference to hundreds of letters I have received. By doing so, I did not want to discredit certain families in Beauce who are going through hardship. In fact, if the people knew their member a little better in all our Canadian ridings, in the cities, particularly cities like Quebec, in Montreal and Toronto, they would send more letters describing the extreme poverty in which they live, having very little to put on the table, lacking the necessaries of life, and in need of a little more of the comfort and cares required for the better health of a growing generation. And we would not have to see, as we did during the last world war, enlistment in the active army of our country denied to 30 or 35 per cent of our young people because they had been underfed when they were growing up during the 1930-39 depression, under both Liberal and Conservative governments.
I hope that 1963 will bring more than an austerity budget, a budget which has been prepared last spring and which is being brought forward in slices of two twelfths, six twelfths or eleven twelfths-as one of our hon. friends opposite was telling us yesterday -thus forcing us to vote it or to accept it by piecemeal. I hope that the next budget which will be brought down when this session reconvenes, after the holidays adjournment, will include a more adequate sum as regards social security for fathers and mothers, as well as for children, these children who are growing up and who need to be better understood than we were when we were 16, 17 or 18 years old.
In 25 years from now, we should not have what are still being called, in 1962, children of the depression of the thirties.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that those wishes are shared by many of us. I know that hon. members sitting on the government side have been hoping for many years to see a substantial increase in the family allowances under this eminently social piece of legislation. I have also had the opportunity to discuss privately this family allowances problem with members from the party sitting next to us in this house, and they too believe there is urgency for a substantial increase in family allowances which are now distributed in this country.
I hope that after the discussion on this budget, putting aside all political partisanship, it will be realized that tomorrow's economy will have to be directed more and more towards a distributive economy.
Let us then start by improving the legislation we already have. I therefore hope, speaking for myself and for the people of the county of Beauce, that the next federal budget will provide more than $536 million for family allowances and social security in our country.
(Text):


Mr. Beer:: Mr. Chairman, I assume it is obvious or soon will be obvious that this is my initial contribution to the twenty fifth parliament of Canada. Since it is alleged that the life of this parliament hangs in the balance, I am at a loss to know whether I am making my maiden speech or delivering my farewell sermon. In any case, I believe that can only be decided posthumously.
By way of personal introduction I wish to say I have the honour and the responsibility of representing the constituency of Peel. To many of you my constituency will be known as the constituency that was so well represented by the late Mr. Gordon Graydon, who sat in this house and served this country well for 18 years and who occupied the seat immediately in front of the one from which I speak today. Of his enormous talents he gave unselfishly and without regard for his own health or his own wealth. Peel county and Canada were greatly enriched by his service, strengthened by his honour and his personal integrity and encouraged by the warmth of his personality. His passing left an insatiable vacuum in the public life of Peel county and indeed in the public life of Canada.
By way of further introduction I wish to remind this committee that Peel county is known to those of us who reside in it as the banner county of the province of Ontario. We believe we have some justification for thinking this way because Peel is a very rich and

productive agricultural area, and in addition there is a very large urban population. There has been, or there was up until 1957, a very rapid industrial growth in this area. I am pleased to suggest also that this industrial development had attained such momentum prior to 1957 that it has continued at a reasonably satisfactory rate until the present.
The purpose of debate on interim supply is to provide hon. members with an opportunity to question and criticize the government on its policies. It is a great pleasure for me to participate in this debate even though we have not as yet had an opportunity to debate a budget. Today we are asked to approve of ten twelfths of the over-all appropriation without having had a real look at some of the forward looking measures that were supposed to be envisaged-and I use that word advisedly-in the speech from the throne.
I wish to deal with three main headings in my remarks, two of a general nature and one specifically directed to eastern agriculture. Speaking in this house some few weeks ago the hon. member for York South suggested that the Liberal members were acting as though they had been out of power for 50 years instead of five years. In reply I wish to suggest that the economic decline was so great in the last five years and unemployment was so severe, and with five whopping deficits in a row, that it would not require a lot of imagination to believe in fact that the Liberals had been out of power for 50 years.
The government seemed to take considerable pride in its introduction of the Farm Credit Act and the amendments thereto, and I suggest this was a very appropriate and responsible action to take. I would remind the committee that this is a measure which makes a larger sum of money available for loans to farmers, and I say it was a very responsible and appropriate action because farmers always need more credit under a Tory administration than under a Liberal administration.
As a farmer I am not only interested in making money available to farmers at 5 per cent. I am interested in seeing to it that all our people, our small business people and home owners, have money available to them at lower rates of interest; because you cannot bleed people white with high interest rates and then expect them to buy all the manufactured articles which you wish to sell them. If the people are not able to buy the manufactured articles then the manufacturer has no choice but to discontinue manufacturing them, and if he does that he has no further choice but to discharge or displace some of his employees. These high interest rates, which go back to the conversion loan
Interim Supply
policy of the government, have had a very substantial effect on the decrease in our economic growth and on the high unemployment we have experienced since that policy was introduced.
In my opening remarks concerning the constituency of Peel I should have reminded this committee that Peel was the home of the Avro Arrow before its untimely demise in 1958, and as a farmer I suggest to the government that I am just as much interested in economic growth and development as I am in agriculture. There used to be a saying that if the agricultural community was prosperous then so also was the rest of the country. That is not true in Canada today, and as a farmer I suggest that if our economic community is prosperous, and if our business community is active, then so will our farmers be reasonably prosperous. I also suggest that the government cannot throw important industries out the window and expect our economic growth to continue at a high level.
Dealing briefly with the Avro Arrow affair, I say that no one on this side of the house would question the right of the government to cancel government contracts. Certainly the government has information at its disposal which we do not have, information on which to base its decisions; but where there is right there is also responsibility, and I believe the government had a responsibility, before cancelling the Arrow, to endeavour to find other projects which would employ the people they proposed to displace.
Second, I believe it is incumbent upon the government to endeavour by every means possible to retain our young and skilled people in the country in order to make our country grow. As I said earlier I, as a farmer, am as interested in seeing substantial economic development as I am in the policies which affect me personally, and I wish now to deal with eastern agriculture.
First I want to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture for performing his duties to the very best of his ability, but I think eastern agriculture has been conspicuously absent so far from our deliberations in this house. I have not the exact quotation with me and if I misinterpret his remarks I would apologize and endeavour to make a correction, but speaking in Calgary some time last summer the minister made a statement to the effect "that now everything is in good shape in western Canada I am going to devote all my attention to eastern Canada." In substantiating that statement I would refer to page 688 of Hansard for October 18, 1962, where the minister is reported as having said precisely what I have indicated, and I think it is not necessary to read it into the record.

Interim Supply
The minister has made a few speeches concerning agriculture in eastern Canada, in one of which he told the farmers "If you fellows don't cut down on your dairy production we are going to cut off your supports," and his second suggestion was that a lot of the farms now in dairy production should be transferred into beef production. I learned two or three things as a youngster, and one I remember particularly was that when young folks talk to old folks they should know what they are talking about. I suggest that when the Minister of Agriculture starts telling farmers they should transfer from dairy production to beef production he is making a very dangerous recommendation. It is quite possible for a farmer with a few cows to milk those cows and make a living for his family, whereas if he transfers into beef production he gets involved in securing more capital and a lot larger acreage of land to engage in one of the most highly specialized games I know of. Therefore I say that his suggestion to the farmers of eastern Canada to transfer from dairy production into beef production is a very dangerous one indeed.
I am surprised that someone has not found an opportunity to address the committee on the parable of the prodigal son. We all remember how the prodigal son dissipated his reserves through irresponsible spending and, because of his ill conceived policies, was confronted with austerity and what are now known in this house as emergency measures. These austerity measures have had a far reaching effect on eastern agriculture, and time will only permit me to mention two of the ways in which they have this effect.
I first want to mention the recognized need for the government to reduce the premium on grade A hogs. This was a premium for the production of quality hogs, and its abolition is going to take between $2.3 million and $2.4 million out of the pockets of many farmers in eastern Canada. In my opinion this austerity measure will hurt farmers in general.
Because of austerity some of the essential services to farmers are being curtailed and discontinued. I want to mention the dairy industry in particular. The dairy industry of this country is a very substantial one, and I do not believe that any phase of livestock production in this country has made a greater contribution to our economic well-being than has dairying. The inventory of dairy cows in Canada runs to approximately $6 million. Our milk production last year amounted to well over half a billion dollars-$616 million. Our exports amounted to $14 million. Then we have the slaughter value of the dairy cattle. Somebody is probably apt to ask me "Well, how can you get $14 million worth

of exports out of a $6 million inventory?" The answer to that question is simply this, that according to the Canada Year Book the average value of all cows in milk production is $198 per head, which is how we arrive at a $6 million inventory, whereas the cattle exported to other countries are much more valuable and probably average in the neighbourhood of $500 each.
Mr. Chairman, I suppose the dairy cow has not been dignified by having been mentioned in the House of Commons since 1957, but I make no apology for mentioning it at this particular time. A dairy cow is an animal which gets a lot of pleasure out of consuming large amounts of feed and providing milk to feed the human race. As in all animals there is a difference in the degree of efficiency, so yardsticks have been established for measuring the efficiency of a dairy cow in turning feed or fodder into milk. There are three main yardsticks in use. One is known as ROP or record of performance. This is used by purebred breeders. There are two plans, A and B. They weigh the milk from these cows daily. At regular intervals government inspectors come in and check the weighing of the milk. They also draw samples, and it is on this basis that the butterfat content is computed. Then we have a system known as DHIA, which is dairy herd improvement association. This is used largely in Ontario as a yardstick for measuring the efficiency of grade herds. Then in Quebec, in addition to the systems I have mentioned, there is another system known as the mail order record whereby the farmer weighs the milk regularly and sends in his statement, and an unofficial record is submitted.
Some hon. members may wonder what this has to do with a debate on interim supply. Well, in the first place I want to say that the backbone of the livestock industry is the purebred breeder. This is the man in the dairy business who is using the ROP system or making ROP records. It is suggested by animal geneticists that at least 25 per cent of all our dairy cattle should be under some system of record of performance. For example, in the United States their average is much higher than ours. The number of dairy cattle on ROP in some states in that country runs as high as 47 per cent of all dairy cattle. There are other states which grade down from that figure to 25 per cent, and so on. In Europe all countries, excluding France, test 24 per cent of all their dairy cattle, and in Canada we test 8.2 per cent. The value of these records has been ascertained through a study which extended over a three year period in which 9,000 cows were sold at public auctions, and it was established that the cows which had ROP records sold

for an average of $100 more than the cows which did not. So I suggest that records of performance have a very real value to the dairy producer in Canada, especially in view of the fact that we export tremendous numbers of dairy cattle each year.
It is my information that this government, as a result of austerity, has found it necessary to cut down or curtail this service. I have been advised that it has issued instructions that if any ROP inspector retires or passes out of the picture for one reason or another he is not to be replaced and will not be replaced until such time as this service is cut down to 75 per cent of its present volume. At the moment 95,000 cows in Canada are tested, and we have engaged in this particular type of work 188 inspectors. There are 102 in Ontario. The total cost of this service is approximately $1 million per year, so that if it is cut down to 75 per cent it will involve a saving of $250,000. I think this is probably false economy. I suggest to the government that in this way our austerity at this particular time is hurting farmers in Canada by limiting these essential farm services, and this is important business for us.
Therefore, in summing up, I am disappointed that austerity has made it necessary to reduce premiums on better quality hogs and that it has made it necessary to reduce these essential services to farmers. I also regret that this government has not embraced the problem of marketing agricultural products on a national basis; that it has not brought up for review the standards and grades affecting all farm products, and in particular livestock products. I am equally disappointed that there does not appear to be any recommendation regarding the health of animals and meat inspection, which was so widely mentioned in the press not many months ago. In fact this government has proven itself quite incapable of presenting to parliament any comprehensive plan for agriculture.
One of the things I learned in my youth was that it is a pretty poor concern about which you cannot say something good. I want to say about this government that I think they did a wonderful job in 1957 and 1958 in promising their way into power. I also suggest that they were fortunate in being able to purchase a short term lease of life in 1962. This reminds me of a little story. I had an Irish neighbour who said he had a hired man who was such a poor planner that he could not plan his way out of a pigsty even if both ends were open. I do not think that is true of this government, but 27507-3-176
Interim Supply
I am suggesting that in the event of fire they might have difficulty in deciding which exit to use.


Mr. Douglas:: Yesterday we had a useful discussion on the need for a better appreciation and understanding of the fact that Canada is a binational, bicultural and bilingual country. I think all of us were glad there was general unanimity in recognizing that if we are to have and preserve national unity in this country it can only be done by recognizing that there is a partnership in confederation which brought together the two great races, the two great cultures, which make up this country of ours.
Last night my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre pointed out that the New Democratic party has long advocated this approach. I will quote a paragraph or two from the platform which was adopted at the founding conference in August, 1961. Under the heading "Co-operative Federalism" it says:
The New Democratic party strongly affirms its belief in a federal system which alone ensures the united development of the two nations which originally associated to form the Canadian partnership, as well as that of other ethnic groups which later made Canada their home. Canada's constitution particularly guarantees their culture. The New Democratic party will fully maintain and respect these guarantees. Canadian federalism must provide for the protection of cultural, religious and other democratic rights, permit the vigorous and balanced growth of the country as a whole, and assure provincial autonomy.
It goes on to say:
Immediately following confederation, a federal minister was given special responsibility for relations with the provinces. It is time to revive this post. The New Democratic government will create a department of federal-provincial relations to maintain and extend co-operation with the provinces, to co-ordinate and act as a special secretariat for joint committees and councils.
Then on February 20 last, in the city of Montreal, I issued a joint statement along with the president of the provisional council of the New Democratic party for the province of Quebec. Again I should like to put on record a paragraph or two from that statement because at that time we advocated what is now being suggested, namely the setting up of a royal commission to look into how we might better implement the idea of a binational, bicultural and bilingual society. This is the statement:
Canadians must face the fact that, almost a hundred years after confederation, our federal-provincial and French-English relations continue to be seriously unsettled and unsatisfactory. The New Democratic party believes we must not permit this situation to drift until it gets out of hand. We believe there is urgent need for a thorough study of our experience of Canadian federalism and for a careful rethinking of the relations between the two nations which together make up the basic partnership in confederation.

Interim Supply
To this end, the federal and Quebec executives of the New Democratic party propose that a federal-provincial commission on Canadian federalism and biculturalism be immediately constituted. Such a commission should bring together and draw upon the experience and knowledge of outstanding Canadians from all parts of the country. It should hold public hearings throughout the country and invite representatives of every section of the Canadian community to present their point of view and make recommendations for appropriate action.
The New Democratic party believes that a new approach is necessary on the important problem of Canada's unity. We believe that the program adopted at our founding convention, with its pioneering conception of co-operative federalism, presents such a new approach. True Canadian unity depends on equal recognition and respect for both the main cultures of our country and this is the basis on which the New Democratic proposals are formulated.
However, the task we face as a country must be understood by all our people and this requires much more intensive thought and study.
The commission of inquiry proposed in this statement will provide the fullest opportunity for such further study. Naturally, the personnel of the commission is a matter for the government in power to decide. To illustrate the calibre of Canadian we have in mind, we mention such outstanding people as the following:-
M. Andre Laurendeau, editor in chief of Le Devoir; Professor W. L. Morton, chairman of the department of history of the University of Manitoba; M. Gerard Pelletier, editor of La Presse; Dr. N. A. M. Mackenzie, president of the University of British Columbia; Professor Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, professor of public law, Universite de Montreal; Mr. Kurt Swinton, president of Encyclopedia Britannica of Canada; M. Jean Marchand, president of the confederation of national trade unions; Dean F. R. Scott, of McGill's faculty of law; M. Jean-Louis Gagnon, editor of Le Nouveau Journal; M. Claude Jodoin, president, Canadian Labour Congress; Dean H. E. Read, faculty of law, University of Dalhousie; Mr. Blair Fraser, editor, Maclean's.
Canadians of this stature-and one could name many others-would make a lasting contribution to the constitutional and cultural future of Canada. The New Democratic party urges that the commission should be appointed now, without delay, so that Canada may celebrate the hundredth anniversary of confederation as a united country, with clear guide lines for the future.
We should like to see such a commission established, and we hope the government will give this suggestion serious consideration. But there are many things which could he done now. The civil service commission could review its whole policy of recruitment. I have been appalled, as have many other hon. members, to see the dearth of French Canadians in some of the upper brackets of both the departments and the crown corporations. It is the sheerest nonsense to say this is because there is not an adequate number of French Canadians with the necessary training or qualifications to fill these positions. The civil service commission needs to follow a policy of recruitment under which French Canadians with the necessary training and experience could be made understudies so they might automatically move into the higher positions

in both the public service and in the crown corporations. This is something we have needed to do for a long time.
I was impressed by the eloquent plea made last night by the hon. member for Laurier when he asked members in all parts of the house to give their support to this idea. I would have been more impressed if I could have forgotten that he and his associates sat on the treasury benches for 22 years during which time they had ample opportunity to carry out that kind of recruitment program, a program which would have seen to it that trained French Canadians occupied senior positions in the service of the government of Canada.
The organization and methods division of the civil service commission could also reexamine the whole administrative structure to ensure that we are operating as a bilingual and binational country. I am told that in many departments letters come in French, are translated into English, the whole problem is dealt with on an English basis, then the answer is dictated in English, that letter is translated into French. This is a hangover from Canada's colonial days. An entirely new approach must be made to our administrative set-up.
There are further measures which we have been advocating, together with other members. There is the question of a national flag, a national anthem, and a constitution fully amendable in Canada. These are goals whose attainment should be proceeded with now. While I do not want to inject a partisan note into the discussion, let me say to the hon. member for Laurier who was telling the government the other night that this was their responsibility, and that they must take the initiative-and I fully agree with him- that I cannot help remembering that the Liberal government set up a parliamentary committee on a national flag which sat for two years, collecting hundreds of designs, and then dropped the matter like a hot potato. I think the time has come for all of us in all parts of the House of Commons seriously to set ourselves to the task of acquiring these national symbols which will give to the Canadian people a sense of national pride so that we can reach our centenary with a sense of greatness and a sense of belonging to a nation which has become of age.
I wish to underline what was said by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre last evening on this whole question of supply and the granting of money to the government. I think this parliament has really been a shameful exhibition. It is the privilege of members, before voting money, to be able to query ministers; to ascertain

what money is being spent for; and to ascertain what the government's policy is. During this period of almost three months in which this parliament has been in session we have been unable to discharge that responsibility. When we try to move to adjourn the house in order to discuss a matter of public importance, we are told that the matter is not urgent. When we ask questions on the orders of the day, we are told that these matters are more properly for discussion when the estimates come up for consideration. However, no estimates have come up for consideration, except for a few hours when we discussed the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. When we come to discuss interim supply we find that many of the ministers are absent. During Thursday and Friday of last week hardly any ministers were present. With the exception of the Minister of Justice and the Associate Minister of National Defence, no minister has taken part in the debate or made a government statement on the many questions which have been raised in the course of this debate.
When this supply motion passes, parliament will have voted to the government between $3,000 million and $4,000 million without having had an opportunity to pass a single estimate or an opportunity to interrogate a single minister. I must say that I have been disappointed that, with respect to the various questions that have been raised during the course of this debate, no statements have been forthcoming from the ministers of the crown. Let me just touch on a few of the items. Some of my colleagues raised the matter of the Columbia river treaty which is now almost two years old. Parliament has had no opportunity to discuss it. It has not been referred to the committee on external affairs. There are many questions to which members of this House of Commons have a right to get an answer. For instance, we wish to know why the McNaughton plan was shelved in favour of the plan which is incorporated into the treaty. I think we have a right to know why a treaty was signed with the United States prior to an agreement being signed with the province of British Columbia.
Many of us wish to know if this treaty leaves the Canadian government with authority to divert sufficient water to meet our expanding needs for irrigation and for domestic and industrial consumption. This matter is important not only to the people of British Columbia, although for them it is important as there are large areas of British Columbia in which irrigation would be of value. The members who come from the prairies know that if only 10 per cent of the 27507-3-176i
Interim Supply
flow of the Columbia river were diverted into the Nelson river basin it would double the flow of the South Saskatchewan river, a result which would be of immense value to the farmers in the three prairie provinces.
I think we have a right to know whether or not the government intends to facilitate the sale of downstream power benefits. The Minister of Public Works, when he was minister of justice and was speaking in Prince George on November 28, 1961, stated the government's position clearly and beyond any shadow of doubt. He said this:
Canada is opposed to the sellout of the power we are entitled to under the treaty. Canada is opposed to long term contracts tying up Columbia downstream benefits. This would confer an enormous benefit on the Americans but, we are not prepared to permit that at the expense of British Columbia. The Bennett-United States squeeze play won't work. The power sellout has to be resisted.
Then he went on to say this:
This is a sensible, practical and mutually profitable arrangement between two neighbours. To exchange it for a penny-wise-and-pound-foolish agreement under which this country would dispose of a great resource in its entirety would be sheer madness.
It would be an act of such reckless and improvident philanthropy that would make this country the laughing stock of the world.
I submit that it will make us an even greater laughing stock if we supinely surrender and agree to the sale of these downstream benefits. Any excuse that this is being done in order to get United States dollars is surely a very lame one indeed, since the need for United States dollars is a short term requirement. The need for this power is something which will affect this country for many years to come. To me it is amazing that in this whole debate no minister from the government has stood up in order to clarify the government's position. It is true that the Minister of Public Works interrupted the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard two or three times but, although we invited him to do so, he has made no statement clarifying the government's position.
There is also the matter of defence which I might mention. The Canadian people are anxiously waiting for some clear cut statement on the government's position with regard to nuclear arms, either with regard to whether we are going to have nuclear arms on Canadian soil, or whether NATO is going to become a nuclear power. From the Secretary of State for External Affairs and from the Minister of National Defence we have had contradictory statements. From the Prime Minister we have had some soporific platitudes. However, we have had no clear cut statement as to what the government's intention is. In the money we are voting there is money for defence, without our having

Interim Supply
any opportunity to discuss and debate what the government's defence policy is. It is common knowledge that there is now a good deal of pressure to have NATO become a nuclear power. At the meeting of NATO parliamentarians the under secretary of the United States said that the United States government was willing to consider a request to make NATO a nuclear power. Yesterday in his report on the NATO meeting of last week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the house that there was discussion among the nations meeting there of the possibility of setting up medium ballistic missiles if they could be kept under some form of control. If the government is going to make a decision like this, I submit that it should be made only after there has been the fullest opportunity for debate in this House of Commons, so that members in all parts of the house can express their views, and that it should not be given to us merely as a fait accompli.
The government's position is as yet undisclosed. The Liberal party's position is also not too clear. I congratulate the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount on the excellent presentation he made the other day. I take it from his statement that the Liberal party, if NATO expresses its desire to become a nuclear power, would agree that Canada should acquiesce in that regard. As a matter of fact, according to the press the hon. member for Trinity has gone even further and suggested that we ought to enter into an agreement with the United States for nuclear weapons.
In my view there is an opportunity now for all parties in the house to state clearly where they stand on this important matter. I want to say that as far as this group is concerned we are convinced that the meagre military gains from making NATO a nuclear power would be more than offset by the tragic consequences of increasing the membership of the nuclear club. Making NATO a nuclear power is an open invitation to the Warsaw pact nations also to become a nuclear force. If the Cuban crisis demonstrated anything, it demonstrated that there was great apprehension on the North American continent when it was found that there were nuclear missiles within 90 miles of the shore of this continent.
I think we should consider what would be the effect on the Warsaw pact nations if there were nuclear weapons in the possession of West German forces, even though they were under some type of NATO control, because how effective that control would be would always be in question. I cannot imagine any

way in which you would harden the situation in middle Europe more than by having West Germany armed with nuclear weapons.
We in this group believe that the ultimate hope of the world and of maintaining peace is that eventually we shall be able to get a ban on nuclear testing and that eventually we will get nuclear disarmament under international inspection and control. That is a long, hard road and it will only come about if we can lessen the tensions which are abroad in the world. We suggest that making NATO a nuclear power will not lessen the tensions but will increase them. It will harden the situation, which will make the cessation of nuclear tests and a program of nuclear disarmament much less likely to succeed.
We contend that if Canada becomes a nuclear power it will weaken our moral authority. It will lessen our effectiveness to work for mutual disarmament between the great powers in the world.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If it does not take up my time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have been following his remarks very closely. I should like to know what in his opinion was the deterrent that caused Russia to remove her nuclear weapons from Cuba during the Cuban crisis?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not sure that is relevant to what I am talking about. If my hon. friend is talking about deterrents, may I point out that the United States today has a deterrent power about ten times as great as that of the Soviet union. We have an adequate deterrent power now and the choice we have in the world is whether we are going to develop two great armed camps each equipped with a nuclear deterrent and with no room for flexibility, resulting in an impasse out of which there can come only one thing, a war of annihilation. The alternative is to have sufficient flexibility so that nations like Canada can help to lessen the tension and prepare the way so that we can move step by step toward a cessation of nuclear tests, and the achievement of nuclear disarmament and eventually general disarmament.
One of the steps that could be taken is military disengagement through central Europe, including Berlin. No one can long maintain a static situation with two great powers increasing their deterrent capacity, because this will eventually lead to war unless something is done to lessen these tensions. We believe that Canada can play an important role in this regard and that our best military

role probably lies best in contributing conventional forces to NATO. But even more important is our diplomatic role in which we can be a power that has the confidence of other nations. Because we are a non-nuclear power, because we have no territorial ambitions and because we are not a colonial power we can help to negotiate, to lessen tensions, and thus help lay the groundwork for a peaceful solution.


Mr. Matheson:: May I ask a question on that point?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


John Ross Matheson: Does the hon. member not feel that when this government in September, 1958, selected the Bomarc, and in July, 1959, selected the CF-104, and in March, 1960, selected the Honest John, in effect they decided the policy for Canada without giving us any chance to debate it or to consider the implications of this selection of weapons, and that to some extent we are now involved in an alliance with allies to whom we have certain obligations, not because parliament had any choice in the matter but because this government-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is not asking a question; he is making a speech, and he is perfectly at liberty to do so when I have finished. I have been saying all over the country that the moment we committed ourselves to weapons which are useless without nuclear warheads we are ipso facto committed to a nuclear program and this is one of the things to which I object. I am raising the matter now because I suspect that we are again being led down the garden path and are going to find ourselves part of an alliance which is going to become a nuclear power, with the result that we will have no choice but to become a member of the nuclear club or to withdraw from the NATO alliance.
I see that my time is going, Mr. Chairman, but there are two or three other items that have been raised in this debate and on which we have had no reply from the government. Before I leave defence I should like to say that I support those who have been advocating that we should have a defence committee. Even if in that committee we could not agree completely on a non-partisan defence policy we would at least have common and reliable information, so that the members of that committee would have all the facts regarding Canada's defence forces and would be able to formulate their ideas of what should be done in the light of those facts and not on the basis of bits of information which members have to pick up from time to time.
There are two other matters I want to raise, and I will deal with them in a sentence
Interim Supply
or two. I want to raise the matter of R.C.M.P. interrogation of students and members of faculties on the campuses of universities. The other day the Minister of Justice made two statements which in my opinion were quite specious and quite evasive. He said with reference to these interrogations: "No such instructions have been given by me". Second, he said, "No special security investigations are being conducted on university campuses". This is playing with words, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps no special instructions have been given by the minister, but there are standing instructions. This questioning and interrogating of students and members of faculties of universities has been going on, and as far as we can learn it is still going on. It may be that there are no special security investigations, but the fact is that there are investigations. The Minister of Justice is not here and since he is not here I will give specific instances during the consideration of his estimates, instances which are on the record. Interrogations have been conducted, not because some student was applying for a job but students who were interrogated, and their parents interrogated, because those students took part in a ban the bomb demonstration. If the minister will look up his departmental files he will find records sent to him by the attorney general of Saskatchewan concerning interrogations which took place in that province in the year 1961.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Rémi Paul: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the committee to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to thank the committee and I can assure you I will not encroach upon its generosity.
I should like to say, with reference to this question of the R.C.M.P., that this is a continuous policy that has been carried out. No one in this party or anywhere in the house will ever object to the enforcement of law or to the arrest or punishment of those who, by overt actions, are seeking to overthrow democratic government by the use of force. However, when we prosecute innocent people on the basis of secret reports which they have never seen, on the basis of gossip, on the basis of evidence from stool pigeons, we violate the basic tenets of justice and of the bill of rights. I am prepared, when we get to the estimates of the Department of Justice, to document some of the things which I know personally have happened. I do not lay this

Interim Supply
at the door of the present Minister of Justice. This has been going on for many years, both under this government and the former government.
The other matter I want to raise is the abandonment of railway lines on the prairies. I hope some opportunity will be given for discussing this subject. I hope we shall have some statement from the government at an early date because this is a pressing matter. As a matter of fact, I understand the premiers of the three prairie provinces are calling a conference to consider this subject. They will undoubtedly be making representations to the government as a group. I know some of them have already made representations to the government individually.
In a nutshell the situation is this, Mr. Chairman. The royal commission on transportation, in its report, said that there were about 4,300 miles of light density lines on the prairies. The Canadian National has informed the three prairie governments that there are about 2,200 miles of railway lines that are candidates for abandonment. Mr. R. A. Emerson, the operating vice president of the Canadian Pacific, has indicated there are about 2,500 miles. This means that there are between 4,000 and 5,000 miles of line that may be abandoned, and between 2,000 and 3,000 miles of this is in the province of Saskatchewan.
I will not take the time of the committee to go into what it means to have lines abandoned, to leave small communities in rural areas without railway transportation for shipping their products; the loss of investment in grain elevators, places of business and homes that have been constructed along those railway lines. What I do want to point out is that the royal commission on transportation recommended that if there were to be a program of abandonment it should be conducted in an orderly manner; that there should be a five year period of adjustment between the time permission was granted to abandon the line and putting the abandonment into effect. It was recommended there should be larger depreciation allowances to ease the adjustment, and other forms of compensation.
Mr. Donald Gordon, president of Canadian National Railways, has advocated that a master plan should be drawn up so that the citizens would know what lines were going to be abandoned and when they were going to be abandoned. He advocated that this be done in an orderly fashion. I should like to suggest to the government that representations should be made to the board of transport commissioners that no more abandonment be authorized until the government has formulated a policy and a master plan containing adequate compensation provisions.
IMr. Douglas.]
Already over 180 miles of line in Saskatchewan have been abandoned or are the subject of applications for abandonment. The chairman of the board of transport commissioners quite properly said that legally he must hear these applications and he must pass upon them. It is not his business to hold them up until the government has produced a master plan.
I hope that before we come to the next request for interim supply the government will be prepared to give some statement to the committee concerning their program and that in the meantime they will make representations to the board of transport commissioners to hold up any further authorization for abandonments.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have dealt with several matters, concerning all of which we would like an opportunity to question the ministers, and to hear from them statements of policy. When we come back after the recess we will be asked to pass the eleventh twelfth of these estimates. I should like to say that we should not then be blackmailed into passing them by being told, "We must have this money passed in two or three days, otherwise we cannot pay the civil service." I think we have a right to expect that when the interim supply motion is considered again we are going to get adequate replies to some of these questions, and we are going to have an adequate opportunity to question the responsible ministers regarding the supply which they are asking this parliament to pass for them.
(Translation):


Mr. Sauve:: Mr. Chairman, we have been in session for 58 days, as shown on the order paper, and, all the while, we have been entitled to ask ourselves what the government intends to do about the great problems facing this country.
I quite understand why the government decided to wait until September 27 to convene the twenty fifth parliament for its first session. That does not surprise me at all. I also understand why, in a few days, the government will give us a month's holiday. It is because it has not been able to prepare legislation to deal with the great problems that are crushing the people.
The government is undecided; it does not know where it is going. The fact is borne out by the speech from the throne of the first session of the twenty fifth parliament and that of the last session of the twenty fourth parliament. Those two speeches are almost alike. If, at the time of the last session of the twenty fourth parliament, we were faced with important problems, if, at the opening of the current session, we were faced

with even more serious problems, as the Prime Minister indicated after the election, I completely fail to see why the government persists in refusing to adopt a definite policy concerning the great problems of the moment.
At the opening of the last session, a series of measures had been proposed. We came back to parliament on September 27, and the problems were still the same. We had been told that the problems were very serious.
The government, in my opinion, is incapable of dealing with the situation. We are now at our third interim supply. For the third time since the beginning of the session, the government is asking us for interim supply. We are still without a budget and we know that, upon our return in January, the government will again ask us for interim supply.
When will the government bring down a budget?
On the other hand, we know also that within the cabinet there is not so much unity as discord. In fact, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton) has seen fit, only a few months before the general election, to leave this house in order to become the leader of a provincial party which is not represented in the legislature.
Ministers are absent from the house when we are discussing legislation which the government tells us or would have us believe is important legislation. They are not here for the examination of their own interim supply. That is strange; where could they be? They must have very good reasons for being absent from the house.
When you look at the present situation, it is obvious that the government does not know where it is going.


Rémi Paul: Order. The hon. member's speech is very interesting and I should like to hear it. I am sure all other hon. members will agree with me and kindly co-operate.
(Text) :


Mr. McGee:: Would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member was mentioning absenteeism, and I wonder if he could tell us where he was during the Quebec election?


Some hon. Members:: Winning it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where was your party?


Maurice Sauvé: If the hon. member does not know, then he does not follow what is happening in this country.
Interim Supply


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where was the Tory party in the Quebec election?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, hon. members on at least two occasions have noticed the filibuster engaged in by members of the government party on two bills. They were so much afraid of presenting new legislation that they kept on questioning and questioning various ministers. We have never seen filibustering conducted this way. May I add that in another field the government is also avoiding its responsibility; we know very well that the establishment of a national flag and anthem is solely the responsibility of the federal government. However, the government is calling a federal-provincial conference and leaving it to the provinces to decide. Then it will say to the provinces "We cannot get an agreement; it is your fault, not our fault."


Mr. Ricard:: Why did you not have them before 1957?


Maurice Sauvé: As my hon. friends who are learned in economics would say, when there is no input there can be no output.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, this government has no policy, either with regard to all the great Canadian issues or in respect of significant international problems.
Indeed, last September, all Canadians were ashamed of the attitude taken by our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in London, when he condemned the action of Great Britain who was about to decide joining the common market. Mr. Chairman, I say that what is good for Great Britain is also good for Canada. The Prime Minister should have satisfied himself of that fact before his departure, and he should have resorted to logic rather than expediency. Indeed, our friends in Great Britain took it upon themselves to tell him at the time what they thought of him and his policy.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) attended the NATO conference. What did he do there? He simply told our western allies: I have no policy, I cannot commit my government, my government does not know what to do, therefore I am waiting and you should wait too-you should wait as far as western defence is concerned.
I might go on and on, Mr. Chairman, and mention many other issues.
In fact, according to some forecasts, there will be 500,000 unemployed in Canada this winter. The spokesman of the Canadian Labour Congress and of the federation of national unions came to tell us that we might

Interim Supply
have even more than 500,000. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) just said: "There are more people working now than last year."
There probably are more people working now than last year. But the fact remains that those 500,000 workers are unemployed, and have been looking for jobs for quite some time. Will the reply of the Minister of Labour give them jobs?
The position of those 500,000 unemployed creates an urgent problem which the government is unable to face.
Neither does the government know how to organize this country's economic development. Experts told us so, and everybody has noticed it since 1957. The pace of national production has slowed down, yet the government just tells us one month after another: "There may, perhaps, be an increase".
We have some extremely serious problems in the field of national health. A royal commission has been investigating the problem for two years. There is no answer yet, no decision yet.
And we come to the famous Columbia river issue. I remember that during the elections, in 1957 and 1958, hon. members of this government were roaming about Canada, stating that the Liberal party did not always look after the interests of Canadians, but that they would look after them, and defend them, in spite of ever effort made by the United States.
They were promising to stand up for our interests. But did they stand up for our interests when the Prime Minister himself and the then minister of justice signed in Washington a treaty through which we were sold down the river to the United States, without the least guarantee. Since then, they have realized what they have done and they do not want to answer for it before parliament or have the matter discussed by a committee. And those are only a few of the problems I could mention. We are facing housing problems, municipal problems.
In Quebec, these last few years, efforts have been made to bring the province up to date. An economic planning board has been set up and has already produced its first report. They have tried to develop an education policy which would enable every youth to continue his studies, whatever his financial resources. School allowances have been given to parents of 16 and 17 year old students who want to continue their studies.
The provincial government has embarked upon a hospital insurance policy.


Rémi Paul: Order. I regret to have to remind the hon. member for Iles-de-
[Mr. Sauve.l
la-Madeleine that he has to stay within the limits of federal policies and that he cannot comment on acts or legislation of the Quebec government.


Maurice Sauvé: By so doing, Mr. Chairman, Quebec wanted to become an asset for the rest of Canada. We want to be full citizens and we want our confederation partners to make things easier for us. We, from the province of Quebec, want to be equal partners within confederation.
I wish to recall the wonderful speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) on this issue, as well as those made by other hon. members who have supported the fine words of the Leader of the Opposition.
What is our impression when we consider what has happened since confederation? What do we French Canadians think of federal politics? We certainly get the impression that we have given our partners the right to govern without our effective participation.
We have often given our mass support to this or that party which has made up the government, but we have given to our partners, to the Anglo-Saxon majority, the right to govern. We have nearly always obtained unimportant portfolios. True, there have been exceptions, but one constant trend can be noticed. No French Canadian, for instance, has ever been Minister of Finance. To support that statement, I only have to look at the guide of Canadian ministries since confederation. And if I had had time to peruse it further, I might have found out that there are other departments which have never been headed by a French Canadian.
That is within the jurisdiction of the house. Political parties are responsible for the present situation.
When I consider what goes on, and when I read the document entitled "Federal Administration in Canada", I find the same situation again: little or no French Canadians in important positions in the administration.
Within parties, what happens when it comes to solving problems which are particular to the province of Quebec? The situation is the same in any party. When it comes to the province of Quebec, we are told: "That is a Quebec problem. You, members from Quebec, settle that among yourselves; you discuss the matter and solve the problem."
Fear is the only word for it. Our English speaking fellow citizens are afraid to interfere in our particular problems, so that we tend to isolate ourselves. We are led to close our ranks, even in the house, and we forget

that there are Canadian problems of extreme importance which it is our responsibility to solve.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that our English speaking partners do not always make our task an easy one.
On the other hand, I note that throughout Canada there is great sympathy for our dual culture, for the French fact in Canada. Our colleagues in the house have certainly shown much understanding and interest in the French fact, in French culture.
I should like to point out here that some members of the Liberal opposition are taking French lessons every Wednesday night.
But that is not the problem. Mr. Chairman, there exists, in some quarters, a state of mind which is not in keeping with this generous ideal shown towards the French fact in Canada by a great number of our English speaking colleagues and by the majority of English speaking citizens of this country.
One has only to consider the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways to understand my point. Besides the same situation prevails within the board of directors of the Canadian Pacific, where there is not a single French Canadian. The same goes for several crown corporations.
I have here the Directory of Directors published by the Financial Post, an annual publication in which are found the names of 10,000 directors of companies, of which 550 or 600 only are French Canadian names. These figures indicate a state of mind. There is a lack of faith in us. It is no wonder then that following an incident such as the one that occurred recently in the committee on railways, when the president of the C.N.R. gave evidence, there should have been an outburst of nationalism in the province of Quebec. It made it possible for a nationalist feeling to flare up.
That incident in the committee on railways simply gave us an opportunity to show what we feel since confederation. It is often said that no French Canadians are available, that they do not want to come to Ottawa, that they refuse to sit on the boards of large companies, that they do not want to leave the province of Quebec and settle in other provinces-that is probably true-but you know as I do that we are not in a bilingual environment in Ottawa, that we do not feel at home.
How can you expect a French Canadian to settle here permanently when he does not feel at home? As long as he does not feel at home, he will hesitate to settle here.
Interim Supply
We want to feel at home here, in Ottawa, as well as in the other provinces. If we are equal partners, we have the right to take part everywhere in the nation's business, whether in Montreal, Ottawa or Vancouver.
It is possible that if one or two great French Canadian personalities were brought to Ottawa and gathered around them other French Canadians, there would come a time when the number of French Canadians would increase in the civil service. Perhaps a solution could be found then. Perhaps it would be advisable to find a man of competence and good will who would try to attract, both to the public service and to private enterprise, other French Canadians who would work with him. It is not by limiting ourselves to the recruiting of "professional French Canadians" that we will solve the problem.
Mr. Chairman, we have been in a difficult position since confederation. In my opinion, the house earnestly wishes to find a solution before the centennial, in 1967. We will have to work hard and show some generosity because if we fail to get along with each other, we will then be in an extremely difficult position. Our English speaking partners are well aware of the problem which has been facing Canada since confederation.
Over the past ten years, the Massey royal commission, the Gordon royal commission and others have carried out investigations which have led to the conclusion that French Canadians have a tendency to make their voices heard more and more and that Englishspeaking Canadians wish to fight against the influence of the United States.
We know very well that the United States may soon exert progressively as much influence on our political decisions as they do at present in the military, cultural and economic fields. That is why our partners in confederation, English speaking Canadians, are just as anxious as we are to maintain the political sovereignty of our country. However, we wish to be equal partners. If we fail to achieve that ideal, we may well start having our doubts about confederation, thus jeopardizing the interests of all Canadians, both French and English speaking.
All French Canadians, I am sure, will want to support the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The sooner we learn to understand each other, to remove difficulties and to intensify comprehension between us, French and English speaking Canadians, the sooner we will be proud to be Canadians.

Interim Supply
I take the liberty to say this, Mr. Chairman, because I represent the Iles-de-la-Madeleine riding which, proportionately speaking, had the largest number of men and women in the armed forces during the last world war. There were more "Madelinots" enlisted in Canadian armed forces than people from any other riding in the country, and I am very proud of that fact.
I do not intend to speak at great length about my riding in this debate. I will have another opportunity to do so later on. I should simply like to draw attention to an anniversary. On January 11, 1963, it will be 35 years since the inauguration of air mail service in the Iles-de-la-Madeleine, which meant that the Madelinots could get mail during the wintertime. But even today there is still one island that gets its mail from the air during the winter. In fact, they must wait till spring for mail shipments out of Entrance island. That is a problem I will discuss when the post office estimates are before us.
Mr. Chairman, my time is just about over and I should like to insist that this government must introduce legislation in accordance with the needs of the country. We want appropriate legislation to meet our needs and we are conscious that in working to that end, we are doing it for the good of the nation and in the best interests of our country.


Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Chairman, I should not want this debate to end without making my modest contribution.
First, I wish to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and all the members who took part in the debate, whatever party they belong to, for having ventured into a field which has been neglected for too long. I refer of course to the debate which took place all day yesterday on full bilingualism and the harmony which should exist between the two great Canadian cultures, that is the French and English cultures. This debate, in my opinion, should have been held long before today.
Mr. Chairman, in a few years, we shall be celebrating the confederation centennial. I feel that the Canadian government should begin to take its responsibilities right away and give Canada all it needs to achieve national unity.
It was said yesterday that a board of inquiry, made up of representatives from the federal and provincial governments, was on the point of being established for the purpose

of providing Canada, at last, with a distinctive national flag and a national anthem.
Mr. Chairman, I must point out that, since the beginning of the session, many members have made speeches on those two questions. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) introduced a motion for the adoption of "O Canada" as our national anthem. His motion was discussed for an hour and killed at six o'clock.
The same thing happened when the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) put forward a proposal to provide Canada with a distinctive flag. Several members took part in that debate, congratulated the hon. member for having introduced a motion of that nature. In short they made their comments to extend the debate, and at six o'clock the bill was talked out.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe that the adoption of a flag and a national anthem is not a matter for provincial authorities, but rather for the Canadian parliament. I do not see why the premiers should participate in the discussion since, as the country has ten provinces represented by three different parties they might perhaps raise difficulties.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to go on speaking about national unity, bilingualism, a distinctive flag and a national anthem, because I think that we are now considering the supplementary budget which will enable the government to continue its operations during the Christmas recess.
In fact, I am of the opinion that the best way to attain this national unity which we all want would be to start by agreeing ourselves, among Canadians, and for the government, whichever it is, to understand the needs of Canadians in order to be in a position to give them what they ask for and what they need.
If I consider the details of the supplementary budget that was issued to us recently, I see that very few estimates can interest the working class, our family heads and our Canadian unemployed.
Maybe it is normal that we have a deficit budget every year. But if despite these deficiencies we have unemployed and Canadian citizens who starve to death in a country as rich as ours, I do not believe it is normal to have such deficits. I would agree to a deficit if we were giving to one and all a decent living. But if we visit the country, we see that those deficits have not settled unemployment and that the ills which existed in many of our ridings are still there.

(Text):


An hon. Member:: Order.


Rémi Paul: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to deal with private members' business under the provisions of standing order 15.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will turn to private members' business. We shall consider, first, private bills appearing on page 21 of today's order paper.



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-14 respecting Merit Insurance Company-Mr. Macnaughton-Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Name in French.
Thomas Rodney Berger: I think all members of the committee have some knowledge of the purpose of the bill which is, as I understand it, to give to the Merit Life Insurance Company the right to use a French version of its name. In my view, before the House of Commons passes this bill-though I understand that in the past bills of this nature have gone through as a matter of course-we should know something about the company which is seeking to have the right to use a French version of its name. I think the committee is entitled to know who owns the company and who controls the company. We in Canada have seen more and more of our industries, our resources and, in fact, even our savings drifting away from Canadian control. At some time during the debate on clause 1 of the bill I should like to see the hon. member who sponsored the bill rise and tell the committee who controls this company. My information is that the Merit Life Insurance Company is connected with the Industrial Acceptance Corporation and that in fact it is controlled by the Industrial Acceptance Corporation. May I say that it is a large investment corporation which is under the control of the Murchison brothers of Texas-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of pipe line fame.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Private Bills
When I say that it is a company which is controlled by the Murchison brothers of Dallas, Texas, I hope that no hon. member will think I am seeking to deprecate or to criticize the fact that the Murchison brothers of Dallas, with the benefit of a few million dollars which their father just happened to have around, were able to obtain control of a good deal of industrial and financial wealth. I am not deprecating or criticizing the fact that they used this money in order to build this financial empire. What I am deprecating, however, is the tendency of the parliament of Canada simply to pass a bill of this kind as a matter of course.


Rémi Paul: Order. The hon. member is now discussing the board of directors of the Merit Insurance Company. I am obliged to tell him that we are discussing the opportunity to give a French name to the Merit Insurance Company. If the hon. member reads rule 59(2), I am sure he will agree that at this time he cannot discuss all the business of the company. I am also sure he will try to stay in order and discuss only clause 1 of this bill.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I appreciate very deeply, Mr. Chairman, your advice as to the propriety of the remarks I have been making. I can assure you that it was my intention throughout to discuss only clause 1 and to deal only with matters which were relevant to clause 1.
Let me make it clear that, if this company is seeking to use a French version of its name, this is a matter of some moment not only to members of the House of Commons who represent constituencies in those parts of Canada which have a predominantly French speaking population but also to all other members of the House of Commons since, in my opinion, it is something which affects the whole question which I sought to raise and which I will try to justify to you, Mr. Chairman; I refer to the question of foreign control over Canadian industry.


Rémi Paul: Order. I cannot accept the remarks of the hon. member, as he is again trying to discuss the activities of the company. The principle we are discussing is the opportunity or otherwise for this company to use a French name and an English name in its business. That is the only question we have before us for study at the present time. In my opinion, the hon. member may not discuss any other subject than this one, which is included in clause 1 of the bill respecting Merit Insurance Company.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Let me say at once, Mr. Chairman, that if the only thing we had under consideration was whether or not it is a good thing for corporations carrying on business in

Canada to use French versions of their corporate names in French speaking parts of Canada, I suppose all of us would agree with the clause in question which gives effect to this intent and would agree to pass it without any objection whatever.


Leon David Crestohl: That is the only question before the committee.


Thomas Rodney Berger: However, Mr. Chairman, we are concerned about the propriety of this corporation being given the right to use a French version of its name. We are not dealing only with the question whether it is advisable generally to allow corporations to use French versions of their names. We are concerned about this corporation. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and to members of the committee that, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction over the insurance companies which carry on business in this country, the House of Commons must know who is seeking to use this name.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. The committee is not to discuss or try to ascertain the purposes of the directors of the company in seeking to use a French and an English name. We are not to discuss all the activities of the company. We are only to study the merit of this bill and the opportunity for this company to do business under either a French or an English name. That is the only matter we can discuss. If the hon. member will look at the bill he will see that the explanatory note says:
The sole purpose of this bill is to add a French version to the name of Merit Insurance Company.
I am sure the hon. member will try to be in order and to make his remarks relevant to the principle of the bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that there are limitations to what one can deal with on the first clause, but I submit that if this committee is being asked to allow the company to adopt a French name surely the committee also has some responsibility to ascertain who it is that is asking for this privilege. Are they responsible people? What is their background? What is their rating in the community? Surely these are relevant questions. Surely the committee is not going to be faced with a simple yes or no with regard to whether the company should be granted or denied this right. How can the committee decide unless it ascertains who it is that is making the request, what their status is and whether or not they are worthy of receiving this privilege?
The Depuiy Chairman: With regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, if he will read standing

order 59 (2) I am sure that with his experience he will realize I am obliged to ask the hon. member who had the floor to be in order and to speak only on the purpose of the bill. It is not my privilege to extend the limits of the debate. I am obliged to ask the hon. member to respect the ruling of the Chair.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, in the same clause 1 provision is made for the company to sue or be sued in either or both names. If such permission is given to a company it is normal to investigate that company to decide whether permission should be given to do business in this way. Therefore, why should we not investigate the whole company? I suggest that the hon. member was completely in order.


Mr. Macnaughlon:: Mr. Chairman, if I may be given the opportunity to answer some of the allegations I would be delighted to do so. As my first point I should like to say that private bills, of course, need a sponsor and accidentally, or co-operatively if you wish, I happen to be the private member sponsoring this bill. I have no personal, financial interest in the company or its shares and no personal interest in the directors or anything else.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Rémi Paul: Order. I think the hon. member is not discussing the point of order but is answering the remarks that have been made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on the point of order.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to-


Rémi Paul: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Mount Royal to discuss the point of order only at this time.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Are we discussing the point of order? I should like to answer the points raised if I may have the opportunity.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on the point of order. What the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is saying is that some people should be denied the right to use both of the official languages of this country. That is the gist of his point of order. It seems to me that is a most extraordinary doctrine to be propounded in this house, that we have to investigate the background of someone before we will allow him to speak French. Considering the debate we were having up until this bill came before us, I must say I am absolutely astonished to
Private Bills
hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam favour a certain measure of unilingualism in this country.


Leon David Crestohl: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that we are not now examining whether or not this company should be created by statute. The company has been created. Its powers have already been established. It is an existing company and we cannot go into that phase of the company's existence or history. The company has already been established by parliament. You are perfectly right, Mr. Chairman, that the only question is whether or not the company can use a French version of its name, a name that has already been established by parliament. In my view that is the sole issue that anyone can possibly debate.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Chairman-


Rémi Paul: The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.
(Translation):


Mr. Ouellel:: Mr. Chairman-


Rémi Paul: Do you still address yourself to the point of order?


Mr. Ouellet:: Yes, I may deal with the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, it is agreed that we are faced with a normal situation. Hon. members have discussed in the past a bill to incorporate this company, when it was organized. If at that time, it was not wanted, they should have opposed it then, I think.
Faced with this problem, some may be embarrassed. But we must be realistic about the request submitted by this company. I agree with the point you have raised, Mr. Chairman, that details cannot be debated at this stage, because the point is out of order and is not relevant to this bill.
However I suggest it is most unfortunate that such things should happen. Besides, this is no time to go back because parliament has already decided.
Now, that company asks us permission to use a French name. Why? Because it suits them. It is rather difficult for us to refuse.
On the other hand, I think it would be time for parliament, when new requests are made by foreign companies, to discuss their merit before approving them, so as not to be faced again with the same problem.
When companies want a change, which is consistent with the charter given them by the

Private Bills
federal government, they should not bother parliament with this kind of thing. I understand the hon. member's remarks in that respect, but I agree with the point you raised, Mr. Chairman, and I think the house could hardly turn down the company's request for a French name.
(Text):


Thomas Rodney Berger: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, let me deal very briefly with the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He suggested that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had attempted to deny to Merit Insurance Company the right to use one of the official languages. We are considering quite a different thing here. We are considering the right of a corporation to carry on business under a certain firm style or name.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The same name in both languages.


Thomas Rodney Berger: This is an entirely different thing. I suggest that it must cause some consternation to hon. members to see the hon. member advocating the indiscriminate use of names, perhaps of historical significance, perhaps of significance of another kind, by anyone who wants to use them. I was surprised to see his willingness to champion the life insurance companies of Canada carry him so far. When parents have a baby christened and give it a name they give serious consideration to what name they will bestow upon it. This name is being bestowed upon this corporation by the parliament of Canada and I suggest that the parliament of Canada should consider whether this name ought in fact to be bestowed upon this company. I would plead that members of the house have a right to know who it is that is seeking to have the right to use this name in Quebec, and in other parts of Canada where the French language is spoken. I suggest that the rules of order, and I have read the rule to which you referred me, Mr. Chairman, do not prevent parliament from investigating that matter.
Let me say I would be very pleased to yield the floor, when we have disposed of the point of order, to the hon. member for Mont-Royal so that he might have an opportunity to enlighten the house on the questions I raised earlier in the debate.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have the French version of Mount Royal given by my hon. friend. It is not my purpose to engage in a debate with any hon. member. However, the hon.

member made one or two unsubstantiated allegations. I think it is my duty, indeed my solemn duty, to bring these facts to the attention of the committee.
The allegation is that the Murchisons are interested in this company. First of all, let us start at the beginning. Merit Insurance Company is wholly owned by the Industrial Acceptance Corporation. The information I am going to give to the committee I got on the end of the telephone a week ago and I reconfirmed it this afternoon with the attorney for Industrial Acceptance Corporation. There are 9,331 shareholders of Industrial Acceptance Corporation holding 5,889,039 shares. Of these shareholders, 8,319 are in Canada. The Canadian shareholders hold 77.1 per cent of the company's stock and 813 of the shareholders are citizens of the United States holding 19.1 per cent of the stock of Industrial Acceptance Corporation. In other words, generally speaking, 8 per cent or 9 per cent of the stock of Industrial Acceptance Corporation is scattered throughout the United States and 90 per cent is held in Canada by Canadians. I am told that the Murchisons have no interest whatever in Industrial Acceptance Corporation and do not own any stock, consequently they own no stock in Merit Insurance Company.
The company was incorporated in 1953 and has been writing insurance policies throughout Canada in English or French at the request of the applicant. About 30 per cent of the business is done in Quebec; 25 per cent of the business is in Ontario-I am speaking of the Merit Insurance Company-25 per cent is done in the maritimes and 20 per cent is done in the western part of Canada. There are 67 offices throughout Canada and in the year 1961 the Merit Insurance Company employed 472 persons. The premium volume of insurance written in 1961 amounted to about $12 million. Approximately one third of the company's offices are located in the province of Quebec and perhaps a little bit less than one third of the company's business arises in Quebec province. It seems to me not only normal but right that the company should ask for a French version of the company name. I would be delighted to give any further information that I have.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak of the name of the company. It is called the Merit Insurance Company, but I would call it myself a finance company. What happens when an insurance company such as this one is directly connected with a finance company, like the Industrial Acceptance Corporation, for instance? When you buy a car,

the finance company puts you on a financing plan and then you have to get insurance from that company.


Rémi Paul: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I believe his remarks are not relevant to the item now under consideration. The committee is called upon to decide whether the Merit Insurance Company may use in the future, in the transaction of its business, either a French name or an English name. The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) explained to the committee why the company wishes to obtain a French name.
I regret to have interrupted the hon. member but I feel sure that he will comply with paragraph 2 of section 7 of standing orders.


Gilles Grégoire: In compliance with that standing order, I should like to speak about the use of a French name, to which I do not object. On the contrary, I am pleased that this company wants to use a French name. But that name is composed of three words: Merit Insurance Company. I have something to say about the word "Insurance" because I find that it is not appropriate. When a company deals with financing instead of insurance, why should it use the word "insurance" in its name? It is precisely about that word that I wish to speak because, as I was trying to explain, Mr. Chairman, when an insurance company is related to a finance company which requires the purchaser of a car to obtain insurance with that company-


Rémi Paul: Order. The hon. member will please note that his remarks are irrelevant. He is dealing with possible business connections between the Merit Insurance Company and the Industrial Acceptance Corporation. I respectfully submit that his remarks are out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I shall then conclude my remarks. I thought that the French words had a certain meaning, according to their use. Since it is out of order to define the meaning of words, I prefer to refrain from speaking.
(Text):


Mr. Herridge:: I did not intend to say anything in this rather interesting and unusual debate but I have been prompted to do so as a result of the discussion. I trust that you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, because you will find I am in order when I am finished. I must say that I feel your ruling is rather narrow because, during my 17 years experience in this house, when telephone companies have come to ask for an increase in capital or other changes in their acts of incorporation, there has been a wide
Private Bills
discussion of the affairs of the companies. This applies also to pipe line companies and companies of that sort. These bills have frequently been referred to committees for further study. However, I shall bow to your ruling and not go into the affairs of this company.
I do want to bring something to the attention of the committee which is somewhat related to this bill. We should support the right of the company to have its name printed in both languages according to the terms of the bill, and I suggest the company should have its policies and other literature printed in both languages so that all Canadians, regardless of their descent, will be able to understand them. This bill will not affect my constituents to any great extent and for the following reason-I want to give the reason, and it is based on a telegram I have just received from the mayor of Trail.
I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that while the government fumbles and goes along a certain way in respect of the necessity for insurance, the people of Kootenay West continue to set records. I wish to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that on Saturday, December 15, the city of Trail completed eight full years without a fatal accident. This is a record for cities of over 10,000 population, not only in Canada-


Rémi Paul: Order; I think the hon. member has forgotten the remarks he made when he started to speak. When he speaks about some accidents, I think he is straying from the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You quite misunderstood my remark, Mr. Chairman, and if you will just let me finish the next sentence or two you will see the point.
This is a record for cities of over 10,000 population, not only in Canada but in the whole of North America; a record indicative of a safety conscious citizenry, particularly in view of the fact that Trail has one of the highest per capita ratios of cars in Canada. This record set by the city of Trail emphasizes the civilized society which prevails in Kootenay West. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that if the people of the rest of Canada established such records there would be little necessity for bills of this type, either in the English or French language.
My second point is that, regardless of the care my constituents take and the records they establish in this respect, they do not get any particular benefit from that care and for acting in such a civilized manner, under this bill or any other insurance bill. I suggest that this record established by the city of Trail should be studied by the companies concerned, and even by the governments

Private Bills
concerned, to find out why this record is possible. I say it is possible because of good civic government and a very civilized people.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, since the debate is now of wider limits than it was intended to be, I wish to conclude my contribution to it by acknowledging what I think will be the thanks of the committee as a whole to the hon. member for Mount Royal. I hope, that, having heard me use one of the official languages of Canada in describing his constituency, there will not be any attempt on the part of any hon. member to question my right to use both official languages, although perhaps it would be understandable if there were such an attempt. At any rate, my wish in speaking to clause 1 was not to impede the progress of commerce in Canada, but rather to make sure that-


Mr. McCleave:: You should apologize.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I think there was an interjection by some hon. member to the effect that I had made a lot of fuss, but I think that it is the right of hon. members to make a lot of fuss when they think something is happening which requires clarification, and I make no apologies for speaking under these circumstances.


Robert Jardine McCleave: False facts; you must
apologize for them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I object. The hon. member should stand up.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member is giving us false facts and should apologize instead of putting a halo over his head.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who interrupts has been sitting muttering into his beard for the last five minutes. If he has anything to say let him get up and say it. There has been no false start. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has a perfect right to contribute to the debate. If the hon. member for Halifax wants to be a trained seal that is, of course, his business, but he need not expect any other hon. member to act the same way.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I will repeat, the hon. member from the N.D.P. has been giving the committee false facts about the ownership of the company. He was basing his whole argument on that, and at least should have the grace to apologize for wasting our time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If that allegation is going to be made I am going to ask that we postpone consideration of this bill until all the facts are brought down, until we know how many shares are held by these various directors, 
how many in trust and how many in escrow, so that we will know which of these people are actual directors.


Leon David Crestohl: That will be completely out of order.


Rémi Paul: Order. May I point
out that if an hon. member wants to have the floor he must be recognized by the Chair, and if another hon. member is speaking he is obliged to ask his permission to ask him a question. If all hon. members of the committee try to keep this rule I think we will not have trouble. I now ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard to complete his remarks.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
was about to acknowledge my thanks, and I think the thanks of the committee, to the hon. member sponsoring the bill for providing the committee with what is really, with all respect to him and I do not think he will take it amiss, a fairly scanty rundown of the company's corporate structure. One hon. member suggests that I did not give the committee the facts, but hon. members will recall that I opened the debate by telling them I had certain information, that I had taken the trouble to study the report of the superintendent of life insurance, that I had checked with the companies branch of the Department of the Secretary of State and I had discovered that there was no public document available to members of parliament which gave them the information I was asking from the sponsor of the bill and which he was good enough, at least in part, to provide the committee.
Under those circumstances I suggest there is no necessity for an apology. I think some hon. members of the committee will regard it as worth while that the committee now has some idea of what and who Merit Insurance Company is. I also believe that because of what has transpired today the committee requires additional information. The hon. member for Mount Royal did his best, but I suggest we really do not have a complete picture regarding the ownership of the company.
He said the majority of the shares were held by Canadians, but how many of those shares are held by Canadians as nominees, how many are held in trust and how many are held in escrow? In other words we certainly do not know who controls this company, and I urge the hon. member to consider asking leave of the committee to have this bill stood down so that upon another occasion he might come before the committee and advise it fully, as I am sure he would wish to do, regarding the ownership and control of the company.
I say, as I attempted to point out a moment ago before an hon. member in the Conservative ranks interrupted me, that I was not

Divorce Bills
seeking to impede the progress of commerce in this country and to prevent a company in the life insurance field carrying on legitimate life insurance business. I simply wanted to know who these people were who have come before parliament asking to use a French version of their name. I now have some idea who they are, but I do not think we have been given a complete picture. I do not think anyone can blame the hon. member who sponsored the bill for that, and I suggest to him he ought to consider asking leave to have the bill stand so that on another occasion he can tell all hon. members of the committee everything they want to know about the ownership of Merit Insurance Company.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall clause 1 carry? (Translation):


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, if the propaganda in favour of bilingualism has awakened those corporations, I congratulate them on their reaction, it is marvellous. But if their only intent is to extend their operations and to increase their volume of business, then it is a different story. As a matter of fact we will still be the ones to suffer, because we will have been unfairly dealt with.
Mr. Chairman, if all the English insurance companies want to add a French name to their English one, it would be preferable to amend the act and to generalize its application, so that corporations may have an official name in both the official languages of the country, French and English. I suggest that in a bilingual country such as ours, such a situation should have obtained a long time ago.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-16, respecting The Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada-Mr. Hellyer.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-2, for the relief of Bruce Reid Campbell-Mr. MacEwan (for Mr. Mandziuk)-Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Rémi Paul: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering what scrutiny the committee gave to this bill, particularly in light of the previous bill which we discussed, in which certain charges were made which were quite easily established. I
notice that in this bill there is reference to investigators. To my mind this always raises the question as to who those investigators are, whether they are licensed by the Senate and have the right granted to them by the Senate to practice their profession. I also wonder whether the Senate has made investigation of these people. I raise this point not only in relation to this bill but also in relation to a number of cases in which investigations took place and perjury charges were laid. Some of the detectives concerned, with whom I am not familiar, have been convicted in various courts in Ontario and in the province of Quebec, and I am wondering whether the committee took the trouble to investigate these particular witnesses to ascertain whether they fell into that category.
Mr. Chairman, this is doubly important because the evidence we are looking at was obtained on January 29, 1962, which is a long time ago. It has been renewed by petition, in which the Senate asked whether the parties wished to go ahead with the case and whether or not during the period which had elapsed between the two hearings the petitioner and the respondent had got together and continued to live as man and wife. This is very important because certainly jurists have indicated that evidence given by detectives has to be closely scrutinized in view of the fact that these people are paid for the information they give. They are not disinterested witnesses; they are paid witnesses. It is interesting to note that in the supreme court of Ontario-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a point of order. Your Honour was commendably strict, I thought, when we were considering another private bill, in having the discussion adhere strictly to the bill and to the clauses in the bill. I have been listening attentively to the hon. gentleman and he appears to be wandering all over the lot, talking of this case, that case, and the other case. It appears to me that there is only one case before us, and that is the particular case we are discussing. I submit the hon. member should be confined strictly to clause 1 of this bill and to no other.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I was listening closely to the remarks of the hon. member for Timis-kaming. While it is true that he did make reference to the fact that investigators were used in various cases, I felt that he was leading directly to an assessment of the particular bill before us and that he was merely comparing the manner in which investigators were used in this case with what was a general practice in connection with such

Divorce Bills
bills. With all deference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I submit that his point of order is not well taken. I think the hon. member for Timiskaming was relating his discussion to the question whether or not it was advisable for this bill to pass through the committee stage at this time.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I was listening with a good deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming, and I appreciated the way in which he was developing in a logical fashion his argument on this part of the bill. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate criticized him because he was discussing other cases.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not criticize.


Thomas Rodney Berger: I suggest that anyone who, in developing an argument, contrasts and compares experiences in other cases with what has happened in this case is using a perfectly legitimate technique of logic or advocacy. It may be that in the past the hon. gentleman who objected has not been used to listening to well developed, logical arguments; but I think now that he has been exposed to that type of discussion, at any rate since September 27, from the members of this party perhaps he should restrain himself and listen for a while. I think that he would then appreciate that, far from being out of order, the hon. member for Timiskaming was in fact enlightening the committee in a way in which in the past it has rarely been enlightened.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I say a further word on the point of order. I was not arguing or criticizing anything. I was drawing attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman had not mentioned the clause of this particular bill; that he was talking about a number of other cases. I was just suggesting that the same rules should be applied in one case as in another. I might add, since the hon. gentleman who has just spoken is, of course, so much more experienced than some of the rest of us, that in committee stage of a bill it is not a question of advocacy; it is a question of examining the clauses. The advocacy is done in the house, not in committee. In committee we examine the clauses and stick strictly to the clauses. At any rate, that is what the rules say.


Thomas Rodney Berger: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I reply briefly to the hon. member who has just spoken. The hon. member will recall that when we were debating the motion for second reading he urged upon the speaker that there should be no advocacy allowed at that stage. Now the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says that there

ought to be no advocacy at this stage of the bill. I take it that the hon. member feels that there is no room for advocacy in this House of Commons. I realize he has had a great deal more experience in this house and in other spheres of government than many of us here, but I suggest that none of us who are new members of this house ought to be bashful about putting forward what we consider, after reflection, as being legitimate comments about the way in which the business of the house is conducted.


Leon David Crestohl: On this point of order, I am afraid Your Honour has been deluged more by the experience than by the actual case. I know the hon. member for Timiskaming has no intention of being unfair in what he is saying, but when he speaks about investigators who have been before the courts, investigators who have been convicted, he is speaking in general terms and we have no way of knowing whether these are the people who should now concern us. Unless the hon. member has something to say which casts doubt upon the accuracy or upon the character of these particular investigators, it is not permissible for him to make the statement he made. From his general statements about investigators who have been before the courts or who have been convicted, one might assume he was speaking about investigators who appear in this particular case, in this bill which is now before us, and he might be unfair in doing so although he did not mean to be unfair.
I think my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate was right on the point when he asked that the hon. member should stay closely to the allegations made in the bill and not go far afield, unless there is an association between the statements he has just been making and the present investigators. Otherwise, as I say, it is unfair and an injustice is being done to them.


Rémi Paul: Order. I thank hon. members who have taken part in the discussion on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I think there was a wide discussion. I am sure the hon. member for Timiskaming, with his experience, will try to stay within the limits of this debate.


William Arnold Peters: I appreciate the remarks which have been made on the point of order. I am trying to follow the advice which has been given me. Unlike many other members of this house, all the legal training I possess has been received in the house itself. I am seeking to argue my point under the eyes of many learned counsel here and, sometimes, I am

confused about the different opinions they give me. However, I understand that in law that is often the situation.
The two gentlemen we are concerned with here are George Roland Foucher, of Montreal, Quebec and Jean Vinet, also of Montreal. I do not know if they have been involved in court proceedings but I think the hon. member for Cartier would agree with me that somewhere along the line we shall have to ascertain which people have been convicted of offences, whether I do it personally outside the house or whether it is done here in the miscellaneous private bills committee or in the committee of the other place. There would, then, be no aspersions cast on those who were left. On the other hand, cases in which those who had been convicted were involved would be thrown out. This question would not be so serious if it were not for the fact that there have been six or eight persons of this sort before the courts in the last six months. I am not in a position to say who they are. Perhaps these two gentlemen are not among them.
Since detectives have been used in this case I think the committee should give consideration to some of the legal opinions which have been expressed on this particular subject. I should like to refer to one which was quoted in the case which arose fairly recently. Power at page 335, puts it thus:
Evidence of adultery given by private detectives is subjected to the most careful scrutiny.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising again on a point of order. Can the hon. member relate what he is now saying to this particular bill? Are the investigators he is talking about people who have anything to do with this case? Has the hon. member ascertained that to be so? If he has not, why did he not go to the miscellaneous private bills committee and find out?


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member who has just spoken draws attention to one of the ignorances of the house in relation to these bills. I do not know this, and until I do they are all suspect as far as I am concerned.


Robert Jardine McCleave: And smear everybody while you are doing it. It is nothing but a smear.


William Arnold Peters: Every time the hon. member for Halifax stands up in this house he does not smear me, he smears himself. He has cast so many of these aspersions that I suggest people will judge him according to those aspersions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: After that exchange of compliments could we have a ruling on the point of order I have raised?
Interim Supply


Rémi Paul: I thank hon. members for the remarks they have made. It is my view that the last comments, in particular, made by the hon. member for Timiska-ming were very far from the principle of the bill. I am sure he could make his observations apply directly to clause 1 of the measure we are considering. In any case he cannot discuss activity leading up to the bill.


William Arnold Peters: I presume, therefore, that we should proceed to study the evidence given by these gentlemen so that we can judge for ourselves in this particular case. The record tells us:
George Roland Foucher appeared as a witness on behalf of the petitioner and. having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
Q. What is your full name?
A. George Roland Foucher.
Q. What is your age?

Q. Where do you live?
A. Montreal.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Investigator.
Here, Mr. Chairman, is the point at which I suggest the question should have been asked whether or not the witness has been found guilty of any infraction of the law in relation to his occupation. This question should have been replied to in the negative-*


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him if that is not precisely the kind of question the late Senator McCarthy used to ask in another committee?


Rémi Paul: Order. It being six o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members' business having now expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
(Translation):

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



[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $330,089,511.93 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, finance items 45
[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply
and 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources items 10, 45 and 90, public works items 5, 45, 70, 100, 105, 125, 145, 168, 170, 180, 190 and 290, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5, 15 and 25, transport items 35, 40, 60, 80, 85, 100, 125, 222 and 225, loans investments and advances item L20 $292,175,958;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of defence production item 25, external affairs item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 105, of the said revised estimates, $1,842,041.67;
(c)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(A)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, except external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, $8,738,178,92;
(d)	ten twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(B)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, $27,333,333.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
(Text):

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):
Jean-Paul Cook: Mr. Chairman, -when I had to interrupt my speech to enable the house to revert to the consideration of private bills, I was giving my general impressions on yesterday's speeches.
I was saying that it was desirable that goodwill should exist first of all within the government itself. I also said that all past governments ran into enormous deficits, and that in spite of their accumulating deficits they never managed to settle the problem of unemployment, and there still is a great deal of hardship in spite of our abundant natural resources.
Mr. Chairman, we speak of national unity. But have we stopped to think, as we consider these supplementary estimates, that they do not provide anything for the eastern farmers. I am pleased to see that the western farmers get all the assistance they need in order to remain on their farms, but I had hoped that the government would take the same attitude with regard to the eastern farmers.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, coming back to supplementary estimates, I notice that the Department of Public Works gets only $1. I just wonder what the Minister of Public Works will do with an increase of $1 to end this fiscal year.

Let me draw to your attention a few items, from page 4, of the supplementary estimates (A):
Gift offered to the Queen of the Netherlands and Prince Bernhardt on the occasion of their 25th wedding anniversary; $700.
Gift offered to commemorate the independence of Nigeria: $10,000.
Gift offered to commemorate the independence of French-speaking African states; $2,100.
Gift offered to commemorate the independence of Tanganyika: $5,000.
Gift offered to commemorate the 150th anniversary of independence of the republic of Mexico: $4,100.
Mr. Chairman, I know it denotes good will to commemorate anniversaries such as these, but I would fully understand the government giving away gifts-I say "gifts" but it would actually be mere justice-to the citizens of the country, to the unemployed and the mothers who, with their pensions and family allowances so ridiculously low, must be content merely to exist.
Well and good to offer gifts to all the countries in the world, but I think we should start by offering gifts to our own Canadian people.
I also see in the estimates an item amounting to $1,081,000 for a contribution to a world food program; I fully agree that the government of Canada should assist underdeveloped countries. However as the proverb goes: "Charity begins at home".
In our own country, human beings are underfed, I therefore wonder what the government is thinking about when they prepare their yearly estimates.
I also see an item of $179,000 as Canada's dues to world organizations. There again, I am in full agreement with the item, because it may further good understanding among the countries of the world. But, on the other hand, Canadians are having a hard time getting along with one another.
We also find in this budget which contains fantastic expenditures, the following item:
Expenses of the royal commission on banking and finance, $166,630.
If only governments had read and given effect to the recommendations made by the commissions which were set up over the years, we would not find ourselves in the midst of such a depression today. Thousands of dollars are being spent on the establishment of commissions and after the latter have examined certain problems, the government does not even take the trouble of considering their recommendations.

Expenses connected with royal visits: $50,000.
And a little further on:
Gifts for furniture to the International Communications Union, $10,000.
Interim payments under the Freight Rates Reduction Act, $50 million.
Mr. Chairman, a bill respecting that act was adopted yesterday morning in an underhanded manner by a parliamentary committee. Everyone knows that, normally, parliamentary committees never sit on Monday morning. It was well known that at 9.30 on a Monday morning, the members who sit on that committee would not have arrived in Ottawa from their homes where they had spent the week end. The committee sat just the same and railroaded that bill.
Mr. Chairman, there is something wrong with that bill. In fact, under it, shippers cannot choose the transportation means. They have to use the railways. When they use trucks, they do not benefit from the grants.
Mr. Chairman, all previous administrations just as the present government did their utmost to claim they were against monopolies and trusts of all kinds. I think that this Bill C-91, gives proof that the government is practising a form of monopoly or control. Let us not forget that private enterprise built up Canada to what it is now. It is by giving more assistance to private enterprise that we shall succeed in building up a prosperous Canada.
The trucking industry which took 30 years to develop is just about to vanish completely because of certain unfortunate legislation passed by the government. I have never been and even today, I still am not in favour of that policy adopted by the government towards our truckers. I am wondering whether some day our governments will take their responsibilities and give more assistance to private industry, the very basis of our Canadian economy.
I shall not spend any more time on those supplementary estimates and I hope they will be approved as quickly as possible. I should also like to remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) and the Conservative government that, for their own good, they should have something better to show us in their next budget, because, otherwise, I, personally, will support it no longer.
I shall not dwell at greater length on that matter. We had thought since September 27, that the government would bring a solution
Interim Supply
to this country's problems, but, more and more, we realize that, with the present government, we are continually accumulating deficits and that the budgets it is submitting are not solving any problems.
In closing I must say that I feel sure beforehand that the government will take its responsibilities and will wake up soon in order to give the Canadian people what it is waiting for.


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with all members who took part in the present debate which has been lasting for a few days. I listened yesterday to speeches devoid of all political partisanship and imbued with really patriotic principles. In fact, the atmosphere in this house has changed completely. We did not hear politicians, but statesmen concerned with the problems facing us.
We all realized that unity was essential in this parliament, if the clarion call for unity is going to be heard, and especially by all the people who live in our beautiful country, Canada.
We are now in a troubled age. We see a combination of facts that prompts us to look farther than ever before.
On each side of us new groups appear, more important than we think, and which could, tomorrow, create a wide chasm between both our ethnic communities.
What are we to do? Are we to declare open war to all new movements? Are we to condemn them? Are we to consider them as undesirable? No, Mr. Chairman, let us rather consider them as our brothers, let us try to understand them. In a word, let us be the apostles of mutual understanding.
Mr. Chairman, no movement is born without a cause. Let us try to find out that cause and the best way to do it is not to investigate, it is not merely to form movements to oppose those already existing, the best way is simply to look at ourselves, English Canadians and French Canadians, and each of us to examine our conscience.
We shall then discover that everyone of us has his share of responsibilities to assume. We shall perhaps find out that we caused unconsciously the spark that started the fire which seems at present to take alarming proportions. Let us stop eyeing each other like divided brothers. Instead, let us consider each other like united brothers. Those movements did not spring up overnight. It might have been possible to prevent them from coming into being if right from the start our politicians had lent a more attentive ear to their claims.

Interim Supply
Let me give you an example. The selection of a name for the C.N.R. hotel in Montreal was not a momentous question; the request made by all social organizations of the province of Quebec could have been granted.
The province of Quebec has always advocated, not only with words but with action, the respect of minorities.
Has the province of Quebec not always had a public education board formed of two committees, one called the Catholic committee and the other, the Protestant committee?
Succeeding provincial governments in the past have always treated those two groups with the same fairness. Subsidies granted for the building of schools were not higher for French schools and lower for English schools. Indeed, those subsidies were the same for both groups.
Mr. Chairman, that is what we, in Quebec, call true fair play. That is what we, in Quebec, call well understood unity. That is what we, in Quebec, call respect of minorities. That is what we, in Quebec, understand by practising what we preach.
Mr. Chairman, I represent in this house one of the finest ridings not only of the province of Quebec, but of all Canada, the riding of Gaspe which comprises 10,700 French speaking families and 1,800 English speaking families. Mine is a united county where it is good to live in peace and harmony. We all look upon each other as brothers, as true people from Gaspe, and true Canadians.
There is no question of race, religion or language. Our French Canadians always made an effort to speak English, and our English speaking Canadians did the same.
Since I have been in the house, I have always defended the interests of the Englishspeaking minority in my county.
For the last few years, the English speaking municipalities in my riding made some representations to me to the effect that they were lacking television service, and asked me to intercede on their behalf with the government authorities. They were right in asking for fair treatment, Mr. Chairman. I did approach the proper authorities on many occasions and appreciate their having acceded to my request.
This is what we find in the report on the matter, established by the board of broad-

oast governors and dated December 4, 1962:
Mont Bechervaise, Gaspe West (Que.)
Licence for the establishment of a new television relay station at Mont Bechervaise, in Gaspe West (Que.) via the Gaspe South Telecasting Syndicate, to pick up programs of station CKAM-TV, of Upsalquitch (N.B.) on channel 12, and retransmit to channel 4 with 5 watt power and directional antenna.
Recommendation: APPROVED.
Reasons: The board thinks that the facilities requested by the Gaspe South Telecasting Syndicate are the only ones that could answer the needs of the English speaking people in the district where the proposed relay station is to operate. The board trusts that it will be possible to collect sufficient funds to build and immediately operate those facilities, and that steps may be taken to ensure the maintenance of those installations.
Is not Gaspe, Mr. Chairman, a magnificent example of unity, which we may quote with pride on any occasion?
This afternoon, I listened to the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) when he pointed out that, in his beautiful riding, there were, proportionately speaking, more veterans from the two wars than in any other riding. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, and I have to tell him that the riding of Gaspe is one of those which have given the most soldiers to our country. In my county, there are three legion branches: one at Chandler, one at Gaspe, and one at Murdochville. In those three areas, there is no difference of class, race or religion.
Those four different communities form a single area where all fair-minded people in Gaspe irrespective of race and religion, discuss under the same roof the common interest of the county of Gaspe, and I am proud to say that this county has distinguished itself. Under the circumstances, I am not surprised about Iles-de-la-Madeleine, because that riding followed in the steps of Gaspe, because it belonged for a long time to Gaspe county.
Mr. Chairman, as united and as rich as it may be through its mineral, forest and fishing industries, through the moral fibre and the courage of its inhabitants, the riding of Gaspe has nevertheless been neglected by all previous governments.
Unfortunately, this great courageous population has all too often been used for purely political purposes.

We have been deprived of high schools and classical colleges far too long. In fact, many children have not had the necessary education because their parents did not have the means to send them to the classical colleges in Quebec city or Montreal. The only university our ancestors had really gone to is that of hard knock.
Mr. Chairman, how can we explain the fact that such a rich country has been left undeveloped for so long? How can we explain that this country, discovered by Jacques Cartier in 1534, had to wait until 1956 to see its first city, Murdochville. However, its wealth had been lying underground for a long time. Providence had put it there so that it could be developed and benefit the whole community.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the Gaspe copper mines financial report, submitted by the president of the company, which clearly shows that the Gaspe peninsula is a rich country. I quote:
Gaspe Copper is going through a prosperous year.
The net profit of Gaspe Copper Mines Limited for the first six months of 1962 will reach-
You will have noticed, Mr. Chairman, that the figure is for the first six months of 1962.
-$2,700,000, compared with $400,000 for the whole year 1961.
This was revealed today by Mr. John R. Brad-field, president of the company, to the shareholders now holding their annual meeting here.
This substantial improvement in the results of the operations of the company is explained by the fact that better prices for copper as well as the Canadian dollar exchange rate have brought about an increase of $500,000 in the revenues of the company. Besides, as was revealed by the annual report sent out two months ago to the shareholders, the amortization of substantial capital and preproduction expenditures has been completed during 1961. Mr. Bradfield also underlined that the company's debt, which amounted to $47 million in 1956 has been substantially reduced. More than $40 million have been paid off, so that the current is only totalling $6,500,000.
Mr. Chairman, the debt amounted to $47 million in 1956 and is but $6 million today. And these figures were only for a period of six months in 1962, which means that the $6 million current debt will be completely paid off before the end of the year.
Mr. Chairman, there is not only one mine in the Gaspe peninsula. There are several, which are only waiting for mining companies and strong arms to put them at the service of the public. And, merely to prove that the Gaspe peninsula is a rich area and that I was right in asking for the construction of a railway which would contribute to its economic expansion, you only have to look at what is happening at the moment.
Interim Supply
In fact, Mr. Chairman, when the Conservative government decided to consider the fate of the Gaspe peninsula, it realized that it had to do something for its exiled brothers and adopted an act which received the unanimous approval of both houses, an act which finally permitted to give to the Gaspe peninsula what it had been seeking for more than 75 years.
Mr. Chairman, that is a promise which suddenly became a reality. And the reality brought about considerable economic expansion in the Gaspe peninsula.
Until now, companies that owned mining claims did not want to develop them until they had the essential transport facilities to do so.
I also recall that I was asked at the time if I had consulted provincial government authorities to determine whether it would be a self-liquidating project.
1 must say that, at the time, I could not reply, because I was in communication with the Quebec authorities, and I could not reveal information before it was made public by the government itself.
Following the passing of the bill by the House of Commons, the Quebec government granted one company a 32-square mile area in the national park of the Gaspe peninsula. That park had always been closed to mining operations in the past, because it was preserved as a sanctuary.
Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to look after caribou, but I feel it is even more important to look after human beings and, according to order in council No. 616, the provincial government granted Mr. Pierre Beauchemin and his Gaspe associates a 32-square mile area. A short while later, drilling operations began, and the results are most promising. This will allow us to have in the near future, not only one, but at least three mines in operation in the constituency of Gaspe. For that, credit must go to the Conservative government which has made it possible to build that railway to develop that area.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Roland Léo English: Certainly.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says that the building of that railroad had been promised for 75 years. Does he not believe that the grain elevators in the east will not be erected before 75 years also?

Interim Supply


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, I must say to the hon. member that if grain elevators had to be built in my riding, I would speak up with as much courage as I did for a railroad in my region.
Mr. Chairman, I seem to remember that at the time the bill concerning that railroad was under discussion, all members agreed. In addition, I remember having read a brief submitted by the north Gaspe chamber of commerce and stating:
The north Gaspe chamber of commerce associates itself with the statements made by Messrs. Hees, Gordon and others on the occasion of the official opening of the Chibougamau railway:
There are two essential prerequisites to our national economy:
1. A large portion of our natural resources is still awaiting means of transportation to be developed: 2. Our railways are still taking the lead and opening new areas to economic development.
This is what Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Hallways, had to say: "In a country such as ours where distance is the determining factor in the cost of goods, natural resources development cannot be envisaged without thinking of the railway".
Mr. Chairman, it is rather surprising that it took him so long to think of the construction of that railway.
(Text):


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question?


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member for Charlotte wishes to ask a question.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: We know that the Quebec ground is full of gold. Why does the government not raise the price of gold?
(Translation):


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, I regret having to waste so much precious time because of the hon. member's question.
I continue:
The chamber of commerce also appreciates the foHowing statement made by the Hon. George Marler, former federal minister of transport: "The present opposition in the parliament at Ottawa will never criticize what the Diefenbaker government will undertake to lengthen anywhere the railway branch lines in the mining regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada-"
In our area, we have enormous resources, but, without that vital artery, our economy is anaemic and has not developed on a par with that of the other areas in the province and even in the country.
Three factors are essential to the development of the Gaspe peninsula: an abundance of electric power; enough capital to develop our resources; and the railway. The government of the province of Quebec and our mining companies have already procured for us the first and second factors respectively and only the federal government can give us the third one.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I have stated the need of a railway which is only 57 miles long but which is vital to the economic development of the Gaspe peninsula, and the benefits the government brought to that region when it decided to build it.
Mr. Chairman, I have but one thing to ask. I know that the government has shown diligence and I have no blame at all to address to the Canadian National Railways because during the summer, the lay-out was proceeded with and now, that being completed, the plans and the expropriation of land are being looked after.
I am simply asking the government to bring pressure to bear so that the work can start during the winter season. Winter is always a hard time for the Gaspe peninsula, for fishermen, lumbermen and farmers.
Mr. Chairman, if we want our young people to stay home, if we want to prevent them from leaving their native land-at the present time, I note with sadness that people are leaving my riding to seek fortune and work in Montreal because they have heard that a world fair will be held there and will create a lot of jobs-let us work together, without political partisanship, to help that region of the province that has been too long neglected. It is now forgotten because its problems do not resemble those of Quebec city or Montreal, or even those of the agricultural ridings in the rest of the province of Quebec.
I would even say, Mr. Chairman, that that part of the province of Quebec should be brought under the study made by the royal commission set up to examine the problems of the Atlantic provinces, because our difficulties in the Gaspe peninsula are very similar to those of the maritime provinces: fishing, mines and forests.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for taking up perhaps too much of the time of the house but until now I have been very patient. I was content to listen, and even before you tell me that my time has expired-
(Text):


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, when the distinguished member for Davenport opened the debate in the House of Commons some weeks ago, he remarked that he was taking part in a budget debate that was not considering a budget and could not be considered a debate. The nearest we are coming to a budget

in this first session of the twenty fifth parliament is on motions for interim supply. As the hon. member for Davenport continued his remarks, pointing out that he was commenting on the financial state of the nation without a budget before him, and intimating that the debate did not have teeth in it because of the manner in which the committee of supply was set up, it struck me that we had here all the settings of a Gilbert and Sullivan light opera. What is more, we not only had the settings, but at that time we had a minister of the crown going to Japan and right on location, intimating to the prime minister of that nation what the province of Ontario could do in the matter of trade and commerce.
The hon. member for Rosedale has ably covered the subject of the federal government of this self-governing nation allowing provincial governments to intrude upon the federal field of trade and commerce without so much as asking permission or being given a by your leave by the head of that department. We have the interesting situation of a minister of the crown stating that the province of Ontario can conduct trade with a foreign country because the provinces are not governed by international treaty and have no customs tariff. It makes one wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce is aiding and abetting a plan whereby Japanese goods may be brought into Ontario through an all-weather port on Hudson bay, thus short-circuiting the Department of National Revenue. I just refer to this episode, this trip to Japan, where a minister of the crown, on return to this country, said that he found there a tremendous market for western style goods as we have received word from the land of the rising sun that the businessmen of that nation do not favour dressing their geisha girls in ten gallon hats and chaps, as favoured on this side of the Pacific; and if local trade is going to be upset by western styles being forced upon the Japanese market, they feel that they will have to cut off entirely all international trade. But the federal government is not taking any stand on this matter of trespass on any part of the realm of national government, and is abdicating its position in that field, as it has abdicated in so many other fields.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in a speech last night which will probably be the zenith of this session of parliament, outlined the manner in which this parliament is being reduced to the level of a debating society by the actions of the executive arm of the party in power. I regret that the speech of the hon. member 27507-3-177
Interim Supply
for Winnipeg North Centre was not heard last night by all members of this House of Commons, as it was certainly an outline of the ridiculous position into which this parliament has been forced by the present government with regard to the discussion of estimates and budgets for this nation. This is the third time in five and a half years under the present government that we have given interim supply or interim financial statements instead of a budget. Never before has parliament been treated in such a callous manner as at the present time. I would like to see the address given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pasted on the face of every copy of the bill of rights hanging on the walls of this country today so that the public could see that the gifts which the government has so ostentatiously given to the citizens is being counteracted by the withdrawal of the rights of parliament.
I regret that in this house of minorities the largest minority should be kept in power by the open co-operation of a smaller section of the house. However, when we consider the irresponsibility of some of their actions and speeches we can accept anything. We have been given five different reasons by the leader of that party why they are voting in favour of a government which they were pledged to defeat. We have been told they had agreed to maintain the government in power only until it had corrected the mistakes of the Liberals. We were told they would keep this government in power until the spring. We were told the government would be defeated unless it brought down progressive legislation. Then we were told in a speech on June 28 by the leader of the Social Credit party: "Let us be frank about it; we do not want an election this year. We want to win the next election and we want time to get ready." This is from a man who, as leader of the Social Credit party, might be expected to know something about credits and debits. Yet we find that on November 5, referring in this house to the Chinese-Indian war, he made mention of the theory that when the government was supplying arms to the people of India it was assisting in the destruction of Canada's creditors. Well, when the leader of that party does not know the difference between a creditor and a debtor we cannot expect too much assistance from that quarter.
I wish to draw the attention of the committee to what was said by our own leader speaking in Sorel on September 22 when he said:
Thus the members who take their seats on the opposition side of the house are on that side because the electors gave them a mandate to manifest their non-confidence in the Diefenbaker government.

Interim Supply
So a member of the opposition could not give a vote of confidence to the present government without being a traitor to the mandate he has just received from the people.
I would draw these words by the Leader of the Opposition to the attention of hon. members on this side of the house. My hon. friend pointed out that those who do not live up to the mandate they received from the electors are traitors to the mandate they received. The greatest betrayal this world has ever seen involved 30 pieces of silver. We are now witnessing the betrayal of 30 constituencies because of sessional silver indemnities.
Now I should like to draw the attention of the committee to a feature of this government's policy which I am sure we all heartily endorse. I appreciate the opportunity given to me tonight to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I sincerely trust that some of the words I utter in this debate will be spread across Canada at a time when budgets are being set for hospitals from Newfoundland to Victoria. As hon. members of this committee know, the greatest problem which faces hospitals in this country today is the shortage of staff. I have taken the trouble to go through the briefs submitted to the royal commission on health services. I have read them as submitted from one end of Canada to the other. In every province we find the same tenor in the submissions- shortage of personnel. The submission of the government of Nova Scotia given by Mr. Donahoe, minister of health, points out that in the academic field of nursing there is an alarming shortage of teaching personnel. In Newfoundland it was stated by Dr. Leonard Miller, the deputy minister of health, that the total number of dentists in the province was only 44 or one to every 11,000 people. The figure for graduate nurses showed a total of 937 or 2.1 per thousand of the population whereas in Canada as a whole there are four graduate nurses per thousand. In New Brunswick the Hon. Georges L. Dumont, minister of health, commented: "If we had these nurses... it would be a wonderful help in solving the health problem of the province; so there it is.'' A Manitoba submission said the province did not have enough graduate nurses and could do with more of them. So the story runs throughout the ten provinces of Canada. In Ottawa, a statement was made by C. F. Gilhooly, who, speaking for the nurses section of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, stated:
Then their brief moves into the area of shortage of nurses, and they admit from the start that the problem of shortages is extremely complex. It is a continuing problem and there are no simple solutions.

Attention is drawn particularly to the need for qualified mental health nurses.
The great difficulty in securing a larger supply of qualified nurses is the present rate of remuneration. I regret to say that nurses are the most poorly paid of all the professional people in the country. However, the federal government through the Department of National Health and Welfare has been helping to meet this problem in an indirect way and I sincerely hope that they will both continue these efforts and expand them.
I was talking about hospital staff shortages with Dr. Rae Chittick, the lady who is the head of the McGill University School of Nursing. This was last April. The difficulty is that there is not sufficient staff for the hospitals which are already open. As a result, there is a minimum of staff and the number of patients accepted is geared to the number of staff available. Dr. Chittick told me last April that she did not think there would be any solution to these staff shortages until it was recognized that hospital staff should be paid on a shift differential and a day premium basis. I looked at the lady and remarked that I had never heard such a thought advanced before, but I could agree with her wholeheartedly. She remarked to me with some surprise "I thought you were a businessman". To this I answered "You would have to ask my competitors about that". She said "You are the first hospital trustee who did not hit the roof when payment on a shift differential and a day premium basis was mentioned. Then I made a second comment: "Dr. Chittick, I have been engaged in the printing trades for 40 years where we pay shift differentials and day premiums and in that business it is the normal way of life". My father who is 85 years of age is sitting in the gallery tonight. He has been used to paying shift differentials and day premiums, before me, so that is nothing new in our industry. How can I register any objection to bringing this system into the hospital nursing field?
In talking over hospital practices I was indeed pleased to find that in the province of Quebec a shift differential between day, night and evening shifts has been paid for the past ten years in the great majority of hospitals. I spent one day at Notre Dame hospital in Montreal discussing the matter and another with a second hospital in Montreal. I was advised that in that city there is a normal differential of 15 cents an hour or $1.20 a shift as between the evening shift and the day time shift, and that a differential of 10 cents an hour is paid on the night shift as compared with the day shift. To me it was interesting to learn that a higher differential is paid on the evening shift than on the night shift. However, the sisters who operate

this hospital pointed out that the staff prefer to enjoy the social amenities from three o'clock until 11 o'clock in the evening much more than at night, and that it is more difficult to recruit staff for that evening shift.
To find the province of Quebec paying a shift differential was interesting. However, in an effort to locate a hospital paying a day premium for sixth day work, Sunday work or holidays I found the situation was slightly different.
I have in my hand a regular copy of the agreement between the hospital of Notre Dame and the labour union. This agreement was signed on October 16, last. In this contract, when it comes to a consideration of the day premium, we have a clause stating that with regard to holidays, employees will be given a day in lieu of the holiday, within 15 days before or 15 days after it, but that if the hospital fails to give the day off in lieu of holidays, they will pay double time. You therefore have a day premium in the contract involving a Montreal hospital.
In the province of Saskatchewan we have the shift differential between day, evening and night shifts. In British Columbia we again have the shift differential. However, it is impossible to locate any day premium scale set-up in Canada, other than the one that prevails in Montreal, and in that case they reduce the staff rather than pay the day premium. By that I mean that if the holiday is worked they give the employee time off rather than pay double time.
I commend the Department of National Health and Welfare in this matter because of the fact that they go along with these three provinces, namely Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and they meet the necessary portion of the charges involved by the day premium and the shift differential rate.
I have in my hand the annual report of the Minister of National Health and Welfare under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1962. On page 10 thereof is found the following:
Generally speaking, shareable costs are the operating costs of the hospital which have been approved by the provincial authority and which have been determined in accordance with recognized and generally accepted accounting principles and procedures .. .
The province is required to review and approve the costs of each hospital and these approved costs form the basis of the federal sharing formula.
We have the federal government, which pays one third of the operating costs of the hospitals today, quite gladly and willingly paying the differential in Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. I sincerely hope 27507-3-177i
Interim Supply
that other hospitals throughout Canada, particularly in the other seven provinces where the differential is not now in effect, will take note of this co-operation on the part of the federal government and that the staffs will appeal to the respective hospital boards for similar treatment.
It is not my intention to occupy the time of the committee by extolling the merits of the riding which I represent, namely York-Humber. The hon. member for Peel stated today that his constituency was the banner riding of Canada. This statement must make mine take second place. However, rather than argue with him, I would extol the qualities of leadership which have been displayed by the board of directors of Northwestern General hospital in Toronto. They are a group of 14 men and women. Included in their number is Mr. W. G. Beech, former Conservative member of parliament in this house and former member of the provincial house in Toronto. Unanimously they have submitted to the Ontario hospital services commission for 1963 a budget which calls for shift differentials and day premiums. The board unanimously has suggested that the premium for the sixth day in the week shall be $6 per Saturday, or sixth day, $8 per shift for work on Sunday, and $10 per shift for work on statutory holidays. I may tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the problem of securing staff for hospitals can be solved only by a satisfactory monetary return and satisfactory labour relations.
In the American Journal of Nursing for November, 1962, at page 62 will be found this comment by Sister Magda Marie, director, school of nursing and nursing service, St. Catherine's hospital, Brooklyn, New York:
Today's hospitals are "big business" and nursing must develop a "big business" approach. More studies and research must be done to find ways and means. Principles of personnel management and practices need to be investigated and applied to nursing. Better and more dynamic administration in nursing service should be developed to keep the profession abreast of the times in order to meet the current health needs of patients.
I wish to commend the day premium rate of pay. I would point out that looking at the help wanted advertisements in the Nursing Outlook and other nursing periodicals to be found in the Department of National Health and Welfare or in our own parliamentary library, one will find advertisements from the Midland hospital of Midland, Michigan, in which it is pointed out that they pay evening, night and week end differentials. You will find advertisements by the Mission hospital, Huntingdon Park, California, emphasizing that they pay day premium rates. In talking with officers of the American hospital association I was informed that in Minneapolis

Interim Supply
and St. Paul, the twin cities of one of the most progressive states in the United States and the site of the University of Minnesota, they have a contract with their hospital staffs in those two cities under which they pay a day premium for Saturday and Sunday work. There is no widespread national pattern to this effect. However, by paying day premium rates hospitals should be able to attract from the ranks of married women the trained hospital personnel who refuse to come out for Saturday, Sunday and holiday work at the present rates of pay.
With a shift differential and a day premium scale I am confident that hospital staff problems can be easily solved. It is the greatest problem facing the hospital world today and therefore the greatest problem facing the Department of National Health and Welfare. Our veterans hospitals administered by the federal government are operating at 11.2 per cent shortage of nursing staff on the establishment. We get these figures from the Department of Veterans Affairs. When we cannot secure help in order to meet the establishment figures of the department, it is time that we looked at the method of payment. I want to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare for his cooperation with the provinces of Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia in paying the basic charges for shift differential rates of pay for hospital personnel and for the co-operation with the few hospitals of Quebec that now have the day premium rate of pay. I would sincerely urge the government to exert every possible means at their disposal to impress on the other provinces of Canada the beneficial results that can be expected to follow from the differential rate of pay and the day premium.
I am certain hon. members will be interested to know that only last week Riverdale hospital in Toronto, an ; 808 bed institution which will be re-opened in March, came to an agreement with their help whereby they will pay differential rates of pay, not a day premium but a shift differential. They will pay an extra 10 cents per hour on the afternoon shift and 12 cents per hour nights. These figures are interesting because they are paying higher on the night side than on the afternoon or evening shifts. This contract was negotiated by union labour officials who are accustomed to negotiating for a higher differential on the night shift than on the evening shift; but when that hospital opens you can rest assured that in a short time you will find a higher differential on the evening shift than on the night shift.
In the case of Northwestern hospital in Toronto they are suggesting to the Ontario

hospital services commission 15 cents an hour on the evening shift and 10 cents an hour on the night shift, as prevails in the city of Montreal and in the province of Quebec. I sincerely hope that the benefits that will follow the introduction of such a method of compensation for hospital personnel will be spread widely across this nation so that the greatest problem facing hospitals today may be solved, and I sincerely commend the Department of National Health and Welfare for their co-operation with the three provinces who now pay a shift differential.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the leader of this group outlined to the House of Commons a number of matters of such serious import that in the view of this group they should not only be debated in this assembly but there should be definite statements by the government on its policies with regard to the matters to which our leader made reference. It is my desire in the time at my disposal this evening to add a couple of other items to the list which he outlined.
I should like to introduce the first of these items by asking members of this house to remember the clarion call, the challenging call, of the Prime Minister to the people of Canada in 1957 and 1958. I want to be sure that I have his call absolutely correct and to make clear that it was not just a statement made once. Therefore I should like to read from the official record just what this challenging call, this clarion call, was. If hon. members will refer to the House of Commons debates for the 1957-58 session, volume I, page 650 they will see this statement by the Prime Minister:
Private enterprise does not carry with it the right of exploitation. As to foreign capital coming into Canada, it is not the purpose of this government to interfere with that investment. However, we want to ensure-and I think the house generally will agree with that stand-that investment in Canada shall be for Canadian purposes and under Canadian law.
Again, in volumes 9 and 10 of the proceedings of the external affairs committee of 195758, page 275, we find this recorded statement of the Prime Minister:
There is an intangible sense of disquiet in Canada over the political implications of large scale and continuing external ownership and control of Canadian industries.
Again, in the House of Commons debates for the session of 1957, volume 1, page 1155, we find this statement of the Prime Minister:
We did not object to United States investment but we asked for a positive national policy which would prevent foreign investment from furthering the process of continental economic integration and ultimately undermining our national identity,

I give just one more quotation because I want hon. members to remember this challenging call of the Prime Minister. In the House of Commons debates for the session of 1957, volume 3, page 3407, we find this statement by him:
We believe in foreign investment, but we also believe that investment in Canada should provide for Canadian considerations first.
We maintain that what is happening with regard to foreign investment and control in Canada is of such a nature that at least we had a right to expect some action on the part of the government since 1957 and 1958 with regard to this most serious situation, because foreign investment and control have increased under this government since the Prime Minister made these statements in 1957. According to the latest figures of the dominion bureau of statistics, which are for 1959, United States capital has led to that country controlling 52 per cent of Canadian industry. Fifty two per cent of all Canadian industry is now in the control of United States investors. That may not appear to be very important to the government but I was very interested to note that it seems to be of the utmost importance to the Financial Post. In its issue of November 3 of this year the Financial Post pointed out that it had spent many months in exhaustive study of the question of foreign investment and control in Canada, and as a result of their studies and their conclusions they have a message not only for the people of Canada but for this government. I believe I should place on record what the Financial Post thought was so important that they put it in very large black-face type. Here is what they say:
Great issues of growth and trade now beset this nation. But none raises more profound implications for the survival of Canada than the tidal sellout of Canadian companies to foreign owners. On this and the following three pages is the hard evidence of who controls Canadian industry. They show the astounding depth and degree of the invasion by foreign capital. They document a development of immense historic significance for this country.
Most certainly Canada has gained from foreign investment. And most certainly Canada needs an inflow of foreign capital to help maintain a healthy foreign exchange position. But what about Canadian independence? Where is this country going? Is our political sovereignty a pathetic pretence when economic independence goes?
Future generations looking back at the 1950's and 1960's may be able to give an answer. But the reality of the movement is that this is the age of the big take-over.
I say that in the view of this group no truer statement has ever been made. This is the age of the big take-over. This take-over is so pronounced that the information available leads us to believe the vast majority of the underwriting of fire and casualty insurance in Canada is no longer done by Canadian companies.
Interim Supply
We find, Mr. Chairman, that since 1950 an astounding number of companies have been taken over and, in the majority of instances, the take-over has been accomplished in the last four years.
We say this is something about which the Prime Minister and the government have definitely let the country down and are letting it down now. We can only take what was said in 1957 and 1958 as being solely for the purpose of political expediency, statements which they never intended to do anything about if they got government responsibility. This is not good enough, not only in so far as foreign control is concerned but also in connection with what takes place when some of these United States companies take over our Canadian operations.
I want to deal in particular with a matter which I raised the other day during the question period and which, apparently, the Prime Minister did not believe was of any importance whatever. In 1956 Canadian Canners was the largest canning operation in the British commonwealth. In that year the California Packing Corporation bought out two thirds of Canadian Canners for the sum of $14 million. At that time control of the largest canning operation in the commonwealth passed to the United States. What are they doing? They are deliberately adopting a policy of closing down our Canadian operations. About a week ago we had an announcement that the Canadian Canners operation in my own city of Vancouver is going to be closed. This is going to have a direct effect on 200 employees of the canning operation itself, upon 800 people who are employed during the picking season and it is going to affect farmers right outside of Vancouver who operate 700 acres and who have supplied the needs of this packing plant. This policy is going to have a serious effect on the economy because of the loss of wages and purchasing power, amounting to well over $3 million annually. All of this comes about because an outfit in California says so.
I want to say, sir, that this government owes it to the people of Canada to introduce legislation to protect Canadian farmers, Canadian workers and Canadian consumers when control of Canadian companies passes to foreign interests. I want to say, sir, that this policy adopted by California packers as it pertains to Canadian packers, and which I am outlining now, was adopted for one major purpose only, and that was to get the Aylmer brand. When our wives and mothers go shopping they buy according to brand names and the Aylmer brand is well known in Canada. Who-over looks at the tiny print at the bottom of the label? If you do, you will find, and this has been going on for some time now, the

Interim Supply
words, "Produced and packed in the United States". When people think of the Aylmer brand they think of Canadian farmers and Canadian workers.
I say, sir, this situation is an example of the betrayal of the real meaning of foreign investment in a country. I say it is a betrayal by this government when we have been bringing it to the attention of the government for the past four or five years. One day when I spoke I had the whole desk covered with produce I had purchased in Ottawa with the Canadian brand name on it but which had been produced and packed outside of Canada. I say, sir, there is a major responsibility on the shoulders of this government to show that they were not a bunch of confounded hypocrites in 1957, by doing something to fulfil the promises they made at that time. The Tories will say the people did not let them down in 1958. They are certainly letting the people down now, as they found out to a great extent on June 18 of this year. A lot of hon. members sitting here now will not be back again because the people are fed up with promises and no action.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that this matter was amply catalogued and indexed by the Financial Post and deserves the immediate attention of the government. All decency and honesty demands that the government provide an opportunity for discussing this issue as soon as possible in this house so that we can have a clear enunciation of government policy. Otherwise, we will be confirmed in our belief that the government has not either policies or principles.
There is one other matter I want to raise and it has to do with something of which the government is essentially proud and about which they do a lot of talking. I refer to the Canadian Bill of Rights. I should like to quote section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights:
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to
(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;
(bj impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
(e) deprive a person of the rights to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
There it is, sir, in the bill of rights; words that can be understood by a layman let alone by a lawyer or perhaps the other way around. I am stating that this government not only does not understand this section of its own 
bill of rights I have quoted but does not enforce the principles outlined in that section of the bill of rights. I have no sympathy, definitely no maudlin sympathy for a person or persons who are anti-social. If a person breaks the law of this country, then that person should be charged, should be tried and if found guilty should receive the effect of the law in accordance with his degree of guilt.
I believe, too, that the bill of rights as I have outlined it applies to a person incarcerated in an institution, just as it applies to other people. This is not the case in Canada today. It is definitely not the case as I will indicate by an example I am going to give you. This is a case I have been trying to handle through the Minister of Justice, but that course is useless. Right now in Kingston penitentiary there is a man who has been in solitary for 13 months-13 months in the hole -and for what reason? Because of a suspicion he knows something that the authorities want to find out; and because they have not been able to get evidence in any way at all regarding a most serious incident, which I shall tell you about, Mr. Chairman, they are resorting to the torture of the hole to try to force a confession, whether it be good or bad, as the means by which this man can get out of the hole.
I do not know how many hon. members visit our jails and penitentiaries. It might be a good idea if all did, and I can assure hon. members that being members of the House of Commons they cannot only get in but get out, which is unfortunate in some respects so far as some people are concerned.
This man has been in a small cell for 13 months. He is allowed out only for a few minutes for recreation, and in recreation he is not allowed to have his exercise with anybody else. He is just as much in solitary when he is taking exercise as he is in the cell. In his cell he has the canteen privileges; he can send out letters and receive letters. If he could not I would not have got the original letter which gives rise to this. He has the radio, but what else? A bed, but not a normal bed-a bed about six inches off the floor, and he has no table and no chair. During the past three years he has improved his education by about four grades, and he wants to continue doing this. He has been requesting a table and chair to help him, but the answer is always no.
Ten feet away from his cell is the cell where the officials mete out corporal punishment to the other inmates who have to be disciplined. During the 13 months he has been in solitary, this man ten times has had

what you might call a front row seat while other inmates are receiving the paddle.
What is the reason for all this? Let me give it in the words of the minister of so-called justice, and I may say it took me three weeks to get this. The reason this man is in solitary is because of a most unfortunate, disgraceful incident that occurred 13 months ago, not only unfortunate and disgraceful but something we all deplore. A guard was killed in Kingston penitentiary.
Whoever did it should be found and he should receive the penalty of the law for murder, but so far no charges have been laid, and a man is kept in solitary. Why? I quote from the letter of the Minister of Justice written to me on December 11:
Cochrane-
The man's name
-was one of the inmates who was in the Kingston penitentiary dormitory in which officer Wentworth was murdered in November, 1961. Since that event Cochrane has been segregated from the general inmate population under regulation 2.30 of the penitentiary service regulations-
He was in the dormitory when this most unfortunate incident of a guard being killed occurred, and he has been in solitary for 13 months for that reason. Why? I have it, not only on the basis of a letter this man got out to me, not only on the basis of a statement from his brother in Toronto, who got in to see him several weeks ago, but also on the basis of a letter I received just a couple of days ago from a lawyer who got in to see him for the first time since he was put in solitary, that the reason is that the authorities had a suspicion he might have murdered the guard.
They had no evidence but they had a suspicion. I understand now they have dropped that, but they still have a suspicion he knows something about it, or that he may know who did it. So, because of a suspicion that he may know something about it, he being one of the inmates who were in the dormitory when the homicide occurred, this man has been kept in the hole for 13 months. He has not a decent bed to sleep on, and he has no table or chair. This is torture, to try to obtain something of which the authorities have a suspicion.
I have no sympathy for those who break the law, but I do say I care not who the individual is, he is entitled to humane treatment and to justice. I say that if the authorities have evidence that this man murdered the guard, then let them charge him and bring him to trial. If they have not got evidence, and if they have not got any definite evidence that he knows something about
Interim Supply
it, that he was a party to a conspiracy, then I say under Canadian justice and the bill of rights which says that:
-no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to ... impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment-
-this is a matter which, in all sincerity, is the responsibility of members of parliament to take up and try to do something about.
I may say I am very grateful to the newspaper in Kingston the editor of which, when he discovered this matter, took such an interest that he was the one who sent the lawyer to the penitentiary to find out what was the situation. That is the reason why we now have this additional information on what has taken place.
Mr. Chairman, my time is just about up.
I do not have time to speak as completely as I would like on these two matters, but in conclusion I would ask that this matter of our Canadian economy and who owns and controls it be considered very soon. As we are a sovereign nation I ask that the government immediately bring in policies to stop foreign companies from buying out our Canadian industries and then closing them down. I also ask that the bill of rights be enforced and, as an example to everyone else in Canada that it should be enforced, that the government give the lead itself.
(Translation):


Mr. Pilon:: Mr. Chairman, during the next few minutes, I shall try to make a review of the events that took place since the opening of this session.
Being a new member, I will be very objective about the legislation enacted in the past.
I must tell you that I have had among the best attendance records in this house and that I have been disappointed with the policies of this government and also with the attitude of some opposition groups.
The minority government should not boast over the fact it has remained in office due to a party which not only preaches politics opposed to its own, but also advocates highly irresponsible monetary reforms. They are people who attach no value to the word equity and who have shown, since the opening of this session, no sympathy for our banking institutions which, as we all know, have greatly contributed to the economic development of our country and have made possible the economic operation of several Canadian corporations and which, as a whole, have trained men in all fields of our economic activities.

Interim Supply
Mr. Chairman, I am the member for one of the most beautiful and prosperous constituencies on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river. We, of the south shore, like to go ahead, not to mark time.
Farmers and industrialists are to be found in my constituency. The former must get everything from the provincial government. The present acts favour the western provinces for which I have great admiration. We are not opposed to this treatment, but we demand to be treated equitably if not identically. I am pleased to learn that the provincial and federal authorities have reached an agreement as regards ARDA.
We, in the district of Beloeil-St. Hilaire-Rougemont have grown 3 million bushels of apples of all kinds. As a result of the inertia of the federal Department of Trade and Commerce, 600,000 bushels have remained in the orchards for the lack of markets. We have lost $1 million and we hope that the representations of our local farm organizations will be needed and steps taken in order to correct this situation. A commission is required for the finding and opening of markets for our products. We are not asking for grants amounting to $200 per arpent, we are only asking that our voice be heard and our claims taken into consideration.
Negotiations on dairy products should be taken up with the Quebec department of agriculture. The present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) should not be so free in making public statements to the effect that we should restrict our milk and butter production; he sings another tune to the western farmers in connection with wheat. Let us make political capital where we can, seems to be his motto.
I would say, after those who spoke before me, that the province of Quebec will not countenance the austerity program in the federal Department of Agriculture, as regards premiums on hogs.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind the house that the province of Quebec has the resources and skills required to make Canada economically strong in all fields. Nothing is being done yet concerning the deepening of the Richelieu river, a project which would go a long way towards improving the economic situation on the south shore of the St. Lawrence. A Liberal government would undertake that project and you can be sure, Mr. Chairman, that it will not give rise to as many disputes and arguments as the Columbia river development.
During the past few weeks, very little has been said about the small companies financ-

ing act. That is also an important part if not the backbone of our economy. If we feel that we owe our success to our skilled workers, let us give them a chance to make a name for themselves both on domestic and foreign markets and to fight against unemployment, this national plague, on which I do not want to dwell now, since matters are going from bad to worse.
With regard to small businesses, we should extend the purpose, define the terms and modify the interest rate; we should also promote the establishment of an agency in order to free the financial institutions from extended and detailed preambles. Such an agency-[DOT] which might be tied in with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-could study each case in greater detail and, if need be, advise our businessmen. To come back to C.M.H.C. which I have already mentioned, a great deal has been done through this organization created by the Liberals but under the Conservative government fewer people could take advantage of it because without warning the interest rate has been raised from 5| per cent in 1957 to 6f per cent in 1961, and then brought down later on, to 6J per cent. Such a step taken by this government will cost the Canadian taxpayers about $3 million in the next 30 years.
After all, Mr. Chairman, this government did not take wise and responsible administrative action. I grant that the ministers have done their best, but they worked only with the tools given them by the Prime Minister. If the latter had more ideas of a practical nature, we would not be where we are now.
(Text):
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the house are and should be very constructive critics, and we have the right to ask this government to contemplate our problems on a national scale and with a non-political outlook. We as Canadians have acted so as to keep the structure of our country in one piece. The effort, if we might use that expression, was made years ago. Our party builders have maintained the prestige of Canada at its highest peak for many years. This duty is now cast on this new and younger generation. This is the challenge which the Liberal party is dedicated to meet, believing that our greatness must be found in a united Canada.
(Translation):


Mr, Ouellei:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the measure before the house seeks to grant the government the amounts it will require to pay its bills up to January 31.

Hon. members have spoken of just about everything. One dealt with nurses' salaries, another with jails. In my opinion, if we keep on like that, we will all be thrown in jail before long.
Mr. Chairman, I can hardly understand why so much time is taken up to achieve practically nothing. The estimates the government is asking us to vote will be appropriated to the payment of expenses made under certain legislation already passed by this parliament. Even though we might extend this debate for 15 days, I feel that we would have to meet those expenditures. I find it difficult to explain the attitude of certain members. As a matter of fact, people claim that we are not serious and frankly, I do not know whether it is due to my inexperience, but I am under the impression that I should be at a loss to answer, because I think that they may be right in the end.
Mr. Chairman, we have been here for three months and we have done so little that I feel we should make up for lost time on the occasion of Christmas, so as to prove to the Canadian people that we can be serious when we want to.
In my opinion, the house should vote the funds the government needs to meet its obligations. In fact, if we keep on like this, there will not be enough money to pay our parliamentary allowances for the next month. It is high time we took action since we have discussed about everything except the supplies which the government has asked us to approve.
We should show a sense of responsibility and discuss the supplementary budget to determine whether we approve the government's way of spending public funds. There is nothing to be gained by lengthy discussions since most of the relevent bills will be submitted to the house for consideration.
I might add that those who may be trying to get some publicity out of this have chosen a very bad time for it because, right now, Canadians are much more interested in buying Christmas gifts than reading our speeches.
That is why I feel this debate should be postponed until after the holidays.
(Text):


Mr. Roxburgh:: At this point I should like to speak on a subject which is of the greatest importance to this nation, and that is the physical fitness program which has not yet 27507-3-178
Interim Supply
been dealt with in this house. The importance of this program is possibly greater than hon. members realize.
On August 25, 1961, the Prime Minister at the opening of the hockey hall of fame promised $5 million for a physical fitness and athletic program. He went on to say that such a program was vital to mental and physical health in a demanding world and for purposes of national prestige in the fight against communism. That is fine.
I am glad to see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has come in. It has been my privilege to have travelled with Canadian hockey teams not only throughout Canada and the United States but throughout Europe. It has been my privilege to be with Canadian hockey teams in Russia and in the city of Moscow. In that city, which contains between six million and eight million people, they have ten recreational parks established at a cost of a million dollars a year to the city. The smallest park extends over 250 acres, and the largest is approximately 2,000 acres. In each one of those parks there is every known facility for the development of physical fitness and an amateur program. While I was there I read some Russian sport magazines and in those magazines full credit was given to their physical fitness program for the success of Russian athletes in world competition. And I will tell hon. members this, that in days of peace the performance of our athletes in world competition creates the prestige which other countries go by. Do not let us forget that.
I think we were all ashamed, and every Canadian in this house was ashamed at the reports which came back during the last two world wars of the physical unfitness of so many of our young men who went to serve in the armed forces.


An hon. Member:: What did your government do about it?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: If hon. members opposite have something to say I will be very glad to hear them after I have finished. If any one of them wants to take me on in a debate on this physical fitness program I should be glad to take him on.
After the Prime Minister had made his statement, one of the leading press writers in Toronto told me: "Jack, look, this is a wonderful idea but politics are going to get into it." I said: "No, you are absolutely wrong." However, I was wrong. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is here. I want to say I have every respect for him as a man, and when the Prime Minister handed him the job of handling the physical fitness program he handed him a tiger by the tail.

Business of the House
I do not know how other hon. members borrow money, but when I have to borrow money to conduct my business I go to the bank. What does the bank say? Does the bank say: "Here are so many dollars, Jack. You can make up your program after I have given you the dollars." No. They say: "Give me a plan and then we will lend you the money". But what did the Prime Minister do? Right out of a hat-and I will make a bet there was no other minister who knew what he was going to say-he promised $5 million, against nothing. The thought was "We will get the plan rolling after we get the $5 million." I am sorry to say the plan does not exist.
Coming back to the politics within the physical fitness program may I say this. As I said previously, I realize that when I am making this statement it is certainly not personal in any way, shape or form. In the beginning when people were asking for information, it was my privilege


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Mr. Churchill:: I wonder whether the committee would continue for a few minutes in order that we might perhaps finish interim supply.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I am sorry, but if the committee wish to continue for half an hour that is fine with me.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is fine with me.


Rémi Paul: Order. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise and report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the house leader could indicate how he hopes to have the business conducted for the next two days?


Mr. Monteith:: Expeditiously.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would advise the hon. member to leave it to the house leader.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope it will be conducted in an orderly fashion. I would be quite content to sit here tonight for another hour or two if we could finish interim supply. If not, we shall be obliged to go on with interim supply tomorrow. I urge hon. members to consider the fact that time is beginning to run out and that we should pass this business.


George Clyde Nowlan: We will adjourn over Christmas and come back on December 27.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it is a little bit difficult to go beyond tomorrow, without some knowledge of when this debate will conclude. I should like to make this request for tomorrow on a different subject. I had hoped today at five o'clock to ask the house to give consent to consider Bill C-82 on procedure with regard to divorce, but other private bills which had precedence took up the allotted time. I now put this request before the house. Instead of discussing notices of motions tomorrow at five o'clock could we take under consideration Bill C-82? As far as this party is concerned, it is open to any member to vote as he wishes on it. It is not a party matter. However, we should like to bring this bill forward in order to get on with the question of divorce. This bill seems to present a method which might be tried out by parliament, even if it is not the most satisfactory one. I should like to hear from the other parties whether tomorrow at five o'clock we could consider that bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think I can safely say that we would be prepared to accept the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman on the understanding that this was not just going to be an hour's debate but rather that there was some disposition to reach a determination of this matter. We take the same view as the minister has expressed so far as his friends are concerned, namely that as far as any vote on the bill is concerned, it is up to each individual member to vote as he wishes. We have no position on the bill itself, except that we are prepared to have it come to a determination. However, it does not seem to me that any purpose whatsoever would be served by merely taking an hour appointed for some other purpose just in order to have a futile debate. Speaking for myself and, I think, for my friends I may say that unless there is agreement among the parties to bring this matter to a determination tomorrow, we would be willing, and we think it would be much more sensible, to use the hour in order to enable the government to get through those two or three measures about which the minister spoke earlier, on the understanding that this hour would not be lost if the session progresses later on.
We see a certain problem which the minister has with respect to university grants and this sewage treatment project measure, and I understand that is all that is involved. There is also this bill concerning a railway branch line in New Brunswick which I understand the C.N.R. is just waiting to have passed so that they can provide jobs for some people. We should very much like to do that.

Business of the House
As I say, I agree with the minister that if we can reach a determination of the divorce business in one hour we should be very happy to agree to that suggestion. However, if there is not agreement that it can be determined in one hour I suggest that instead we allow the government to have that hour, not for supply but rather to help the government with these three other measures which I think there is fairly general agreement we should all like to see passed.


Mr. Patterson:: We in this group are in accord with the suggestion made by the house leader in this particular regard. We would be prepared to have this bill brought before us tomorrow at five o'clock. We would also hope that it would come to the point of determination during that hour. It is not our intention to debate the bill to any great extent. We would possibly just have one speaker make a brief statement presenting our position on it and then would allow it to pass. However, we would hope that if it was brought forward it would come to the point of determination and that we would have a vote on it.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I thought you said the other day that you did not want members of the various groups getting into this discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: These are peculiar circumstances which the Chair will recognize.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If Your Honour is recognizing these peculiar circumstances, I should like to say that I prefer not to make any commitment at this time. However, I should be glad to discuss the proposals that have been made both by the leader of the house for the government and by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. I should be glad to discuss them with my colleagues in the morning and to let the Minister of Veterans Affairs know the result in plenty of time before the house opens.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is a very sensible suggestion, and I concur in it. I hope that in one way or another we can use this time to better advantage than in discussing the motion that is set down for tomorrow. We recognize that there is some public business that ought to be concluded.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have just one last word to say, Mr. Speaker. Will the representatives of the various parties meet in my room, 426N, tomorrow at two o'clock?


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
27507-3-178i
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 19, 1962