1962-02-14

[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet!	(Peel) presented the	report of the special	committee appointed	to
prepare and report lists of members to com-		
pose the standing committees of the house,		as
follows:		
PRIVILEGES	AND ELECTIONS	
Messrs:		
Aiken	McGee	
Barrington	Mcllraith	
Bell (Carleton)	McWilliam	
Caron	Meunier	
Deschambault	Montgomery	
Godin	Nielsen	
Grills	Ormiston	
Henderson	Paul	
Hodgson	Pickersgill	
Howard	Richard (Ottawa East)	
Johnson	Valade	
Macquarrie	Webb	
Mandziuk	Webster	
McBain	Woolliams	
McDonald (Hamilton		
South)		
(Quorum-10)		
RAILWAYS, CANALS	AND TELEGRAPH LINES	
Messrs:		
Allmark	Lessard	
Asselin	Maclnnis	
Badanai	MacLean (Winnipeg	
Baldwin	North Centre)	
Benidickson	Martin (Essex East)	
Bourbonnais	Matheson	
Bourget	McBain	
Bourque	McDonald (Hamilton	
Brassard (Chicoutimi)	South)	
Brassard (Lapointe)	McFarlane	
Browne (Vancouver-	McGee	
Kingsway)	McGregor	
Bruchesi	McPhillips	
Cadieu	Monteith (Verdun)	
Campbell (Stormont)	Pascoe	
Campeau	Payne	
Chevrier	Phillips	
Creaghan	Pigeon	
Crouse	Pitman	
Denis	Rapp	
Drysdale	Rogers	
Dumas	Rynard	
Fisher	Simpson	
Fournier	Smith (Calgary South)	
Grills	Smith (Lincoln)	
Hodgson	Smith (Simcoe North)	
Horner (Acadia)	Thompson	
Howe	Tucker	
Johnson	Valade	
Keays	Woolliams	
Kennedy	Wratten	
LaMarsh, Miss

[Stage Direction]
Baldwin
Batten
Beech
Bigg
Broome
Campbell (Stormont)
Carter
Chatterton
Cooper
Crestohl
Danforth
Forbes
Forgie
Garland
Granger
Hales
Horner (The Battlefords)
LaMarsh, Miss
Kennedy
Knowles
MacEwan
MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre) Macnaughton Mandziuk Martin (Timmins)
Matthews
McBain
McCleave
McDonald (Hamilton South)
McFarlane
McLennan
McMillan
Milligan
Mitchell
Monteith (Verdun)
More
Morton
Nixon
Ormiston
Peters
Regnier
Robinson
Rogers
Simpson
Smith (Lincoln)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Stefanson
Webster
Wratten
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Aiken	MacLean (Winnipeg
Argue	North Centre)
Asselin	MacLellan
Baldwin	Macnaughton
Bell (Carleton)	Martin (Essex	East
Bell (Saint John-Albert) Mcllraith
Benidickson
Bigg
Brassard (Chicoutimi)
Broome
Campeau
Cardin
Caron
Cathers
Chevrier
Clermont
Creaghan
Crestohl
Drysdale
Hales
Hanbidge
Hicks
Horner (Acadia)
Jung
Macdonald, Mrs. Macdonnell
McIntosh
More
Morissette
Morton
Nasserden
Nugent
Pascoe
Pickersgill
Regier
Robichaud
Rowe
Rynard
Skoreyko
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Southam
Stewart
Stinson
Thomas
Woolliams
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Beech
Bell (Carleton)
Benidickson
Bissonnette
Bourbonnais
Bourget
Brassard (Chicoutimi) Broome
Bruchesi
Campeau
Danforth
Deschatelets
Denis
Drysdale
Dupuis
Grenier
(Quorum-20)
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
Hales	Pigeon
Hanbidge	Pratt
Hellyer	Regier
Keays	Robichaud
Lahaye	Rouleau
Macdonnell	Smith (Lincoln)
Macnaughton	Smith (Simcoe North)
McGee	Smith (Winnipeg North)
McGrath	Spencer
McGregor	Stefanson
Morissette	Stewart
Morton	Tucker
Muir (Lisgar)	Valade
Murphy	Villeneuve
Noble	Winch
Nugent	Woolliams
Pickersgill	Wratten (Quorum-15)
AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION Messrs:	
Argue	Latour
Badanai	Letourneau
Belzile	Mandziuk
Boulanger	Matheson
Brassard (Lapointe) McBain	
Cadieu	McIntosh
Campbell (Lambton- Michaud	
Kent)	Milligan
Clancy	Montgomery
Clermont	Muir (Lisgar)
Cooper	Nasserden
Danforth	Noble
Doucett	Pascoe
Drouin	Peters
Dubois	Phillips
Dupuis	Racine
Fane	Rapp
Forbes	Regnier
Forgie	Rogers
Godin	Rompre
Gundlock	Slogan
Hales	Smallwood
Henderson	Southam
Hicks	Stefanson
Horner (Acadia)	Tardif
Howe	Thomas
Kindt	Thompson
Knowles	Tucker
Korchinskl	Villeneuve
Lahaye Leduc	Webb (Quorum-20)
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:	
Aitken, Miss	Garland
Argue	Grafftey
Batten	Horner (Jasper-Edson)
Best	Loiselle
Bourdages	McWilliam
Brassard (Chicoutimi) Meunier	
Campeau	Milligan
Danforth	Spencer
Forgie	Webb
Frechette	Webster (Quorum-8)
MARINE AND FISHERIES Messrs:	
Batten	Crouse
Browne (Vancouver- Danforth	
Kingsway)	Drysdale
Cardin	English
Carter 	Gillet
Granger	McQuillan
Grenier	McWilliam
Howard	Michaud
Keays	Murphy
Legere	Noble
Macdonald, Mrs.	O'Leary
MacEwan	Phillips
MacLellan	Pickersgill
Matthews	Robichaud
McCleave	Speakman
McGrath	Stefanson
McLennan	Stewart
McPhillips	Tucker (Quorum-10)
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs:	
Aiken	Leduc
Baskin	MacRae
Cadieu	Martel
Campbell (Stormont) Martin (Timmins)	
Chatterton	McFarlane
Clermont	McGregor
Coates	McLennan
Doucett	McQuillan
Drysdale	Mitchell
Dumas	Muir (Cape Breton
Fleming	North and Victoria)
(Okanagan-Revelstoke) Nielsen	
Godin	Nugent
Granger	Payne
Gundlock	Racine
Hicks	Robichaud
Kindt	Rompre
Korchinski LaMarsh, Miss	Simpson (Quorum-10)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Messrs:	
Beech	Martin (Essex East)
Benidickson	Martini
Bourdages	McDonald (Hamilton
Broome	South)
Browne (Vancouver- McWilliam	
Kingsway)	Mitchell
Caron	Monteith (Verdun)
Clermont	Muir (Cape Breton North
Creaghan	and Victoria)
Drouin	Noble
Fournier	Pigeon
Godin	Pitman
Grafftey	Ricard
Granger	Simpson
Lafreniere	Skoreyko
Lahaye	Small
LaMarsh, Miss	Smith (Winnipeg
MacLean (Winnipeg North)	
North Centre)	Spencer
Mandziuk	Weichel (Quorum-10) DEBATES Messrs:
Argue	Nixon
Campbell (Lambton	- Paul
Kent)	Pigeon
Chevrier	Regnier
Fortin	Richard (Ottawa East)
McPhillips Monteith (Verdun)	Roberge
(Quorum-7)

[Stage Direction]
Aitken, Miss	Messrs: Lennard
Allard	MacLellan
Asselin	Mandziuk
Batten	Martin (Essex East)
Cardin	McCleave
Casselman, Mrs.	McGee
Gathers	McIntosh
Crestohl	Montgomery
Eudes	Nesbitt
Fairfield	Nugent
Fleming	Pearson
(Okanagan-Revelstoke) Pratt	
Garland	Regier
Hellyer	Richard (Ottawa East)
Herridge	Slogan
Jung	Smith (Calgary South)
Kucherepa	Vivian
Lafreniere	White
Argue	(Quorum-10) ESTIMATES Messrs: Korchinski
Baldwin	LaMarsh, Miss
Benidickson	MacLellan
Best	Matheson
Bissonnette	McCleave
Bourbonnais	McDonald (Hamilton
Bourdages	South)
Bourget	McFarlane
Brassard (Lapointe) McGee	
Broome	McGrath
Bruchesi	McGregor
Campbell (Lambton- Mcllraith	
Kent)	McQuillan
Cardin	Me William
Caron	More
Carter	Noble
Cathers	Parizeau
Clancy	Payne
Coates	Pickersgill
Crouse	Pratt
Drysdale	Pugh
Dumas	Richard (Kamouraska)
Fairfield	Skoreyko
Fleming (Okanagan- Smith (Calgary South)	
Revelstoke)	Stewart
Fortin	Stinson
Gillet	Thompson
Grafftey	Vivian
Hales	White
Hellyer	Winch
Homer (Jasper-Edson) Winkler	
Howe (Quorum-20) VETERANS AFFAIRS	
Badanai	Messrs: Lennard
Barrington	MacEwan
Batten	MacRae
Beech	Matthews
Benidickson	McFarlane
Broome	McIntosh
Cardin	McWilliam
Carter	Monteith (Verdun)
Chatterton	Montgomery
Clancy	O'Leary
Denis	Ormiston
Fane	Parizeau
Forgie	Peters
Herridge	Pugh
Jones	Roberge
Kennedy	Robinson
LaMarsh, Miss	Rogers
Standing Committees
Smith (Lincoln)	Webster
Stewart	Weichel
Thomas	Winkler
(Quorum-15) PRINTING
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Messrs:
Allard	Korchinski
Asselin	Lahaye
Barrington	Lessard
Belzile	Letourneau
Bissonnette	Matheson
Boivin	Maclnnis
Bourdages	MacLellan
Bourque	McDonald (Hamilton
Brunsden	South)
Cadieu	McLennan
Campeau	McWilliam
Caron	Meunier
Clancy	Michaud
Cooper	Morissette
Creaghan	O'Leary
Deschambault	Phillips
Deschatelets	Rapp
Dubois	Richard (Kamouraska)
Dupuis	Robinson
Fane	Rouleau
Fisher	Skoreyko
Fortin	Slogan
Gillet	Smallwood
Godin	Southam
Grafftey	Taylor
Gundlock	Webb
Henderson Howard	Winkler-54
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker, Miss	Aitken and Messrs.
Belzile	Mcllraith
Bourbonnais	Muir (Lisgar)
Bourque	Nixon
Brunsden	Pigeon
Campeau	Pratt
Eudes	Racine
Fairfield	Ratelle
Fisher	Regier
Fleming (Okanagan-	Richard (Ottawa East)
Revelstoke)	Richard (St. Maurice-
Forbes	Lafleche)
Frechette	Rouleau
Grenier	Simpson
Hanbidge	Skoreyko
Kindt	Small
Knowles	Smith (Lincoln)
LaRue	Smith (Simcoe
Lennard	North)
Lessard	Smith (Winnipeg
Macquarrie	North)
Martel	Southam
Matthews	Stinson
McFarlane	Tremblay-45.
McGee	
RESTAURANT	
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)	
Mr. Speaker and Messrs.	
Bourque	Hales
Campbell (Lambton-	Horner
Kent)	(The Battlefords)
Carter	Lafreniere
Chatterton	Latour
Deschatelets	Legere
Doucett	Letourneau
Godin	Martin (Timmins)
[Stage Direction]
McGregor McQuillan Muir (Lisgar) Pratt
Richard (Ottawa
Questions Tardif Taylor Villeneuve W eichel
East) Wratten-25.
Mr. Pallet! moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
I.L.S., V.F.R., I.F.R., calibration and communication testing purposes. It is at present engaged in an extensive training and test program which will occupy it for a period of months. It has, therefore, not been made available for ministerial transportation at the present time, but this may be possible at a future date on a restricted basis.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	How much revenue was received by the Department of Transport from the Port Weller-Sarnia district through pilotage fees?
2.	How much of this was paid to the Americans as their share?
3.	What was the total amount paid in salary or wages to Canadian pilots in this district in 1961?
4.	Was any provision made in 1961 to aid pilots during the busier part of the season in order to ameliorate the working conditions of the pilots on the staff?


Mr. Martini:: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the four parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Final accounting of collections and disbursements by United States and Canadian offices is not yet completed.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	$468,335.06.
4.	Yes, by the registration of additional pilots.


* JET PLANE PURCHASE, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
Mr. Nixon: Has the Department of Transport recently acquired a jet plane and, if so, is it intended that this plane will be used by the Prime Minister and federal cabinet ministers?


Quinto Antonio Martini: Mr. Speaker, as announced on several previous occasions, the Department of Transport some years ago ordered a small jet aircraft in order to provide the department with complete operational data and experience in civil jet aircraft, since these must be regulated by the department.
This aircraft has recently been delivered and will be used for a wide variety of jet
IMr. Pallett.]


*PROPOSED EAST COAST FERRY TERMINAL, NFLD.
Mr. Carter: Has the attention of the Minister of Transport been drawn to a brief compiled by Captain M. G. Dalton, former marine superintendent of Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland, concerning suitability of Little Southern harbour as a site for the Newfoundland terminal of the proposed ferry service between North Sydney and the east coast of Newfoundland: and, if so, what consideration was given to this brief?


Quinto Antonio Martini: Mr. Speaker, certain information on this matter was provided to the minister in personal correspondence which accordingly placed some limitations upon the use that could be made of it. However, the department is aware of the potentials of Little Southern harbour, and while the analyses to date point overwhelmingly in favour of the use of Argentia there are certain points in connection with Little Southern harbour on which it is still intended to check.


HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, NORTHERN QUEBEC
Mr. Martel: 1.	What amounts have been paid by, or claimed from, the federal government for highway construction work, between Amos and Mattagami in northern Quebec, carried out under the federal-provincial agreement entered into in Quebec city in October 1960?
2.	Who were the tenderers with respect to these works; at what time, to whom, and for what price was the contract awarded?
3.	What is the total cost of the construction work of the said highway, the total amount of the federal contribution, and the total amount of the extras approved or recommended by the federal engineers and inspectors assigned to the project; and the total amounts claimed by the provincial authorities over and above the contract price?
4.	Will the federal government table a copy of the contract entered into by the province of Quebec and the general contractor, together with (a) a list of the names and addresses of the workers employed on this highway construction project (b) a list of the names of those from whom equipment has been rented on an hourly basis or by contract as subcontractors or otherwise (c) a list of the suppliers, and of the persons who recommended them to the contractor?
5.	Who were the other persons or companies that worked on a contract or day's work basis for the government of Quebec, under the federal-provincial agreement respecting the said roads to resources?
6.	If the answers to parts 4 and 5 are not available federally, will the information be obtained from the provincial authorities concerned in view of the federal contribution to a substantial share of this construction contract under the agreement referred to in part 1 above?

Answer by: Mr. Dinsdale:
1.	From the date that the agreement was signed to the present, the federal government has paid $738,557 to the province of Quebec for work carried out on the Amos to Mattagami road.
2.	Contractors who submitted tenders for construction of this road were as follows:
Les Constructions du St-Laurent Ltee., Vil-leneuve, P.Q., $2,592,273.03.
Dramis Construction Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $2,990,323.53.
La Societe d'Entreprises Generales Ltee, Amos, P.Q., $3,267,785.75.
Simard & Freres Cie. Ltee., Montreal, P.Q., $3,556,966.15.
Paquin Construction Co. Ltd., Val-d'Or, P.Q., $3,699,318.40.
H. J. O'Connell Ltee, Montreal, P.Q., $3,750,077.00.
L. O. Trottier & Fils Ltee, Cap de la Madeleine, P.Q., $3,916,182.00.
McNamara (Quebec) Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $3,965,599.00.
Dan Lamothe Ltee., Noranda, P.Q., 3,980,965.90.
Boyer Construction Co. Enrg., St. Gervais, Cte Bellechasse, P.Q., $3,415,662.60.
On November 14, 1960, approval was given for the award of a contract to Les Constructions du St-Laurent Ltee., the low bidder, in the amount of $2,592,273.03, plus 10 per cent of the contract amount for contingencies. Total approval $2,851,500.33.
3.	Total cost of work approved to date is $4,383,723.55 (Canada's share $2,191,862) for the Amos to Mattagami road. Included in this total is $2,851,500.33 originally approved for the St-Laurent contract (including 10 per cent contingencies) plus extras amounting to $845,499.67, bringing the present total of this contract plus contingencies to $3,697,000.00. Approval has also been given for materials- $185,000, engineering-$295,000 and other miscellaneous charges-$48,000.
4.	Not available in this department. This information available only from the provincial government.
5.	Contracts were awarded for bridge construction to the following firms who were low bidders for the work concerned:
(1)	March 2, 1961, La Societe d'Entreprises Generales Ltee., Amos, P.Q. (Deck-Harricana river bridge), $32,977.94.
(2)	April 11, 1961, Standard Structural Steel Ltd., (Superstructure Harricana river bridge), $56,144.00.
(3)	April 11,	1961, L. Lavergne Ltee.,
(Panache and St-Dominique river bridge), $54,601.58.
Questions
Engineering for the above three contracts was approved in the amount of $15,000.
6.	This information is not normally obtained from the province by this department. When an individual requests information of this nature, he is referred directly to the province for an answer.


* PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH, RESOURCES FOR TOMORROW CONFERENCE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or the Minister of Forestry or the secretariat of the resources for tomorrow conference received any complaints, criticisms, or suggestions from anyone regarding the speech made by the Prime Minister at the opening of the resources for tomorrow conference in which he set out the government's intention to carry on the general purpose of the conference with some kind of continuing organization?
2.	If so. from whom did such responses come?


Mr. Dinsdale:: The answers are as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


* RESOURCES FOR TOMORROW
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What are the plans of the federal government to carry on the work initiated by the resources for tomorrow secretariat and conference?
2.	Have all the provinces expressed unanimity or intention of support for the federal government suggestions?
3.	If not, which provinces have expressed a caveat or qualifications?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 1.	The government proposes to follow up actively the work initiated by the resources for tomorrow conference and its secretariat by co-ordinating its activities with those of the provinces through the means of the resource ministers' council which was constituted on February 5, 1962, to succeed to the ministers' steering committee. The means for achieving this were set out in a press release issued on February 6, following the steering committee meeting.
2.	The provinces all agreed to pursue the work in the manner indicated in paragraph 1.
3.	Not applicable.



* DAWSON CITY FESTIVAL


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources spent any money to restore completely Arizona Charlie's famous Palace Grand Dance Hall for the occasion of the Dawson city gold rush festival?
2.	If so, (a) what was the amount (b) under what vote or statutory provision is the money being expended?
3.	What officials of the department are in direct charge of the expenditures?

Questions
4.	What amount of the expenditures are to be recouped from the festival itself?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 1.	Yes, the Palace Grand theatre is being restored as a national historic site in time for public use during the gold rush festival.
2.	(a) $138,463, to December 31, 1961.
(b) Funds are provided in vote 285, national parks and historic sites and monuments-construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment; statutory authority is provided in the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.
3.	G. L. Scott, chief engineer, national parks branch, Ottawa; T. C. Fenton, supervising engineer, Banff, Alberta; F. A. Dunphy, project engineer, Dawson city, Yukon Territory.
4.	None.



FARM CREDIT ACT LOANS

Mr. Racine: 1.	How many loans have been made by the Farm Credit Corporation (a) under part II, (b) under part III, of the Farm Credit Act in each province?
2.	How many farmers have borrowed over $15,000 under part II of the said act in each province?
Answer by: Mr. Charlton:
1. Number of loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation under part II and part III of the Farm Credit Act in each province:
Province	Part II	Part IIIBritish Columbia 	... 455	29Alberta 	.. . 3208	82Saskatchewan 	... 4447	72Manitoba 	... 769	30Ontario	... 3284	93Quebec 	.. . 252	47New Brunswick	... 130	8Nova Scotia	.. . 55	6Prince Edward Island .	... 232	15Newfoundland 	.. . 1	-12833	382
2. Number of farmers who have borrowed over $15,000 under part II of the Farm Credit Act in each province.
Province	No. of farmers
British Columbia	 107
Alberta	 447
Saskatchewan	 472
Manitoba	 116
Ontario	 668
Quebec	 44
New Brunswick	 13
Nova Scotia	 9
Prince Edward Island	 2
Newfoundland	 -



ALLOWANCES UNDER WAR VETERANS ACT

Mr. Creaghan: 1.	How many male veterans under age 60 have satisfied the special requirements of the War Veterans Allowance Act and are now in receipt of allowances?
2.	How many widows and female veterans under age 55 have likewise qualified for allowances?
3.	What is the total number of persons, under age 65, now in receipt of allowances?
4.	What is the total number of persons now in receipt of allowances?
Answer by: Mr. Churchill:
As of December 31, 1961:
1.	6,523.
2.	1,192.
3.	24,454.
4.	74,901.



FEDERAL BUILDING, BROCKVILLE

Mr. Matheson: 1.	Have plans been completed for the construction of a federal building at Brockville?
2.	When will construction work begin?
Answer by: Mr. Tasse:
1.	No.
2.	It is expected to begin this year.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Cardin: Was an offer made by the national film board to any schools in Canada to provide free film equipment for orders of film strip reaching a certain total; and, if so, was it later withdrawn, and why?


Mrs. Fairclough:: It is true that an offer was made to educational institutions by the national film board for inclusion of a projector with the order for a certain number of film strips. This was done because a similar offer was made by United States companies to our schools, and it was felt that it was better to have the schools supplied with Canadian films. However, after the offer had been in force for some time strong protests were received from the master photo dealers and finishers association of Canada, who objected to this particular deal. Consequently it was withdrawn.
duty officers' grievance, h.m.c. dockyard,



HALIFAX

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 159*-Mr. McWilliam:
Have the duty officers at Bedford magazine, Halifax, filed a grievance with the personnel office at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax; and, if so, has this grievance been acted upon, and with what results?
Mr. Chambers:: Yes, a grievance was filed,
fully considered by the department and disallowed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard: Since November 1, 1961, has the government of Canada, or any agency, branch, or department thereof, paid any money to, or on behalf of, or is any money owed to, or on behalf of, any editor, publisher, or other representative of any newspaper, excluding payments for advertisements, and if so, with respect to each such editor, publisher or other representative, what is (a) his name and address (b) the newspaper which he represented or was associated with (c) the amount of any such payment or indebtedness for transportation expenses and the places travelled to and/or from (d) the amount of any such payment or indebtedness for hotel and/or meals (e) the amount of any other such payment and the reasons therefor?



* TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 123
Mr. Leduc:: 1.	Does the Department of Transport bill other departments of government or individuals for use of its passenger planes; and, if so, have any such billings been made with respect to travels made by members of the government either to (a) their individual departments (b) to non-governmental organizations or individuals?
2.	If the answer is yes in the case of (b), what amounts have been billed in each case, and for what flights?



FORESTERS MEETING, MINNEAPOLIS    ADDRESS BY CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVE

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did a representative of the economics division of the federal Department of Forestry address a joint meeting of Canadian and American foresters in Minneapolis?
2.	If so, (a) who was he (b) what were his professional qualifications (c) did he comment upon the operation of American corporations in Canadian forest industries (d) did he make any statements about the effect of such corporations upon the competitive position of Canada in world markets (e) did he offer any solution to the problem (f) did the express any opinions about the international nature of the trade unions which hold contracts in the Canadian woods industry; and, if so, to what effect?



PREVAILING RATES OF PAY, NATIONAL DEFENCE, TORONTO

Mr. Herridge: What are the rates of pay for the following prevailing rates employees of the Department of National Defence in the Toronto area, and when did these rates come into effect (a) plumbers (b) painters (c) motor mechanics (d) electricians (e) labourers?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Chevrier:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid
Motions for Papers
before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general or other provincial ministers since July 1, 1960, regarding the method of amending the constitution of Canada.
Mr. Fulton:: I have heard from all but three of the provinces, I think it is, and would accordingly ask that this motion be allowed to stand for a further period.


Mr. Pickersgill:: That procedure would be quite agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



CONTRACTS FOR SALE OF GRAIN TO CHINA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5
Mr. Mcllrailh:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all contracts entered into between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company for the sale of grain under the long term agreement between the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company.


Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that this motion and the next one stand until the minister returns?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the request raises a point of order of some concern to me. These motions have been on the order paper since January 29, and coupled with them is a very simple question of the same date, being the first one on today's order paper. The question has been stood from day to day, and it seems to me there is no adequate reason for the repeated request that the notices of motion stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is entitled to have his motion proceeded with if he does not agree to having it stood.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF WHEAT TO CHINA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Mcllraiih:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the long term agreement signed by the Canadian wheat board and the China Resources Company covering the period June 1, 1961, to December 1963.
Mr. Speaker:: I take it the same considerations apply to this motion as to the one which the house has just considered? Does the hon. member wish to proceed?


George James McIlraith: I do, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the members are called in?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Paul (for Mr. Martel):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of the correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec, relating to the present winter works program.
Mr. Dorion:: An order for return, with the reservation that the consent of the province be obtained.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear what the minister said.


Noël Dorion: It is to be an order for return, with the usual reservation concerning consultation with the province.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to accept Mr. Paul for the mover of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question arising out of a press report that a five year agreement for regulating world trade in cotton textiles was concluded at Geneva on February 9.
Is Canada a party to this agreement, and could the minister give us any indication of its nature.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a preliminary report on this matter, and I think I might make a statement on it tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Earlier this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question concerning the long term cotton textile agreement. I am informed that the text of the agreement is to be made public on Friday. In reply to the question asked me this afternoon I said that I might make a statement on this matter tomorrow. I think now that I should reserve my statement until Friday for this reason.



INDUSTRIAL FAIR, INDIA  INQUIRY AS TO PARTICIPANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary. On Monday last, in answer to a question on the orders of the day, the minister said that Canada had not participated in the industrial fair held in India in 1961. Can the minister tell the house how many other countries participated in that fair?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: We
believe eleven participated, Mr. Speaker; Britain, West Germany, Italy, Japan and the entire bloc of east European countries.



NEW YORK WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Rouleau: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or, in his absence, his parliamentary secretary can take it as notice. Will the minister tell the house whether Canada received any invitation to participate in the 1964 New York world's fair and, if so, whether the invitation has been accepted either through the government or through a private organization in the country?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Edmund Leverett Morris: As
the hon. gentleman kindly suggested, Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the response of the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom to the proposed summit conference of heads of state at Geneva on March 14, is the Prime Minister now prepared to inform the house as to Canada's decision and what reply has been made to Premier Khrushchev?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the reply has been prepared and is under way for presentation to Mr. Khrushchev. Until it is received by him I know the hon. member will realize it would not be proper to place it before the house. However, so that the house will be fully cognizant of what Mr. Khrushchev's letter to me contained I suggest that his letter to me might be tabled, and that the reply also be tabled as soon as it has been received by him.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the letter in question be tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the


Minister of Labour, and regret not having had an opportunity of sending him notice. Is the minister aware that a statement was made in St. John's today by the premier of Newfoundland to the effect that Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation anticipates laying off 700 of their personnel at the Wabana mines, Bell Island? If so, will the minister look into the circumstances surrounding this lay-off?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the statement to which the hon. member refers, but I shall be glad to look into the situation and have a report prepared for the hon. gentleman.



NEW WATERFORD, N.S.    THREATENED CLOSURE OF COLLIERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Will the minister inform the house whether the government has received a request from the government of Nova Scotia for a meeting on the threatened closure of No. 16 colliery at New Waterford?


Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. My question arises from protests about a Sunday evening television program entitled "Quest", variously described to me in letters I have received as "depraved", "disgusting", "absolutely immoral", "garbage", and "a rank violation of the sanctity of the Canadian home and family".
My question is this. Will the minister lend his influence toward the removal of this program shown, of all times, on Sunday evenings, and ensure no repetition under other names? Further, will he take steps to institute some controls over the apparently degenerate minds which often appear to have completely taken over C.B.C. programming?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as a good Baptist I am in church on Sunday nights, so I have not had occasion to watch the program in question.

If I were to answer the question in short I would say no, because it has been the policy of this government from the beginning, as it was the policy of the previous government and as I hope it will always be the policy of federal governments, not to interfere with the programming of the C.B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


George Clyde Nowlan: I hear some catcalls-


Mr. Benidickson:: On the government side of the house.


George Clyde Nowlan: However, I suggest that if we were to start interfering with the programming of the C.B.C. we would be laying the foundation for either a fascist state or a communist state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: Once a political party starts interfering with the C.B.C. which is a publicly owned system created for the various purposes which I need not enumerate now, then the groundwork is laid for such a situation to develop. Having said that I should also like to say this. I have been disturbed by the number of protests which I have received during the last few weeks about programs similar to the one to which the hon. member calls the attention of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Moore Benidickson: Applause from the government side.


George Clyde Nowlan: The C.B.C. is a self governing, independent corporation. I think many people have the idea that the corporation is run from Toronto. It is not governed from Toronto; it is controlled by senior officers here in Ottawa. I receive many complaints similar to that raised by the hon. gentleman. All I can do is pass them along to the C.B.C. I suspect that many complaints go to officials in Toronto some of whom are perhaps the very ones responsible for the programs complained of. They may send a polite letter of acknowledgement and toss the protest in the waste basket.
I suggest that complaints should be forwarded to the senior officers of the C.B.C. in Ottawa, Mr. Ouimet, the president, Captain Briggs, the vice-president, and their associates. There is no more able group of senior officers in the public service. Protests should be sent to them so they may hear what the Canadian people are saying, and deal with the censorship of this organization. Sometimes I feel it should be dealt with, but this must be done by the corporation and not by the government or any political party.
Inquiries of the Ministry


William Moore Benidickson: Does this follow a morning caucus?



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform the house whether there is any new development in the negotiations between the government and the city of Montreal in order to have the C.B.C. building constructed in the east end of Montreal?


George Clyde Nowlan: There is nothing further I can report at the moment, except that negotiations and conversations are being carried on between the various parties. When a decision has been reached the house will be informed of it.



INQUIRY AS TO ISSUE OF ACREAGE PAYMENT CHEQUES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to state when it is expected that cheques will be issued for acreage payments to western farmers?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I understand that within the week the issue of cheques will commence, and that it will take approximately four weeks to complete all payments approved under the recent vote of the house.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Agriculture said last November that the cheques could not be provided at that time because of a breakdown in the machinery of the Department of Finance?


An hon. Member:: At that time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the suggestion advanced by the hon. member. It again represents a characteristic misinterpretation by him, with no basis in fact, of a reported statement. What the Minister of Agriculture stated was that with the number of cheques that were going out in connection with the wheat board payments it would be impossible, even if parliament were in session, to have issued the payments then.

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



INQUIRY AS TO GENERAL ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the house whether in selecting a date for dissolution he is prepared to be guided by his colleague, the Minister of Labour, in the slogan "Why wait for spring, do it now".


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the hon. gentleman back in her place in the house. All I can say is that the attitude of the opposition does not indicate that they desire an affirmative answer to that question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that in his confusion he referred to the hon. lady as "the hon. gentleman"?
(Translation):



LONGUEUIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware that he might have a woman as his opponent in Longueuil, at the next general election?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear the good news and I hope to be given the opportunity of meeting her in a public debate on the hustings.
(Text):



SPEED SKATING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Chalterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or in his absence to his parliamentary secretary. It has been reported that Paul Enock, who set a world speed skating record for 3,000 meters while competing at Hamar, Norway, may have to cease representing Canada owing to exhaustion of funds. Can the parliamentary secretary indicate whether some assistance might be extended to this outstanding Canadian athlete?


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister and

all Canadians would want me to congratulate this young man on the world speed skating record he has established.
A request for assistance toward the travelling expenses from Oslo to Moscow was received here while the first meeting of the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sports was in progress last week. The minister brought this request from the president of the national amateur speed skating association to the attention of the advisory council's chairman, and I am happy to state that a grant was recommended. This has gone forward to Mr. Enock in Oslo, and should be in his hands by now.



MEETING WITH PREMIERS RESPECTING NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to direct another question to the Prime Minister. In view of the further correspondence tabled in the Quebec legislature between the Prime Minister and Premier Lesage in respect to the convening of a conference of premiers to consider a national grid system, would the Prime Minister advise the house as to what progress has been made in the negotiations with the respective premiers, and whether he is prepared to confer at an early date with those provinces which have expressed an interest in such a proposal.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak off the cuff as to the number of provinces which have replied. However, I will have that matter looked up.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO REDUCE PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or in his absence the parliamentary secretary might take it as notice. Has the minister seen the Alberta government brief to the royal commission on health services calling for the establishment of a federal government agency to examine the cost-revenue position of certain drugs and take action to reduce prices? If so, can the minister comment on whether his department has made any study of the feasibility of such a plan or of taking such action?


An hon. Member:: Order.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I will take the hon. member's question as notice.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Yesterday the hon.
member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. McPhillips) asked a question with respect to the foreign built tug Ocean Master.
In reply I should like to say that this tug, which is Canadian registered and has been for some time operating internationally, has, by decision of the treasury board, been permitted entry for the purpose of engaging in the coasting trade for a period of six months, on payment of customs duty and sales tax at the prescribed rates but on a prorated value. This action was taken on the joint recommendation of the Minister of Transport and myself, following careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a question was asked in the house concerning the stand of the Department of National Defence with regard to views expressed publicly by senior officials critical of other departments and agencies of governments. This question was based on alleged remarks made last Sunday by a senior naval chaplain relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I am informed that the report of these remarks appeared in one of the local newspapers on Monday. A Royal Canadian Navy padre in fact delivered a Sunday sermon at a civilian church here in Ottawa at the request of the local parish priest, who had to be away. Under these circumstances it is not considered that there is any necessity for the Department of National Defence to take any particular stand on the matter. The padre who delivered the sermon asserts that he asked that the programming of the C.B.C. at all times be in line with the precepts of Christian doctrine. He refuses to admit the allegations which were imputed to him in the article.
Civilian War Pensions CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS



AMENDMENTS EXTENDING PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN GROUPS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Churchill for the second reading of Bill No. C-64, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
Mr. Carter:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would wait a minute before he begins in order to give the house a chance to settle down.


Chesley William Carter: When the house rose last night at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of clarifying a statement I had made on Friday last in the debate on the resolution. I was clarifying the statement because on Monday the minister intervened in the debate to take exception to what I had said.
For the sake of continuity, perhaps I might be permitted to recapitulate briefly what I said last night so that it will not be necessary for readers of this debate to refer to yesterday's Hansard. When I intervened in the debate on Friday I said that if the bill became law it would have the effect of setting up in Newfoundland two different categories of foresters, category one comprising those who served in the Newfoundland forestry unit during world war I, who have been recognized as veterans and have already been included under the veterans charter, and category two comprising those veterans who served in the forestry unit during world war II but who are classed as civilians under this legislation.
The minister took exception to my using the word "now". In using that word I was referring to the changes that would come about when this bill becomes law, because while heretofore we have not recognized the Newfoundland foresters of world war II for purposes of pension rights and while we have not recognized them as veterans, we have not classified them-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: You did not
pay them anything at all.


Chesley William Carter: I wish to tell the hon. member that I will answer any questions he wishes to ask after I have finished, but I prefer not to be interrupted while I am making my remarks. I am not reading a prepared speech and I have very few notes. I do not wish to be interrupted. The effect of this legislation is to impose upon these men a classification

Civilian War Pensions
that did not exist before, and we have gone out of our way to do so. Last night I referred to section 75(l)(g) which is in these words:
(1) For the purposes of this part "civilian" means-
(g) a person who served with the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit in the United Kingdom during world war II for a period of at least six months and who contracted to serve with that unit for the duration of the said war.
That involves a definite pronouncement on the part of parliament with respect to this particular group of Newfoundland foresters. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) indicated in his intervention that he is opposed to having the world war II foresters of Newfoundland recognized as veterans. He made this quite clear; and so that I cannot be accused of interpreting his remarks wrongly I will put on Hansard a quotation from the hon. member's speech, as found on page 787 of Hansard:
I do take objection to statements which have been made by my good friends, the hon. members for Kootenay West and Burin-Burgeo, contending there was no distinction between the Canadian forestry corps of world wars I and II and the Newfoundland foresters. There was the greatest distinction inasmuch as the Canadian forestry corps of world wars I and II were soldiers of the Canadian army and as such were liable for service anywhere in the world. Many were men with several decorations from the first world war. They were members of the Canadian army and as such they could be assigned to service anywhere.
Whether the hon. member was voicing his own personal opinions or voicing the attitude of the government, I am not able to say, but the thinking inherent in the passage I have just quoted corresponds with the thinking we have in the bill before us. What is this great distinction, Mr. Speaker? When we analyse the matter we find that it boils down purely to a technicality, the manner in which these people were recruited and nothing else. I want to tell the hon. member for York-Sunbury that in the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit of world war II there were many men who had served in world war I and had been decorated. There is no difference there. The hon. member said that those who were in the Canadian army could be moved anywhere. I believe that is true of the Newfoundland forestry unit. They were under the orders of the British government and if the British government had seen fit to move them to Scotland, France or Timbuktu they would have had to go. There is no difference there.
The only real distinction involves a technicality which has to do with the manner in which the units were recruited in the first place. What the hon. member is saying is that a technicality such as this outweighs the actual service these people performed. Surely what we are doing in this bill is recognizing service-not the conditions under

which men were enlisted to perform that service but the actual service which they performed and the conditions under which they performed it. If I understand the bill, that is what we are doing. My hon. friend however says that service is not important, that the only important thing is the manner in which they were enlisted.


Mr. Creaghan:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question at this point. Would he place on record, if he has them, statistics as to the number of persons involved who served in world war II and who had previously served in a military manner in world war I in order that we can see whether a minority or the majority would be protected if the law were amended?


Chesley William Carter: I am sure it is not reasonable to expect me to have such statistics at my fingertips at this moment.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: Would it be half the men?


Chesley William Carter: I do not know. All I can say is that there were a number of them. The hon. member for York-Sunbury did not give statistics. He just said there were a number of people involved. That is what I am saying so far as the Newfoundland forestry unit is concerned.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: The ones who served in world war I are automatically included.


Chesley William Carter: Under certain conditions they are veterans, yes. This is true in every case.
I am concerned with something else which the hon. member said because he seemed to question statements that the men who enlisted in the Newfoundland forestry unit in world war II were frozen in their occupation and not permitted to transfer to other branches of the armed services. I should like to read some more from the same page and same paragraph of Hansard from which I was reading:
As a matter of fact, when 8,000 Canadian foresters in the second world war were stationed in northern Scotland beside the Newfoundland foresters, every month so many of them were requested to transfer to the units in southern England, in Sicily and in Italy. A great many did go, and many became casualties. I do object to the statement that the Newfoundland foresters were not permitted to transfer. Perhaps that is so up to a point, but I know of several cases where foresters in northern Scotland transferred to the Canadian army and then went on to serve in southern England and in different theatres of war.
Whether or not he is talking about the Newfoundland members or the Canadians at that point, I am not certain. However, the hon. member does take objection to the statement that these people were frozen in their units and not permitted to transfer to other branches of the armed services. I should

like to refer my hon. friend to the brief which the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit submitted to the standing committee on veterans affairs on March 31, 1960. Under heading No. 6, we find this statement:
How important was the work of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit to the winning of the war?
Then, having asked this question the brief proceeds to answer it as follows:
This question can be answered best by referring to a communication from the secretary of state for dominion affairs to the governor of Newfoundland dated June 5, 1940 and it is herewith quoted in full:-
No. 376, Confidential. Your telegram of May 16th. No. 269, paragraph 1. Steps are being taken by Turner to ascertain which loggers propose to enlist in fighting or other services on expiry of their term of engagement and result will be communicated to you when known.
Necessity of increasing output of pitwood produced in this country is of such vital urgency that as you know, in addition to asking you to send 1,000 more men we have taken special steps to persuade as many loggers as possible to re-engage with Newfoundland forestry unit for further term. It has been suggested that it would be useful if the government were also to publish in all logger camps here statement regarding great value of work being done by unit and appeal to the men to continue in present employment. We are prepared to do this if result of census referred to in preceding paragraph makes it necessary and hope that the government of Newfoundland would be willing to associate themselves with the United Kingdom government in such an appeal if made. If you agree we will telegraph to you for concurrence in text of suggested appeal.
Then, the telegram continues in another paragraph:
In spite of everything certain number of men may decide to enlist in the army. We have discussed with the war office your proposal that they should be given opportunity of joining Newfoundland heavy regiment. War office have pointed out that they are forming 28 forestry companies of royal engineers for which there is urgent demand and that while these companies will be part of the fighting forces they will provide the best opportunity of making military use of special skilled Newfoundland loggers. It is not proposed to do anything to hinder anyone who is set on joining Newfoundland heavy regiment from doing so but Turner-
That is Captain Turner, the commander.
-will be asked to explain carefully to all who definitely decide to volunteer for the army the importance and advantage of joining these companies and to use his influence to induce as many of these men as possible to enlist in them. Strength of each company will be 140 men and if sufficient men are forthcoming they will be kept together and company in which they are posted will bear the name of "Newfoundland".
Need of men skilled in forestry is so urgent that we should be grateful if recruiting organizations in Newfoundland could be advised to exercise special caution in accepting any skilled loggers as recruits for royal artillery regiment.


Mr. MacRae:: What date was that?


Chesley William Carter: This telegram was sent on June 5, 1940.
Civilian War Pensions
The brief continues as follows:
It will be noted that from this time on, not only did the Newfoundland government instruct recruiting organizations accordingly but each individual who joined the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit had to sign a contract for the duration in which there was a clause to the effect that he could not be transferred to any other unit or to any of His Majesty's armed services and instructions were issued to the camps that no member could join His Majesty's forces as his logging work was of the most extreme importance.
I think that should satisfy the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae). This is an official document which has been quoted, and if the hon. member is not prepared to take the word of the loggers themselves, he could easily have it verified. These men were limited in this way and that was a technicality which was a disadvantage to them. It is true that for the first six months they were permitted to transfer, and many of them did. After the first six months, the contract was put into effect, and it was impossible for anybody who joined the forestry unit to transfer to another branch of the armed services.
Furthermore, any person who was joining up and who had not joined the loggers unit but who went to a recruiting station-


Mr. Churchill:: Will the hon. member permit
a question?


Chesley William Carter: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the hon. member prepared to advance the same argument in connection with the other categories, because if he is obviously the bill is not satisfactory to him and he will have to vote against it.


Chesley William Carter: I do not know whether or not I am prepared to advance the same arguments on behalf of all categories, but I am certainly prepared to advance them on behalf of the foresters, the merchant navy and the firefighters. I do not know enough about what was involved in the work of the other services to have an opinion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having put first things first, I want to deal with a statement that was made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) which is found on page 790 of Hansard. The hon. member quoted a question I was asked on Friday last at the end of my remarks. The question was asked by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh). I read from page 742 of Hansard:


Mr. Pugh:: I should like to ask the last speaker a question. When did the foresters of Newfoundland first ask that their case be heard by brief or otherwise, and by the Legion or otherwise?


Mr. Jones:: 1949.


Chesley William Carter: I do not really know when they first asked. I know that they appeared before the parliamentary committee in 1958.

Civilian War Pensions Mr. Pugh: You have no knowledge of anything earlier?


Chesley William Carter: No, I have no knowledge.
In his reference to that quotation the hon. member, strangely enough, omitted to complete the passage, because had he finished the quotation in which I said I had no knowledge, the rest of his statement could not have held any water at all. Then having quoted me partially he went on very condescendingly to say he was sure I did not mean to mislead the house. Mr. Speaker, what utter nonsense. How can I mislead the house when I am speaking for myself and when I am telling the truth, and the fact is that I had no further knowledge; I had no personal knowledge. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) finds this very surprising, because he said earlier that he was very surprised at this.
No intelligent Newfoundlander who has any knowledge of the background of events leading up to confederation and the years following should be surprised by that statement. I can quite understand hon. members from the mainland being surprised by it; that would be quite natural. But it is certainly not natural for a Newfoundlander to be surprised by it, because there are very logical explanations for it which I wish to put on the record.
The first explanation is this. For 15 years prior to 1949 Newfoundlanders had not any responsible government; they had not any members to represent them in the local government or anywhere else. So they had-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member permit me to interrupt. I have been trying to relate what he says to the principle of the bill. I take it that his remarks are addressed principally to subsection 1(g) of section 75, relating to the Newfoundland overseas foresters unit. As I understand it, the principle of the bill concerns whether pensions shall be paid to certain civilians on the same basis as if they had been military personnel. There is no general principle about who the civilians are; they are categorized in a dozen different categories.
While the hon. member's remarks are appropriate to the bill, they seem to me to come more naturally in the committee stage when the section is called. What the hon. member is saying now does not seem to bear very directly on the general principle of whether it is appropriate to provide for pensions to certain civilians who served in a civilian capacity in the war.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder whether I may just say a word on the point of order. It seems to me that what my hon.

friend from Burin-Burgeo is doing is suggesting that the principle of including the foresters among those categories of persons who are to be regarded as civilians is not the best way to deal with this problem, that the more acceptable way would be to treat them as the Canadian foresters were treated and as the Newfoundland foresters were treated in world war I, as veterans and having the status of veterans.
It seems to me this touches the very principle of the bill, which is that certain categories of persons should be paid these war veterans allowances as civilians and not as veterans. While I have no doubt that the matter could be discussed in committee, it does seem to me that the principle as to whether they are an appropriate group to be included in this category, or whether they might more appropriately be considered in another category, is really an appropriate subject for second reading rather than the committee stage.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, did I understand from the remarks of the previous speaker that they should not be included in this bill at all but should come under another bill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that is an exact interpretation of what I said. I said it seemed to me that my hon. friend was arguing-and I am not talking about my own argument, because it was his argument that was in question-that it would be preferable that they be included in the War Veterans Allowance Act and treated as veterans and not as civilians.
It seems to me that discussion on the principle of a bill has always been considered wide enough to suggest that the objective of the bill in certain particulars could be better accomplished in another way. It seems to me that is all my hon. friend was doing. He was certainly not opposing the principle.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to limit the discussion. I understood the hon. member who had the floor to be saying, "I do not disapprove of paying pensions to civilians, but these Newfoundland foresters are not properly civilians in relationship to these pensions and should be treated as veterans". If that is so, it seems to me he is not opposing the principle and he should perhaps discuss the inclusion of this category as civilians at the committee stage. However, perhaps the simplest way is for the hon. member to complete his argument now, and he will not have to repeat it at the committee stage.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, it is understood that hon. members will

be given the same latitude as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter)?


Mr. Speaker:: It has always been the
principle that has been followed that if debate is relevant to one hon. member, it is relevant to another. If hon. members wish to debate this matter now rather than in committee, I cannot object; but I point out that it is more appropriately a matter for the committee stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it that Your Honour is just giving the house an opinion and is not making a ruling, because it does seem a rather restrictive opinion.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak a minute or two on my own point of order, I thought I was in order on two counts.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may
proceed.


Chesley William Carter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The whole force of my argument is not to say that I am against the principle of the bill. I made it quite clear last evening that I am in favour of the principle of this bill, but what I am against is the manner in which the principle is being applied, the method or the vehicle that is being used to apply it. I think a much more appropriate method would have been to amend the definition in the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member wants to strike these people out of this act; is that the idea?


Chesley William Carter: If you are prepared to enlarge the definition of a veteran in the War Veterans Allowance Act to include them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As we asked last year.


Chesley William Carter: Yes. I was only asking, when Your Honour interrupted, that I be accorded the right to reply to statements made by the hon. member for St. John's East who expressed surprise that nothing was done, that we heard so little about it in all these years from 1949 to 1956.
I think hon. members should understand the reasons for that, and they are very simple. One reason is that for 15 years Newfoundlanders had no representatives at all; they had no vote, and they were not in the habit of referring problems to their members. They were not in the habit of even thinking in those terms.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Chesley William Carter: It would have been very surprising to me if they had, after 15 years. People do not change their habit of working overnight and again, I say, there is nothing surprising about that. That is certainly one 26207-1-55i
Civilian War Pensions
argument. I want to reply to the hon. member's question. He questioned my reply to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) when I said that was the first knowledge I had. The first knowledge I had of any concerted action was around 1958. During my first session in parliament my constituents did not write to me about veterans problems. The main things they wrote to me about were provincial matters, breakwaters, wharves, and things like that. They had to get used to having elected representatives. They could not all become mainland Canadians overnight.
What I have just said applies to the population generally, but here we are speaking about a special group of veterans who did not have any knowledge of this veterans charter. It took them years and years to find out what their rights were. They did not know. The authorities got in touch with them and they accepted without question whatever decisions were handed down. It was only when I began making my own analysis on the basis of the questions which had come to my attention that I began to discover the evidence. Thus, the answer to the hon. member's question as to why we did not initiate action on our own part is that it certainly did not occur to me that the terms of union were not being carried out, in particular the provision which said that Newfoundland veterans would be treated in exactly the same way as if they had served in the Canadian forces. It took me years before I could bring myself to believe that this was not being done. These are all good reasons, and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) should know these reasons. Certainly, he should be the last one in this house to be surprised.
Before I sit down I want to refer briefly to the merchant seamen, the men who are also classified here as civilians. Clause 75(1) (a) states:
For the purposes of this part "civilian" means a person who
(i) served at sea in a ship of Canadian or Newfoundland registry during world war I or world war II for a period of six months-
I do not intend to repeat what I said on previous occasions about the services of the merchant marine. All I want to put on record is one case in order to show what this legislation is doing. I know of a merchant seaman who served with such devotion to duty that he was awarded the 1939-45 defence medal, the 1939-45 war medal, the 1939-45 Atlantic star, the 1939 star, the 1939-45 Italian star and the France and Germany star. He had six medals; yet we bring out a bill which says to that man, and to men like him: You are not a veteran, you are

Civilian War Pensions
a civilian. That is why I object to the method which is being followed. We are making these men eligible for war veterans allowances-the same allowances which are available to other veterans under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. It seems to me we could achieve our object much more simply by extending the definition of the word "veteran" in the War Veterans' Allowance Act rather than by this roundabout way of bringing in an addition to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to express the support of this group for the principle and purpose of this bill. From my point of view, the principle of this bill is to make provision for certain persons who served during the war to receive the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I quite agree with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter). Throughout the years I have always been of the opinion, together with several other members of the committee, that the firefighters, the merchant seamen and the Newfoundland foresters-since I have heard about their case and heard their representations-should be considered as veterans. However, that is a matter which can be dealt with when we come to the clause in question.
We are very pleased indeed to see these persons receive the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act. There was a general and somewhat lengthy discussion on the resolution stage so I do not intend to say anything further at this time. Any additional remarks I may wish to make will be in the nature of questions when the bill is before us for detailed consideration.


James Aloysius McGrath: I also wish to rise and support the principle of the bill and to say, as I did the other night on the resolution stage, that in my opinion the surviving veterans of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit will receive this measure with general acceptance.
Having said that, notwithstanding what had been said in this house this afternoon by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, I think it would be appropriate at this time to place on the record certain excerpts from the report of the standing committee on veterans affairs dated March 31, 1960 to which the hon. member referred, I believe. I think this is apropos the discussion because this report states-again, notwithstanding what the hon. member said to the contrary -that repeated representations were made to the government of Canada subsequent to

union in 1949 and up to the presentation of the brief before the standing committee in 1960.


Chesley William Carter: Is the hon. member suggesting I had knowledge of those representations?


James Aloysius McGrath: No. I am not questioning the validity of what the hon. member has said. He has said he had no knowledge of them and I accept that as a true statement. Nevertheless, the record speaks for itself in this regard and I intend to show where the record is not in accordance with the views of the hon. member who just resumed his seat. The witness whose statements are reported on page 105 of the report is Mr. Curran who was the president of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit association. This is the association of the veterans of this unit in Newfoundland today-the association which presented the brief to the committee. Replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Mr. Curran said:
Well, sir, we were dealing until the present P.C, administration came into power with the veterans affairs branch. We were not getting very far.
The report goes on:


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Whom were you dealing with?


Mr. Curran:: I cannot say offhand. I think we had correspondence with the minister and the deputy minister.
Again, as reported on page 109, the record shows the following exchanges. Mr. Curran is replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the progress of this brief. When was it first presented to anyone?


George Matheson Murray: It was prepared to be presented in 1952 or 1953.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Presented to whom?


George Matheson Murray: I cannot say. You will have to ask our solicitor. He came up to Ottawa, he went to the Department of Veterans Affairs, I believe, and he did not get very far there so he packed up and came back home.
That was in 1952 or 1953.
Even at that time the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was a member of this house, a supporter of the government of the day. If I am not mistaken, at that time the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was the representative of Newfoundland in the cabinet, and I believe secretary of state. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger) was there at that time serving as executive assistant to the minister from Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman wishes the record to be straight. I was only elected to parliament in August of 1953 and I was not in parliament

for the greater part of the year 1953, although the hon. member for St. John's West was.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly out of order. He was caught short. I believe he should remain seated until I have concluded my remarks.
If I may continue I would draw the attention of the house to page 113 of the report of the standing committee on veterans affairs of March 31, 1960 where there is recorded an exchange between Mr. Curran and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo:


Chesley William Carter: When you started to come before this committee you had to start to document the statements in order to back up the evidence.


George Matheson Murray: We tried in 1949, 1950 and 1951, I believe, and got nowhere. We did not even get to first base. Then we had a change of government in 1957 so we made an approach again. We have no large amount of funds and we could not keep on pushing all the time. When we had the change of government, let us say we got to first base.
With respect to further evidence, I can only refer to the fact that these letters exist, because at the time of the presentation of the brief the premier of Newfoundland, one of the parties concerned, withheld his permission to the tabling of the correspondence. The existence of the correspondence and the dateline of the letter are, I believe, of significance to my argument. The letter is headed: Province of Newfoundland, office of the premier, July 3, 1950. It is addressed to the then minister of veterans affairs, Milton Gregg, and deals with the subject of recognition for the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit under existing legislation. In his letter the premier indicated that he was sending copies to the then prime minister and the Hon. Gordon Bradley who was the predecessor of my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. At that time Mr. Bradley was secretary of state and the representative of Newfoundland in the federal cabinet.
On the record there is also a copy of Mr. Gregg's reply which unfortunately could not be appended to the evidence because permission was not forthcoming from the premier to have the correspondence tabled. Again, however, the existence of the correspondence and the date are of significance. The communication is dated July 3, 1950.
Over the years there have been repeated representations made on behalf of these veterans to receive some form of recognition under a government which between the years 1953 and 1957 enjoyed the support of all the constituencies in Newfoundland. In that period the seven Newfoundland federal constituencies returned Liberal members. Notwithstanding this fact the pleas of this group fell on deaf ears.
Civilian War Pensions
Now that this government is showing such great interest in making provision for this worth-while group of Canadian citizens under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act my hon. friends opposite from Newfoundland constituencies rise in this house and say the government is not going far enough. Calculating it rapidly, they are approximately 13 years late. However, the reason for their present behaviour is apparent. There are over 3,000 Newfoundland foresters resident in the constituencies of the hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred. When you include their dependants there is a substantial bloc of votes, at least 10,000, in the constituencies of Bonavista-Twillingate, Burin-Burgeo, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, Trinity-Conception and Humber-St. George's. One really cannot blame hon. gentlemen opposite for their present attempt to jump on the bandwagon. However, the fact remains that again they are too late. They sat on the government side of the house for eight years and did nothing on behalf of this group. Now they are attempting to cash in on the constructive action taken by this government and the present minister.
I believe that the president of the association of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit will take a dim view of the fact that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has tried to divide the house on this issue. It is evident the hon. member is going to introduce an amendment with respect to recognition of the status of this group as veterans when we reach committee stage. What does the association have to say about this matter? Nothing was said about this by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, and for very good reason. At page 98 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on veterans affairs of March 31, 1960 is set out the brief of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit. I quote from the preamble to the brief:
We submit with all sincerity and without fear of serious or conscientious contradiction that had there been a Canadian counterpart of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit-that is, had the Canadian forestry corps not been in uniform- the necessary provisions would have been inserted in the veterans charter-
The next part is significant:
-or the Canadian Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act and/or they would have been covered by the Special Operators War Service Benefits Act.
That is exactly what this government has done. In accordance with the request of the association this deserving group of Canadian citizens has been included under the provisions of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.

Civilian War Pensions
At page 107 of the report of the standing committee the following exchange is reported as having taken place between Mr. Curran and my friend the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan):


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Curran, I understand from the first page of your brief that your association believes that there is sufficient legislation on the books of the federal government in Canada today to cover you?


George Matheson Murray: If the necessary amendments could be made to include us.


Howard Russell MacEwan: These different acts you have detailed-the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the Special Operators War Service Benefits Act and so on. Do you think they could be made applicable to you?


George Matheson Murray: I think so, sir. As we said in the brief, at the time the various veterans acts were formed here in Canada, there was no thought, I hope, of including Newfoundland because Newfoundland was not in confederation at that time.
The point I make here is that again Mr. Curran has referred to the fact that they would be perfectly satisfied to have recognition of their services included in the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
For the reasons I have outlined, I think it would be very prudent on the part of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo not to pursue this matter further. I have indicated beyond any doubt that it is perfectly acceptable to the surviving veterans of the forestry unit. It is becoming increasingly evident that my hon. friend is trying in a narrow and partisan way to interject into this debate a division which I sincerely hope will not take place with respect to this important measure. I can only conclude that the reason my hon. friend, the learned member for Burin-Burgeo, is injecting this partisan note at this time and is trying to split hairs is that he realizes that for eight years they missed the boat and they are now trying to get on board.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I had no intention, Mr. Speaker, of saying anything further with regard to this subject until I listened to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) last night and again today. I think he has been very effectively answered by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who has just taken his seat. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, who is usually a very reasonable man with regard to problems affecting veterans affairs, I think in this instance has shown the height of ingratitude over this bill which we have brought before the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ingratitude to whom?


An hon. Member:: You too.
[Mr. McGrath.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Ingratitude to the government of the day for bringing it forward. Let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker. As has already been pointed out, there were plenty of opportunities in the past for the former Liberal government to take action but they took no action whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As the hon. member for St. John's East has pointed out, the province of Newfoundland was adequately represented here from the standpoint of numbers on the government side, who could have acted on behalf of the Newfoundland foresters but who took no action. Now we bring forward an act which gives recognition to the Newfoundland foresters and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo is not satisfied. He has some other method by which he contends it should be done and he has diverted the attention of the house from a matter on which we might have proceeded rather rapidly and dealt with. He has interjected a note of comparison of service during wartime, something which I think is unsuited to the occasion.
I think it is fruitless to attempt now, 16 years after the war, to determine who did what during wartime and whether or not his service was equal to someone else's service. That is a very dangerous field on which to enter. I would be the last one to enter into that field and to attempt to decide who performed a greater service for his country in any of the groups, whether he was in the navy, the army or the air force or in these other categories mentioned in this bill. As a matter of fact, if a person really wanted to examine the situation very carefully, he would likely find that adult civilians as well as children in the United Kingdom and Europe, perhaps performed a more adequate service in wartime than did any of us who were in uniform or any who were in these various categories mentioned here. Hence, one can push the matter too far.
I regret very much that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has trod on that ground and has been attempting to get us into a dispute with regard to what service was rendered by various groups and whether this word "veteran" should be used for everyone who served. Let us not forget this fact. People made their choice during wartime. A great many people who were not accepted in the navy, army or air force because of disability or age, had an opportunity to serve somewhere else and should be very grateful for that opportunity inasmuch as there were still other thousands who were not accepted in any of the services or groups that were called upon in wartime. There were many men who would

have liked to serve abroad on behalf of their country. I think that anyone who had the opportunity to do so should be very grateful for that opportunity. I also think he should be very happy that he is alive today and that freedom prevails in Canada.
Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the origin of this bill, which could have been brought in many years ago. When I was given the privilege of doing something for the veterans of this country in this portfolio about one and a half years ago, one of the first matters I drew to the attention of the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs was the status of the merchant marine which I mentioned in particular, and other groups such as the firefighters and the foresters. As is their duty, the officials brought before me the reasons which had been advanced in the past for not including these groups under the veterans charter because of the definition of the word "veteran". I told the deputy minister that I wanted a solution to this problem, and that the time had come to do something about the firefighters, the foresters, the merchant marine and these other groups. I said that I wanted an answer to be produced. Thanks to the efficiency of the department that answer was produced without any further argument. I was not only pleased but rather amazed at the ingenuity shown in bringing these categories under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. That is how this thing has come about.
The easiest thing for me to have done was just to say nothing or to decide that the obstacles were too great and just let the thing go, as had happened in the past. On the contrary, with the full co-operation of the department, this bill has been produced. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo now says that it is not satisfactory. May I say that he is going to have the opportunity to declare here in the house whether or not it is satisfactory. He will be obliged to stand and be counted if he remains in his place, as we will call a vote on this matter in just a few minutes.
Let me make this suggestion to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. If he wishes to pursue this problem with regard to a person who served in some category or other during wartime he should do it in some other way. This is something that should be done through the various veterans organizations across this country. Let this matter be discussed in Legion branches, by the navy, army, and air force group, the corps association and by other veterans groups in this country as has been done in the past. If public opinion among the veteran population is in favour of redefining the word "veteran" in the veterans charter, then we know where we are at.
Division
However, for the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo to come in here today and suggest that this bill is unsatisfactory, that there should be an amendment to another bill, is in my opinion simply delaying the business of this house. If the hon. member is not in favour of the bill, let him move to have the foresters struck out and we will see that the benefits go then to the merchant marine, the firefighters and the other categories which are mentioned here. Then perhaps he will bring forward some other method by which his group in Newfoundland can be dealt with.
However, we think that the method being followed is the better one at the present time. It has not been easy to get this matter to this stage. Having heard the various views expressed by the members from Newfoundland, I hope the house will now get down to business, proceed with this measure and make these benefits available to the very deserving categories mentioned in the bill who in the past have not had the privilege of being considered with regard to the benefits which are available under the allowances act as it prevails under the veterans charter.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay. In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought the minister was anxious to get on with this.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am but I will have you stand and be counted.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be considered in committee of the whole house; next sitting?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



FLAGS OF CANADA


Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to provide for a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag.
That the question submitted in said referendum be as follows: Are you in favour of a flag for Canada which would not include the emblem of any other country?
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in moving again this year a resolution similar to the one I moved last year, asking that a referendum be taken in connection with giving Canada a distinctive national flag. For 35 years now a great deal has been said in this house about the Canadian flag, and I think it is time to give the people of Canada an opportunity to decide upon the type of flag this country should have.
I should like first to prove four points: (1) That all political parties are pledged to give Canada a distinctive national flag; (2) that there is a demand for a distinctive national flag; (3) that as political parties we all support this demand; (4) that giving Canada a distinctive national flag is part of the political program of all organized political parties in this house.
We have no independent members in this house. Last year my party held a convention of some 2,000 people. At that convention we passed unanimously a resolution to give Canada a distinctive national flag.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then why have we not got it?


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Within the last few months the Liberal party have promised to give the Canadian people, within one year of attaining office, a distinctive Canadian flag, and the New Democratic party also stands behind this promise to give Canadians a distinctive national flag.

I am reminded by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) that in 1945 the Liberal party promised to give Canada a distinctive national flag in the speech from the throne, part of which I should like to read. This is to be found at page 8 of Hansard for September 6, 1945:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
My ministers believe that the position attained by our country among the nations of the world makes it desirable that Canada, like the other nations of the British commonwealth, should possess a distinctive national flag. You will be asked to appoint a select committee of members of both houses of parliament to consider a suitable design for a Canadian flag.
As a matter of fact there was such a joint committee appointed. It sat for nine months over the period of two years. After 12 years of Liberal regime we still have not a distinctive national flag. That we have no distinctive national flag is established by the fact that all political parties are promising such a flag. We would not promise something that we have; we are promising something that we have not.
That there is a popular demand for a distinctive national flag is also established by the fact that all political parties have included such a proposal in their platforms. This shows there is a demand for it, because no political party promises things the people do not want.
As we all owe allegiance to our respective political parties, we are all committed to giving Canadians a distinctive national flag. However, we have not succeeded in doing this and therefore the only way we can determine the question is by holding a referendum. The matter of a referendum was suggested in 1946 by a member of the committee set up to study this matter. I quote from page 130 of the proceedings of that committee. Mr. Han-sell, the then hon. member for Macleod, said:
I do have a suggestion to make. It is not along the line of a motion at all. I do not know whether it will be acceptable to the committee, but I should like to see these two flags submitted to the people of Canada and let them decide. I think it would be well worth the time and money that would be involved. Let them decide.


Hon.   Mr. Howden@: In what way?


Mr. Hansell:: By way of a plebiscite.
Then at page 130 Mr. Hansell said in part:
Here is my point-and this could very well be done without taking any political sides at all. When the next election comes along. I suggest that a referendum be taken at that time. The parties do not have to kick the thing around as a political measure. All they have to do is this. When the people go to elect their government, they are also given another ballot with two designs put on the ballot. You are not voting Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit, C.C.F. or anything else. That is a separate matter altogether. That can be done without costing the country a dollar except for the printing of the paper with the two 26207-1-56
Flags of Canada
designs on. Let the people mark X opposite the one or the other design. That I say is a reasonable suggestion.
I believe this is the only way we can arrive at a solution regarding the flag, to take it out of politics and to let the people, on the same day as they vote to elect a new government, decide on the type of distinctive national flag they want. A member of the 194546 committee, Mr. MacNicol, the then hon. member for Davenport, made a study of some 2,409 designs which had been submitted.
He worked at it for 25 hours, and here is his report. In fact, when the special joint committee on a distinctive Canadian flag met for nine months in 1945 and 1946, after studying the 2,409 designs which had been submitted at that time, that is what Mr. MacNicol found: of the 2,409 designs submitted, 1,611 showed a maple leaf, which means two in three, or 67 per cent; 383 had a union jack, that is, one in six, or 16 per cent; 231 had stars; 184, fleurs-de-lis; 116, a beaver; 49, a crown; 22, a cross, and 14, the great bear. So, 67 per cent were in favour of a maple leaf, 16 per cent were for a union jack and the remaining 17 per cent were for something else.
Now, this was the work of Canadians who wanted a distinctive Canadian flag; it represented the opinions of Canadian people who were interested in getting a national flag for their country. However, the committee did not accept the result of any of this work. It did not accept anything, because we have not got a Canadian flag yet. I do not want to repeat what I said last year when I spoke on this subject, so I am going to ask this house to decide, once for all, one thing-to take this matter out of politics and let the nation choose.


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct honour and privilege to take part in this debate on the resolution now before the house which has been brought forward by my esteemed friend the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) who, no doubt, has given much time and thought to such a proposal.
During the month of January, 1961, I had the pleasure of participating in a similar debate, and at that time I heartily agreed that we should have a distinctive flag-one that would be easily recognized and unlike any other, also one that would be visible at a distance, characteristic in structure, and appropriate for all purposes. It should be symbolic of our country and of our position as a sovereign state in the family of nations.
A few years after the first great war, we remember that in a royal proclamation of November 21, 1921, the King declared:

Flags of Canada
The King, at the request of Canada, assigns to Canada the national colours white and red and declares that the national emblem of Canada shall be three red maple leaves on one stem on a white field. These shall be used to represent Canada on all appropriate occasions.
In making this declaration His Majesty had in mind a separate flag for Canada, such as those used by other members of the commonwealth of nations.
The dominion command of the Canadian Legion passed the following resolution in 1958:
Be it resolved that this convention requests the federal government to place the selection of a Canadian national flag before the people in the form of referendum using,
A.	The flag recommended in the majority report of the parliamentary committee of July 1946 or,
B.	The flag recommended by the minority report of the same committee.
Such a resolution expresses the fine interest in this subject taken by this great organization, and no doubt also gives the opinion of other organizations made up of army, navy and air force personnel, especially on the question of a referendum concerning a distinctive flag.
On a previous occasion I have mentioned that I am in favour of a referendum concerning the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag, and I believe my views are shared by many people in my constituency of Waterloo North as well as in other parts of Canada.
To substantiate my views I should like to place on record some remarks quoted by an hon. member of this house some time ago. They appeared in a clipping from the Kitch-ener-Waterloo Record, the leading newspaper of Waterloo North and one of the finest in Canada. Here is what that paper had to say on February 27, 1954:
Reports from Australia indicate that Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh are receiving a tumultuous welcome wherever they go. The Australians are giving a wonderful demonstration of loyalty at this first visit of a reigning sovereign to their country.
The fact that Australians have a distinctive national flag of their own isn't cooling their loyalty to the crown in the least. Opponents of a distinctive flag for Canada, please note.
During the last ten years, many new Canadians have made their homes in our fair land, and Waterloo North with its many ethnic groups received a great proportion of these people. Some of these folks were amazed when on their arrival in Canada they saw two flags flying from many of our buildings. This has also been very noticeable to many of our friends from other lands who have been privileged in visiting our great country.

Today many of our youth-who will be our citizens of tomorrow-are deeply interested in a distinctive flag. Their argument could well be: If the youth of other countries have their own flag, why not we?
About three years ago I was privileged, along with distinguished members of this house and their wives, to visit West Germany as guests of this government. On leaving Frankfurt we journeyed to Bonn, the seat of the West German government, where we were privileged to attend their parliament in session, at which time we received a warm ovation from the members. The point I am trying to convey to you, Mr. Speaker, is that on our way from the hotel to the parliament buildings we were greeted by thousands of German children who lined the sidewalks, waving their national flags. This demonstration convinced me of the need of a distinctive flag for Canada.
During the first and second great wars my people and myself have been honoured in serving our country and showing the greatest respect and loyalty to the union jack and to the red ensign. Throughout my service I shall always remember the great friendship and hospitality extended to me by the people of the United Kingdom, and after 40 years these memories have never faded from my mind.
However, I support the proposal that there should be a distinctive flag for Canada as a result of a referendum at which time the people of this country can express their views. I am of the opinion that a committee should then be set up to make the final choice on a national flag for Canada. This house with its many veterans who served their country with distinction could well carry out these obligations.
(Translation):


Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of May 1959, I had the opportunity of expressing my views in the house on the question of a flag. I do not intend to repeat today what I said then. 1 shall merely say that at that time I declared myself in favour of a distinctive flag for our country.
The measure before us today involves a different point of view. First of all, I must congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) for his unceasing efforts towards the adoption of a Canadian flag. In that respect, he took some very commendable steps. However, I must disagree with him today since the matter under consideration is the advisability of a referendum on that issue.
It is obvious that all or most Canadians are anxious to have a Canadian flag. Now, as to

whether it should be a truly distinctive national flag or whether it should include the emblems of the countries of origin of the two largest ethnical groups in Canada, that, I feel, is a question the house is able to decide, and I am convinced that such a procedure would be truly democratic.
Indeed, all those who sit in this house have been elected by the people; they are duty-bound to respect fully the mandate they have received and which is to manage the affairs of the country and to settle important national issues such as the flag issue. Consequently, in this case as in other instances, it is important that we take our responsibilities. Besides, it is easy for a member to know what the majority of his constituents feel because circumstances enable him to stay in contact with them practically all the time. Therefore, I submit that a referendum would not be necessary and, as far as I am concerned, I have no hesitation in stating on behalf of my electors and in my own name that I am completely in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag.
I wish to add that the population of the Quebec-Montmorency riding which I am proud to represent in this house is composed of persons of various racial origins. Of course, the majority of the population is French, but we also have many English, Irish and Scotch people as well as people of other origins, although these are fewer in number.
I have consulted persons representing all those groups about the flag and they are unanimous in calling for a distinctive Canadian flag. That is why I earnestly ask the government of which I am a member to take all necessary steps in order to speed up the adoption of a flag for Canada.
I hold in high respect the countries of origin of the two main racial groups in Canada. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, France and England command our respect through the strength of their institutions and the greatness of their cultures, from which we have derived so much benefit. But many Canadians, myself among them, claim that Canada is an adult nation which should clearly identify itself by means of a distinctive flag. The Liberals spent 20 years discussing this matter.


An hon. Member:: You, yourselves, are doing the very same thing.


Robert B. Lafrenière: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) now wants two flags.
26207-1-564
Flags of Canada


Mr. Pigeon:: Preposterous.


Robert B. Lafrenière: But if, to suppose the impossible, a Liberal government were elected, then, with two flags, the discussions would surely last 40 years.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: You are talking out this measure.


Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, I know
through experience that the present government will carry out this important project sooner than the hon. members opposite would. I am convinced that the Conservative government will give our country a distinctive national flag.
(Text):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I wish to direct a question to the Leader of the Opposition. Does he agree with the opinion of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with respect to the flag?


Mr. H. C. McQuillan (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago in this house I made clear my own feelings on the question of a flag. We so often hear reference to a distinctive Canadian flag but I have as yet to hear anyone define what a distinctive Canadian flag would be. For my part I want nothing better than the flag I see flying atop the peace tower when I approach the House of Commons each morning. When I say that I believe I speak for the vast majority of the people of British Columbia.
I feel for my part that if this motion were framed in a different manner I could support it wholeheartedly. I could support it if it were to state: Are you in favour of a flag for Canada which would include the union jack? That is the way most people in my province feel about it. Some hon. members will have visited British Columbia and noticed that we are following the trend in Canada. We have a provincial flag which portrays the union jack but in a rather unattractive way. I feel that the "fried egg" at the bottom of the flag completely destroys the whole effect, but at least the union jack forms an important part of the flag.
The people of British Columbia are attached to the union Jack. The first settlers came to the province knowing they were coming to a country that was under the union jack. While they have been anxious to achieve independence as part of the Canadian nation they have not wanted entirely to cut themselves off from this affiliation with what, to those pioneers who established the province, was their mother country.

Flags of Canada
With all due respect to the ethnic groups that might have moved into the area in recent years I think it is extremely unfair to ask that we of Anglo-Saxon descent entirely cut ourselves off from something that is dear to us and was very dear to our forefathers.
Many people recommend that the maple leaf be incorporated in the Canadian flag. I remind hon. members that the maple leaf could represent only a small area of Canada. I do not think many people are aware that the maple tree grows in probably only 5 per cent of the land area of Canada, in a narrow strip along the southern portion of the eastern central and maritime provinces. The northern part of the provinces of Quebec, Newfoundland and Ontario are devoid of maple trees as are the prairie provinces, unless some have been artificially established there. Much of British Columbia, too, is devoid of maple trees.


An hon. Member:: The prairies are devoid of any trees.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: The maple leaf is not truly representative of Canada by any means. In fact, many children reach maturity without ever seeing a maple tree and so its appearance on our flag would not be meaningful to them.


An hon. Member:: The flowering dogwood would be nice.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: As the hon. member has suggested, the dogwood would be much prettier, but if we were going to have a tree on our flag, why not the spruce, because the spruce grows in every province in Canada?
I have expressed my feeling in this respect and I believe it reflects the feeling of the greater part of the people of British Columbia, certainly the great majority of those who live in the constituency of Comox-Al-berni. We would be not only loathe to see but would resent deeply any attempt to remove the union jack in its entirety from the Canadian flag.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I wish to ask a question of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Peters:: He has not said anything yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont.
(Translation):


Mr. J. P. Deschatelels (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very short. I think the majority of Canadians today are in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. There is no doubt about that, and we all know-


Mr. Parizeau:: Two flags under the Liberals.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Liberal party committed itself, and there was no promise-


Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: Two flags.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -but a firm commitment-


Mr. Tremblay:: Two flags.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -to the effect that within two years of their return to office, Canadians would have a distinctive flag.


Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: One for week days and one for Sundays.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: As a matter of fact, if the government really wanted to adopt a distinctive national flag, we would have it today, because we are prepared to accept it and committed to give it.


Mr. Fortin:: Which one?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be partisan on this but in case some members would wish to play politics, one of my colleagues could perhaps read the speech which has been delivered in this house, a few years ago, by the head of this government, Mr. Diefenbaker, when he stated that he was strongly opposed to any flag which did not include the union jack.


An hon. Member:: When?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If you want to have that statement put into the record, one of my colleagues could perhaps read it.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Read it.


An hon. Member:: Is it about one flag or two flags?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, as for the
referendum I am not in favour of proceeding in that way. This is a question which, I believe, is to be decided by the federal government. The government must assume its responsibilities in connection with a question of that kind. We are prepared to do it and I am of the opinion that the referendum would only complicate an already ticklish question.
Mr. Speaker, I state that we are in favour of a distinctive national flag. For us, the question of a flag is no longer a problem; it is not a promise, it is a pledge. We are of the

opinion that it is the responsibility of the government to adopt a flag; if it does not do so, I can assure the house that this question will not offer any difficulty to our party in the future.


Louis Fortin: You have been talking about it long enough.


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Samuel Boulanger: No, Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say a few words.
I should like to say what I think of a distinctive national flag. This is not the first time I do so, since once again this year I have placed on the order paper a measure respecting the adoption of a distinctive national flag. In fact, this is the fourth time I have introduced such a motion. I merely wish to say now that I support the statement just made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets).


Louis Fortin: It does not amount to much.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party, has proposed a distinctive national flag, through its leader-


Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: But the second in command has said that we should have two.


Samuel Boulanger: When our leader promised a flag, he was sincere and he said so in all parts of Canada, on numerous occasions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The deputy leader said two.


Samuel Boulanger: He promised it on several occasions.


Louis Fortin: Like many other promises he has made.


Samuel Boulanger: Two years after the Liberal party takes office, we shall have our flag.


Louis Fortin: He has proposed that a referendum be held four years later-


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, that is the opinion of our leader.
I shall now give you the opinion of the Prime Minister by reading the statement he made about a distinctive national flag. That statement, which can be found at page 2088 of the official report for November 13, 1945, was made during the debate on a resolution that had been submitted to the house, and I quote:


An hon. Member:: A resolution that the Liberals killed.
Flags of Canada


Samuel Boulanger: Here is what the present Prime Minister said, as can be ascertained from page 2089 of the official report for November 13, 1945:
I cannot see eye-to-eye with those who say we must not have a national flag. On the other hand, I cannot see eye-to-eye-and my sentiments so carry me that I must be restrained when I say this-with those who would deny the union jack a permanent and a prominent place on the flag of this country; and the place of honour on any flag is the upper quarter. I stand today where Mr. Bennett stood in 1938. I do not deny to any group in parliament the authority, but I challenge their right considering the need of maintaining our unity to father a flag which, in omitting the union jack, will disrupt and divide this dominion. Some say, why not compromise? I will compromise on anything but, speaking for myself, not to the extent of the removal of the union jack from our national flag.
That is what the Prime Minister said in the house. I do not think that he has changed his mind since then.


An hon. Member:: In what year did he make that statement?


Samuel Boulanger: As I said earlier, it was on November 13, 1945, as reported on page 2089 of Hansard.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: What did Louis St. Laurent
say?


Samuel Boulanger: This is the attitude of our leader-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Your leader is not a leader, he is a nonentity.


Samuel Boulanger: That is what the present Prime Minister of Canada said; on the other hand, the statement made by our leader-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Which one?


Samuel Boulanger: The greatest leader the Liberal party ever had-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could the separatist Conservative be asked to abide by the standing orders of the house and stop interrupting the hon. member who has the floor?


An hon. Member:: What do you think of separatism?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont to refrain from making remarks which are incompatible with the dignity of the house. However, I feel there is some basis to his point of order since there have been frequent interruptions from hon. members. I do not think those continuous interruptions are conducive to the orderly dispatch of the business of the house.

Flags of Canada
Therefore, I would ask all hon. members to co-operate with the chair so that the hon, member who has the floor may continue his remarks. It will be to the advantage of all hon. members who will speak after him to comply with the rules of the house.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with all due deference to the Chair, I mentioned a moment ago that the separatist Conservative hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) was out of order. I have nothing to withdraw from that statement when the hon. member for Roberval denounces confederation and remains a member of the Conservative government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. I think he is embarking upon a discussion on another matter. It is precisely to prevent a discussion on a different matter that I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to his point of order.
This being said, I think that it would be to the advantage of all hon. members to let the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) carry on.


Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Could Your Honor specify on which of the points of order raised he is upholding the member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, our leader has very clearly stated our position with regard to one distinctive flag-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: What leader?


Samuel Boulanger: -one national flag. I think he spoke for all of us. There cannot be any misunderstanding about our desire to give the country a distinctive national flag. We clearly stated our views on that question. We now leave it up to the Conservatives to talk the resolution out, if that is what they want.


An hon. Member:: How many did you talk out when you were in power?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: They even talked out Mr. St. Laurent.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to say a few words to declare myself in favour of the question contained in this resolution about a referendum:
Are you in favour of a Canadian flag on which no emblem of another country would appear?
Mr. Speaker, in the past few years, together with other hon. members, the members for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. 
Boulanger), the mover of the present resolution (Mr. Regnier) and a few others, I have raised, and quite rightly so, the question of the advisability of adopting a distinctive flag for Canada.
I do not like to hear the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) and some of his colleagues make strictly political remarks in this respect because you can always find the right answers.
It will be recalled, for instance, how ably the late Mackenzie King stifled in 1945 certain proposals of national interest by refusing to allow a debate on the report submitted by the joint committee of the house and Senate concerning the flags. Under an order in council dated September 5, 1945, he had then suggested as a compromise the adoption of the red ensign with the union jack in the upper quarter and the Canadian emblems in the lower quarter.
The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska referred earlier to certain statements made at that time by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
We could also quote the words of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent who, following the statements of the late Mackenzie King, declared himself also in favour of the union jack. For he was backing his leader who stated that he, for one, was in favour of the inclusion of the union jack in the Canadian flag.


An hon. Member:: What page? Give us the page.


Maurice Allard: That was the attitude in 1945.
Because of post-war events, there has been since then, in Canada, a constitutional evolution which resulted in the Canadian people becoming conscious of national sovereignty and independence.
All those new facts call for the implementation of this project which concerns the whole of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Give the page number.


Maurice Allard: No purpose is served by discussing past events and remarks made in certain circumstances. This is 1962. Time and again, we have heard in this house members of all parties talk about Canada's sovereignty and independence in the economic, political and international fields.
Many events, since 1945, have made it possible to take steps forward and to achieve that sovereignty which is now evident and recognized the world over by international organizations such as the United Nations,

NATO, NORAD and all other organizations and commissions to which Canada has taken part with its distinctive character and personality.
Because of that newly acquired sovereignty and independence, the adoption of a distinctive national emblem has become appropriate and even necessary. That same feeling is being expressed by a very great majority of the Canadian people from sea to sea. We have only to rely, for example, on the reports published by the junior chambers of commerce, on the resolutions passed by various public organizations in Canada, such as the senior chamber of commerce and many others, which all express, in very precise and concrete terms, the wish of the great majority of the Canadian people to have at last a distinctive national flag, that is to say, one without the emblem of any other country.
We have a lot of respect and admiration for the flags of other countries, as well as for our mother countries. But when we, of the province of Quebec, ask for a flag, we do not wish to be misunderstood by our Englishspeaking compatriots and by our colleagues from other provinces. This is not a question of autonomy or exclusion. We are moved to do so by our Canadian patriotism. We sincerely believe that it is essential to have a distinctive flag. In order to sing with pride of our native land, in one province or another, in all parts of the world, we must have a rallying emblem.
Groups, from one end of the country to the other, have criticized some situations. In the last seven or eight months, in the province of Quebec, we witnessed the rise of a movement born of irritation and disillusion. Now, if we had, in Canada, a distinctive national flag, a flag exclusively Canadian, this would be a means of rallying the Canadians, of moving their hearts, of uniting them from coast to coast, which in the present Canadian context is difficult to achieve because our small population is scattered over a vast territory and each province is faced with various economic problems. How difficult is it to understand this Canadian reality of a people so active and so aggressive living in such a gigantic country and whose economy is complex beyond description.
Well, we need a means of unification. That essential means is a distinctive national flag around which we can rally, a distinctive national flag in every Canadian school, in
Flags of Canada
every Canadian province, which, stirring the hearts of young Canadians of every ethnical origin, would unite them under that sign of our sovereignty and independence.
Those are the few words I wanted to say. I do not want, of course, to dwell on that subject because, like other hon. members, I have a bill on Canadian sovereignty on the order paper. But I shall support any measure which will help us obtain a distinctive national flag, and I hope we have one soon.
Indeed, we shall need a flag when we celebrate our centenary. Our partnership will be 100 years old, Mr. Speaker, and if we do not act now, we shall have to celebrate the centenary of confederation without a distinctive emblem, which would be a real shame.
I am not asking for any symbols or remnants of the past on this flag, signs recalling the memory of France, like the fleur-de-lis. There is no need for such, nor any other sign. I would like us to have a distinctive and exclusively Canadian flag, so that we may celebrate the centenary of our confederation with joy and national pride.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Timmins.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he shares the opinion of the member for Bona-vista-Twillingate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Timmins.


Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic party I should like to say that we support this resolution wholeheartedly and in order to facilitate reaching a decision on the matter we have no intention of taking up the time of the house in needless debate.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, debate on the flag issue has now become an annual event in the House of Commons and not only one bill but two or three are introduced every session. I find that every time we have a debate on this matter in the house there is very great interest outside. I know that my mail is always a great deal heavier after one of these debates.
There is no doubt that more and more people want a distinctive flag and where the controversy arises is in the interpretation of the word "distinctive". At the outset may I say that my interpretation of the word "distinctive" does include the union jack. I

Flags of Canada
noticed that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) told us that his leader had promised to bring in a flag within two years if he should come to power, but the hon. member did not tell us whether the Union jack was going to be a part of that distinctive flag. I include myself among many thousands of Canadians who want a distinctive flag and yet obviously I mean something quite different from what other people mean, in fact quite different from what many members of this house mean.
Having spoken a good many times in the house on this subject, I can only reiterate some of the points I have made before. Certainly I think that none of us on either side of the house wants this matter to become a political football. To all patriotic Canadians a flag is something that affects the emotions and it would be a great pity, in fact, a national tragedy in my opinion, if party politics were allowed to enter into the matter or if it became a referendum issue. I think that would be one of the greatest dangers to national unity.
One reads periodic tirades against politicians for not moving faster on the subject of a flag. Personally I have never blamed the Liberals for moving slowly, as they did, because I think the decision of choosing a flag is a momentous one which will not only affect us in our time but will affect Canadians for generations to come. All of us have received scores of suggestions for a new flag. I presume that the designers of these sometimes extraordinary flags have their reasons for the emblems and colours that they use. My reason for wanting the union jack in our flag is because that design is part of our history.
A couple of years ago in the Canadian Commentator, W. I. Hearst of Toronto wrote a letter in which he made a very good point. This is what he said:
A flag not grounded in a country's history and tradition is nothing more than a label such as one finds on a can of tomatoes.
Mr. Hearst went on to say that our system of laws, method of government, literature and culture, all came from Britain. Then, he said:
No matter how racially mixed the population of Canada may become, she is permanently stamped with British tradition.
I have never forgotten a speech the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) made on this subject of a flag. He said people were wrong to think that our different ethnic groups were against the inclusion of the union jack. Indeed, he went so far as to say they were content with the union jack, itself, as a flag. It had become the symbol of freedom and human dignity to peoples all over the world.

One argument heard against inclusion of the union jack in our new flag is that old bugaboo about British sovereignty over Canada. This is absolute nonsense, and every thinking Canadian knows it. We are an independent nation with complete control over our own affairs. If there is any kind of foreign influence upon Canada, it certainly does not come from Britain. There is no argument any more on that basis.
One of Canada's greatest daily columnists, the late J. V. McAree, wrote his last column on March 25, 1958 on this very subject of a flag. He concluded in these words:
The union jack and God Save the Queen have inspired millions and have been the source of countless deeds of heroism. It will take a long time for a new flag and a new anthem to build up this great tradition they have established.
Another argument against inclusion of the union jack in a Canadian flag is that it has no symbol in it to represent the French part of our nation. This may be true, although all Canadians have lived together and prospered under the union jack, both as a colony and a sovereign country. It is part of both our histories. I cannot see why, at this time, we should erase it altogether from the future pages of our history. If our French speaking Canadians feel that the union jack has no symbolic significance to them, then by all means let us have a fleur-de-lis or anything else they want, just as long as we include the union jack.
I think a referendum would be one of the worst things we could do. Canadians are people who have learned the benevolent art of compromise. We should practice that virtue in choosing a distinctive flag. We represent the people here, and we represent their views, and to take the issue to the people would, in my opinion, be the greatest danger to our unity.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree with the last hon. member who has expressed the opinion that a referendum would perhaps not be the best way of settling a question which is of such great importance to us. A referendum, without any assurance of action after the referendum, would merely delay and postpone rather than decide. It might even accentuate division in the country without coming to any decision in respect of this matter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come when we should decide this matter. It is a decision which should be made on the responsibility of the government of the day. It would be interesting to have the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) take part in this debate and tell us what his responsibility is in connection with this matter as leader of the government.


An hon. Member:: Who is killing the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Do you share Mr. Pickersgill's views?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is quite true that at the present time we do not have in this country a distinctive national flag which can be distinguished from the emblem of any other country. It is time, I think, when we should make a decision in that regard, a decision which will bring us closer together. When we on this side talk about that kind of distinctive national flag, that does not depreciate in any way the flag which we have had in the past, with the union jack as part of that flag, or the union jack itself.
I have served in war, Mr. Speaker, under the union jack. I have been proud to do so. I have seen the union jack flying in wartime in London amidst smoke, destruction and flames. I have been proud to be in London in those days when the union jack flew there. However, that does not mean we should not have in our country a flag which cannot be mistaken for that of another country. I have said this in other parts of Canada and I am glad to say it in the House of Commons this afternoon. I repeat now, Mr. Speaker, and I would be glad to have the Prime Minister make the same kind of statement if he would so that the subject could be taken out of politics, that within two years of taking office a new Liberal government will submit to parliament for approval a distinctively Canadian flag which cannot be mistaken for the emblem of another country, the design of which will be decided in the cabinet first, where all sections of Canada are represented, and then submit it to a full parliament for the ultimate and final decision. This flag, Mr. Speaker, would be the national flag of Canada.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We would have two flags.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This would be the one national flag of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I am sorry to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but his time has expired.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps you would give me one half minute so that I could finish my statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Having taken that stand, I believe firmly that the union jack or an emblem with the union jack should continue to be honoured in this country and flown on appropriate occasions, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Three flags now.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Business of the House


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps if you are giving me 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I could be allowed to continue without disturbance from these gentlemen across the way.
As I say, the union jack or an emblem with the union jack, would continue to be honoured and flown on appropriate occasions as the emblem symbolizing our status as a monarchy under the crown and symbolizing our association with the commonwealth of nations.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Three flags now for the Liberal party.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: All you wanted to do was kill this resolution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will now revert to the business interrupted at five o'clock.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I hope the journalists will report all the faking we have seen today.


An hon. Member:: You will not be here to vote for it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, sir, perhaps the house leader-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Now we know the fakers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) could be polite for one moment perhaps I could put my question. Could I ask the house leader, without any assistance from the hon. gentleman, what the business will be for the rest of the week, and whether the government's undertaking to go back to the speech from the throne on Friday will be honoured.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) just about ruined his question with that last statement, attempting to intimate that there has been some-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Undertaking.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -that an alleged undertaking has been broken, which is not the case at all. However, we cannot debate those matters at this stage. The business for tomorrow is the same as I outlined last evening, with the exception that the second last item will be No. 5 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-67 which deals with the proposed railway line in Gaspe. The last item will then be Bill No. C-38, in the name of the Minister of Justice, dealing with the reporting of financial and other statistics.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
: *
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 15, 1962