1962-12-20

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on banking and commerce

Mr. Aiken.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on December 6, as recorded at page 2371 of Hansard, following consideration with the leaders of the several parties, I discussed the question as to when the Christmas adjournment should take place. At that time I stated that following that discussion the adjournment of the house would take place on December 20 and the house would reassemble on Monday, January 21. Now, sir, with the unanimous consent of the house I move:
That when this house adjourns on Thursday, December 20, at 10 o'clock p.m. it stand adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Monday, January 21.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true, as the Prime Minister has said, that on December 6 following consultation with the leaders of the parties the Prime Minister announced in the house that, and I quote his words, "on the basis of the progress being made," the house would reassemble on January 21.
It is also true, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday I suggested for consideration by the government, which alone has the responsibility in this matter, that on the basis of progress made as of December 19, if there were economic legislation ready to be brought forward so that we could face the problems of the country with that legislation, we should meet at an earlier date.
The Prime Minister has now made a motion, which is the original proposal, that we should reassemble on January 21. If the Prime Minister had moved that we should reassemble at an earlier date for the purpose I have mentioned, we on this side would have been glad to support that motion. But the motion has been made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government, which alone has the responsibility of ordering the
business of this house; therefore, as there is no other motion before the house, we will stand by the original agreement.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: ;
Mr. Speaker, as far as this group are concerned we recognize the agreement that was entered into some days ago, and of course we fit in with the plan that has been announced. On behalf of our group I would just like to express to each and every hon. member, including yourself, Your Honour,. the very best for the Christmas season.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce the arrangements that have been made to assemble a staff of senior officers of the public service to work directly with Senator McCutcheon, Minister without Portfolio, on measures to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on. government organization, with particular reference to the views expressed in those recommendations by Mr. Therrien, one of the commissioners.
The group will be headed by Dr. G. F. Davidson, deputy minister of citizenship and immigration, who is to be seconded to the privy council and will work full time on this program. He will be assisted by Dr. Jacques Miquelon, under secretary of state, who will devote such portion of his time as is necessary to this program and will carry on his other duties as well, and Mr. John A. MacDonald, assistant secretary of treasury board, who is being seconded to the privy council for this purpose. Mr. Henry Hindley and Mr. Yeomans, who were on Mr. Glassco's central staff throughout the course of the inquiry,, have been appointed in the privy council office to participate in this work. It is expected that other officers will be assigned to take part as well.
This group of senior officers will work closely with the cabinet committee that is dealing with this matter as well as with individual ministers, departments and agen-

Glassco Commission Report cies in order to ensure that the recommendations of the royal commission are thoroughly considered and, when approved, are put into effect. Hon. members will recall that on November 29 I announced that I expected that most of the recommendations will be carried out at the earliest possible date, and that Senator McCutcheon had been designated as the minister responsible for the appraisal and implementation of the reports. I should also add, as I said a moment ago, that in so far as the recommendations are concerned, to bring about to the largest degree possible the spirit of the constitution of this country, the recommendations of Mr. Therrien will receive the fullest consideration.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the statement just made by the Prime Minister may I ask him whether he has given any consideration to the suggestion and the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in the course of the debate on interim supply, concerning an inquiry into the public service with reference to biculturalism and consultation with the provinces?

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his announcement earlier this afternoon about the organization of administrative personnel under the direction of Senator McCutcheon as the minister to implement the Glassco commission report, will he advise the house what minister will be answerable in the House of Commons for questions relating to this subject?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister or any other minister will gladly answer questions.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will he inform the house who will assume the duties of the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration during the period when Dr. Davidson is engaged with other duties which the Prime Minister announced today?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that announcement will be made at the appropriate time.



HOUSING


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions

recently I have made announcements covering amendments to or revisions of policy under the National Housing Act. Today I should like to make a further announcement concerning the lending policy of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with respect to rental housing.
By way of background I should say that in recent years government policy on direct lending by the corporation under section 40 of the National Housing Act has been primarily concerned with the home ownership field. The results have been spectacular.
In August of 1957 the government extended direct lending by the corporation, under an agency arrangement with the approved lenders, to all centres of population for home owner applicants, for builders and, for a short time, to rental entrepreneurs. This move immediately injected some $150 million into housing at a time when it was beneficial to prospective home owners, to families desiring to rent accommodation, to builders, to manufacturers and to the economy in general.
I do not propose to review all the details of government policy concerning direct lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at that time or in the years from 1957 to January, 1961. However, it will be remembered that the government's program was so successful that parliament was asked for an additional $150 million late in 1957, and even this amount was virtually exhausted by early April of 1958, necessitating a suspension of the arrangement until the government could seek the approval of more funds at the next session of parliament.
Additional funds were approved by parliament in May of 1958, when the statutory vote was increased to $750 million from $400 million, and on three additional occasions the government again asked parliament to vote increases to meet continuing demand for direct corporation loans. In March of 1959 the vote was increased to $1 billion, in March, 1960 to $1.5 billion and in September, 1961 to $2 billion.
At the same time the lending institutions have been extremely active and have injected massive amounts of money and consequent construction activities into the fields of both ownership and rental accommodation. The results of all these activities are reflected in the record numbers of housing starts and completions over the past four or five years. However, the activities of the lending institutions have been primarily, although not exclusively, confined to the major urban centres of population. As a result the requirements for both ownership and rental accommodation in these areas have been pretty well

met. Indeed, some concern is now being expressed about the high number of units for rent or sale in our major population centres.
In the smaller communities, however, the activities of the lending institutions have been much more limited and in some cases nonexistent. Their funds have, generally speaking, been fully committed to the larger centres where large scale demand exists and administrative costs are correspondingly low. The direct lending activities of C.M.H.C. have filled the gaps quite adequately for home ownership units in the smaller communities, but the confinement of the corporation's undertaking to this field has undoubtedly left appreciable needs to be filled in the area of rental accommodation in such communities.
The result has been that substandard housing is developing, especially in the fringe areas of smaller communities, more especially as industries move in or expand and people are compelled to get what accommodation they can find. Many hon. members will be aware of the problem of "shantytown" developments on the fringe areas which our municipalities find difficult or impossible to control.
After giving serious consideration to this problem and the representations received, the government has decided that a limited extension of the rental lending activities of C.M.H.C. under section 40 of the act would provide a substantial solution. Accordingly the corporation has been authorized to consider applications for direct loans for privately sponsored rental housing projects where the applicant can establish that he has been unable to proceed with an otherwise acceptable project because of inability to obtain a loan from the approved lenders.
Therefore, effective immediately, direct National Housing Act loans for rental projects will be made available in all Canadian communities where, in the opinion of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a need for rental housing exists that is not being met by the approved lenders under the act. These direct loans will be made on the same terms and conditions, and subject to the same limitations, as those upon which a loan may be made under the provisions of part I of the National Housing Act.
I am confident that this authority for C.M.H.C. to make direct loans for rental projects will prove to be an important factor in meeting the present shortage of rental accommodation in many Canadian communities, and in improving general living conditions. It is estimated that the demand for funds for this purpose will be approximately $15 million each year.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, we have just seen an example of the way
Lending Policy Respecting Housing the government operates in making these announcements. Today the minister has made the speech which he might well have made yesterday. In so doing he has precluded the opposition from making any comment on, or dealing in any way with, the inadequacy of the government's housing program, and the inadequacy of the out-dated National Housing Act.
Without in any way commenting on the announcement today about rental lending we will have an opportunity, I suppose, at some distant time in the future of discussing this particular piece of legislation.


An hon. Member:: We hope.


John Richard Garland: Yes, we hope. Perhaps it will be in charge of another minister at another time; it may be during another parliament; who is to know. However, I think we might well have expected some announcement today from the minister re existing units before branching off into another field, although in this sense I am not condemning the action proposed. But there are a great many fields not taken care of. I am thinking of all the rural communities across the country, the needs of which have not been met under the terms of the National Housing Act. I think of the fishermen and all the people across the country who are at the moment unable to take advantage of the National Housing Act.


Mr. Horace A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this announcement because we in this party are keenly aware of the fact that there are some, in fact a great many, anomalies in the matter of assessments and valuations as between various communities which appear to us to warrant equal consideration so far as the percentage of loans required is concerned. Some small urban communities are assessed at lower levels in the determination of the maximum mortgage available. We welcome the announcement that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will now enter the field of direct lending in order to help some of these smaller communities, and we hope this will correct some of the problems I have outlined.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, in welcoming both the announcement made by the minister and the short review he has given of the workings of this act over the past few years, I should like to say that I think it illustrates very well once again what happens when the government takes the lead in a certain field. That is something which could very well be extended to other departments of the gouvemement. This shows how, once the government takes

Railway Branch Lines the lead, it stimulates even private interests and generates benefit to the country as a whole.
I hope we can look forward to an announcement by the minister before too long that the benefits of this act will be made applicable to houses already built in order that they may be improved, instead, as is the case now, of having to go to another source for a short term bank loan. I think this is something which could very well attack one of the major problems of this country, that of slum housing. I think if this act were broadened and extended to this field it would be of great benefit to the country.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a number of questions have been raised regarding applications filed by the two major railways for branch line abandonments in the western provinces, particularly as they may affect elevator and grain interests. The suggestion has been advanced that all abandonment cases should be brought to a halt pending over-all examination of the situation.
The government in the speech from the throne made known its intent to present legislation arising out of recommendations of the recent royal commission on transportation. The recommendations of the commission have a major bearing upon the matter of branch line abandonment and procedures in relation thereto.
In view of this situation the Minister of Agriculture and I met with the presidents of Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways to consider how, in the interests of all parties, a series of precipitate and unorganized abandonment applications might be avoided. The railway presidents are sympathetic to the problem and have indicated their complete willingness to assist in trying to effect an appropriate solution.
Applications for branch line abandonments in western Canada presently filed with the board of transport commissioners and those which may be filed are designed to allow western interests to obtain an over-all picture. To this end my colleague the Minister of Agriculture has arranged that we and the two railway presidents meet on January 3 or January 4 with representatives of the western pool elevators and the elevator companies in order to discuss possible procedures. While a very few cases already well advanced may proceed, the great majority will not be dealt with in any precipitate

fashion and will be handled in a manner which will permit a proper over-all review by the board with the interested parties at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with a good deal of interest to the statement which has been made by the Minister of Transport. The nub of the statement is that applications now before the board of transport commissioners for railway line abandonment may be proceeded with even though some discussions will be taking place later, after which a plan for abandonment in a more orderly fashion may or may not be formulated.
We wish to protest the failure of the government to act in providing a suspension of these proceedings. In our opinion it is most unjust and most unfair that applications now before the board should be proceeded with when an overall policy at some later date might make a much better provision for railway services than would be made if this piecemeal, hit and miss policy is continued. We express the hope that out of the meeting to which the minister has referred there may in fact come-although we are not sure that this will be the result-some policy or some plan of rationalization which, in addition to providing railway services on a continuing and adequate basis, will bear in mind the needs of Canadians for the maintenance of adequate services and for consideration of their economic position.
The recommendations of the royal commission with regard to branch line abandonments and all the recommendations associated with them add up, we feel, to something that should not be proceeded with holus bolus in the manner which has been recommended. We shall have further comments to make on these questions when the occasion arises.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am not as familiar with policies of abandonment as is the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I tell the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Hazen Robert Argue: -that he is following on a line of no services.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we understand the procedure at this time. It should be that of fair comment on the announcements which are made on motions. These are not debates.


Hazen Robert Argue: Tell us about the Regina railway station.


Mr. Hellyer:: Did not the hon. member abandon his home province of Saskatchewan?


Hazen Robert Argue: Who abandoned Regina and Saskatchewan?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I beg Your Honour's pardon if I have transgressed either the rules of the house or the spirit of Christmas. I should like to commend the minister for the statement he has made. I am glad that some steps are going to be taken to see that no precipitate action is going to be taken in respect of these applications that are now being considered by the board of transport commissioners.
However, I suggest to the minister and to the government that the mere attempt to prevent precipitate action will not assuage the fears that are prevalent in many communities, and I would hope the government could persuade both the railways and the board of transport commissioners to give definite assurance that they will not proceed with any of these applications which are now being discussed by the board of transport commissioners. I believe that today the premiers of the three prairie provinces and the representatives of farm organizations on the prairies are meeting in the city of Regina to discuss this very important matter.
I would remind the minister it is not only grain elevators which are adversely affected but many other places of business in many communities, the dwellings and the assets which those communities have. I would hope that at a very early date some over-all plan to carry out some of the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation will be brought before the house.

On the orders of the day:


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, in view of the very important statement he made today in respect of railway lines in western Canada. I should like to ask him whether the federal government has representatives at the meeting which is being held today in Regina between the provincial governments and the wheat pools.


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two copies, in English and in French, of the report of the committee of inquiry into the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Martin (Essex East): At last.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like at the same time to say how grateful the government is to the chairman, Ernest Gill, and to the commissioners, Etienne Crevier, John J. Deutsch and J. Richards Petrie; to the secretary, Richard Humphrys, as well as to counsel, for the presentations that have been made and the attention given by this commission to this very important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house the right hon. gentleman is tabling the report of the committee on unemployment insurance. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Harry C. Harley (Halfon) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-104, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political programs).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to clarify a clause in the Canada Elections Act in order to bring that act into line with the Broadcasting Act as it applies to political broadcasting.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Translation):



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Rinfrel (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Labour and I sent him notice of it.
Could the Minister of Labour tell the house whether his department will maintain its assistance program to the provinces for the building of technical schools, on the basis of 75 per cent of proposed amounts, after March 31, 1963?
(Text):


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: This is a matter of government policy, Mr. Speaker, and a decision in that regard has not yet been made.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Nicholson (Vancouver Centre):: I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Transport. On December 7, in
2854	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry answer to a question I put to him, the minister stated that the government had no jurisdiction to interfere with the move of United Air Lines in closing their Vancouver office because it was a matter of internal management. I am advised that Canadian Pacific Air Lines have applied for a licence to permit them to serve the west coast of the United States. My question is, has the minister received any representations from the Vancouver board of trade or other bodies on the west coast supporting the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines to operate in competition with United Air Lines in that area?


Léon Balcer: I shall have to check that with my office, but I can assure my hon. friend right away that the government is making representations to the United States government to amend the bilateral agreement between our two countries to provide more routes for Canadian carriers from Canada to the United States and back.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, notice of which I gave him this morning. Has Mr. Cochrane, a prisoner in solitary confinement in Kingston penitentiary for the past 13 months, been examined by the prison psychiatrist? When was the last examination held?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think if we are going to have a series of questions of this nature it would be advantageous to have such questions on the order paper. If the hon. member has a single question I will permit it.


David Orlikow: I would ask one question, then. Has the prison psychiatrist made a report to the warden or the Department of Justice on the possible effects on Mr. Cochrane of this long confinement?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, first I must caution the house against giving their normal meaning to such words as the hon. member has used "solitary confinement for 13 months". So far as this particular inmate is concerned, he has been examined by the psychiatrist and has been found to be in good mental and physical health.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister giving consideration to the suggestion of a drug firm that a committee of experts be set up to study cases where drugs may be involved in congenital abnormalities?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, while I was interested to read the suggestions of the drug company in this field, I think the establishment of a separate committee to evaluate reports of drug deformities would be duplication of effort at this stage. There are a number of professional groups conducting surveys most vigorously, particularly with regard to the thalidomide problem. The expert committee of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, which has been looking into the operations of the food and drug directorate, is just preparing its final report, and I hope to have it shortly.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT AMENDMENTS TO CONFORM TO TAX-SHARING ACT AND INCREASE PAYMENT

Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-101, to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act. (Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on the motion for the third reading of the bill concerning the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.
First of all, I must say that the problem of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements is one which has a particular interest for us. It is an apparent fact that, for some time, new strides towards progress are being made in the province of Quebec. However, such in advance may be hampered by a lack of the income and financial means required.
We are discussing today fiscal arrangements related to the field of education. For some time, that is, for the past three or four weeks, there has been a lot of talk about the educational system of the province of Quebec. Some find it adequate; others say there is much room for improvement. On that point, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like

to mention that the purpose of an educational system is not merely to train businessmen, scientists or engineers, but also to develop in the individual that sense of humanism and that culture which makes him a superior man and enables one to tell a cultured man from one who is not.
Mr. Speaker, a wide educational program is being developed in the province of Quebec. I think the provincial minister of youth deserves credit for the wonderful job being done. As a matter of fact, we support his efforts and wish that such action should continue. But we are afraid that education in our province will be hampered or even stopped because of the lack of funds necessary to develop and carry out that education program.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative for the provinces to regain their sources of income if they are to develop their educational systems, their road programs, their health schemes and all other matters which come under their jurisdiction.
If we are to adopt a more realistic and efficient scale of values, the province of Quebec must start by demanding the restoration of the province's sources of income.
Those sources of income used to belong to the provinces. However, the federal government took them over during the second world war. We appreciate that the central government was, at the time, justified to ask the provinces to lend it, as it were, their sources of income in order to help it fight the common enemy. However, the war has been over for 17 years and Ottawa has not yet given back to the provinces the sources of income it was supposed to borrow for a few years only.
Mr. Speaker, the government of the day promised to return their sources of income to the provinces-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that the matter at hand is very limited in scope since it has to do solely with the principle of the measure under consideration. The bill deals with a single matter, that of grants for university education. Under the provisions of Bill C-101, we are not, at the present time, considering the whole problem of fiscal relations between the provinces and the federal government. I therefore ask the hon. gentleman to restrict his comments to the very principle of the bill.
Fiscal Arrangements Act


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, after having read this bill, one cannot help relating it directly to another one which was adopted earlier during this session, and under which there was granted to some provinces, and more particularly to the province of Quebec, the equivalent of a 50 cents per capita increase. In the bill previously adopted, corporation tax exemptions had been increased by 1 per cent, that amount being handed back to the provinces. In the case of the province of Quebec, in order to compensate for that 50 cents per capita which is now handed back to the universities, that 1 per cent is directly levied by the Quebec government. That is why the bill is entitled: Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, in certain fields, especially education.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to deal for a few moments only with those fiscal arrangements which concern us and about which I had been talking for some time: the transfer to the provinces of an additional source of income to help improve education.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that if we want to respect the spirit of confederation, we must not, as we are still doing today, increase 50 cents by 50 cents, drop by drop, the amount we give to universities, or increase by 1 per cent every two or three years corporation tax exemptions, to hand that percentage back to the provinces, but we must, in a single stroke, hand back to the provinces all sources of income belonging to them.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most important problems facing Canada at this time. Reference is made to the unemployment problem and to other problems, but let us not forget that all those problems will be solved by the smaller social cells, those social cells that are nearer to the individuals, and which cannot play their full role at this time on account of existing fiscal arrangements.
It is the federal government which levies all taxes, leaving almost nothing to the provinces and municipalities, so that they cannot face their obligations, as in the case of universities which we are now considering.
I should like to add, furthermore, that it is not because the Liberal party has robbed the provinces of their sources of income that this government should hand back those

Interim Supply
sources of income drop by drop, as it is now doing. It is that whole system of federal-provincial arrangements on fiscal rights which must be reconsidered. Those are all sources of income belonging to the provinces and which should be handed back to them.
Coming back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I submit that what is proposed today, that is to say, hand back to the provinces a little part of their rights, is all very well, but we are asking the government to see to it as soon as possible that a commission be set up which will make sure that their sources of income are handed back-and not only considered, because this study has been made a long time ago-to the provinces.
(Text):
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $330,089,511.93 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, finance items 45 and 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources items 10, 45 and 90, public works items 5, 45, 70, 100, 105, 125, 145, 168, 170, 180, 190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5, 15 and 25, transport items 35, 40, 60, 80, 85, 100, 125, 222 and 225, loans investments and advances item L20 $292,175,958;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of defence production item 25, external affairs item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 105, of the said revised estimates, $1,842,041.67;
(c)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(A)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, except external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, $8,738,178.92;
(d)	ten twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(B)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, $27,333,333.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.
(Translation):
Mr. Cote:: Mr. Chairman, as a descendant of one of the oldest Canadian families established in this country in 1635, I have always been attached to freedom and I have always been told that nobility and dignity are appropriate in all circumstances. That is why I was astonished last evening to see the systematic obstruction practised by our col-

leagues sitting on our right against the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker). Even though I do not approve the policies of the Prime Minister and even though I feel that this government has brought forward no immediate cures for the hardship of Canadian families, these hon. members were not entitled to act the way they did, especially when it is a known fact that the Liberals themselves, since the beginning of the session, have delayed the passage of legislation under all sorts of idle pretexts.


An hon. Member:: And what are you doing right now?


Mr. Dupuis:: You talk like an irresponsible person.


Maurice Côté: On the other hand, Mr. Chairman-


Yvon Dupuis: You talk like an irresponsible person.


Maurice Côté: I am generally courteous enough to listen to you, so please let me say what I want to say.


Yvon Dupuis: Be sensible and we shall listen to you.


Maurice Côté: On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I have heard in this house, these last few days, words that were most pleasant to my French ears, and I want to offer my heartiest congratulations to those who said them, even to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).
As far as I am concerned, I have to convey today things that are more abstract. Being myself from the financial world, I want to deal with what I would call the poetry of figures and of money. Listening to the hon. members from the three old parties of social debit, Conservatives, Liberals and socialists-for the socialists are members of an old party which has been in existence for more than 40 years in the world-we Social Crediters can readily see that those hon. members, in spite of their good will, are unable to cope with the budgetary problems which we are now facing, for they are still holding to ancient economical concepts which have long been out-of-date. How can we get out of this social debit era? They do not know the answer, and they do not care to find out, for they would have to study the whole financial system governing the economic life of this country. Yet, the situation is constantly worsening and this is proved by the fact that social debit or general running into debt is increasing at a terrific speed. For example, the total increase in debts in Canada, from 1956 to 1961, has been around $20 billion, or 52 per cent, under both Liberal

and Conservative administrations. Figures taken from the statistical supplement of the Bank of Canada show that the federal, provincial, municipal, school, mortgage and personal debts, as well as foreign debts, make up a total of $58,400 billion.
Where are we heading for, Mr. Chairman, with this social debit system, this fateful work of the old parties? Except for the Social Crediters, where are the members of this house who have made positive suggestions which could really put an end to this financial anarchy?
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, is it possible, with this old financial system of social debit which is defended and protected by the three other parties facing us and on our right, to pay $58 billion in total debts and to see, someday, the end of what is a terrible nightmare for all Canadians, while our money supply is scarcely over $15 billion, divided between $2 billion in currency and approximately $13 billion in credit or bank money issued by commercial banks? No, such a thing is mathematically impossible, because the most important accounting service in this country, that of our Canadian monetary system, does not balance. We do not have enough capital to pay all those debts. Is there anything more ridiculous? It is the acme of aberration.
Does that mean that we have to print banknotes or issue enough credit to make up the difference? Those who believe that Social Credit would act in that way, as our critics seem to anticipate, have but a childish mind or they are totally ignorant of the scientific propositions of the Social Credit system or, again, in deliberately bad faith, which makes three kinds of rather unattractive people. To extricate ourselves from the system of bankruptcy, or social debit, in which we have sunk, the federal state, through the Bank of Canada, has to socialize credit as it socialized currency issues in 1935, by putting some order in the mess of banknote printing, which, at that time, was the exclusive privilege of the chartered banks.
Indeed, before 1934, that is at the time when the Bank of Canada was created, each commercial bank could print its own banknotes, which have been withdrawn from circulation, to the delight of collectors. From 1935 on, the chartered banks had to reduce gradually their banknote issues. In 1934, after the Bank Act was revised, that right was completely revoked, and all Canadians considered it quite normal. There was no revo-27507-3-181
Interim Supply
lution in our country, because it was just putting things in order where disorder had prevailed before. It is a remarkable fact that such evolution partly took place under a Liberal administration. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the Liberals, like the Conservatives, therefore turned Social Crediters at that time, because they also abolished the gold standard in 1940, those two measures having been requested for a long time by the Social Credit party. And what other things does the Social Credit party advocate today? We should act just the same as in 1935 to 1945, this time by socializing credit through the Bank of Canada just as banknote issues were socialized then, for it cannot be accepted that bank and other credit be granted through the private sector of our economy. And, above all, it is not logical that "bank money" referred to by the economist Paul Samuelson should become a debt the moment it is created or issued. We cannot pay a debt claimed on top of the bank credit if a corresponding credit is not created or issued to fill the gap. That is the fundamental reason why debts amount to $58 billion in this country while there is only $15 billion in money supply to repay them.
Now, if we look back over the last 25 years, we note that the currency has increased from $250 million to $2 billion while the money supply was raised from $3 billion to $13 billion, which means that commercial banks created approximately $10 billion in bank money during that period to keep up in some measure with the economic growth of Canada. Well, in the future, under the financial system advocated by the Social Credit party, that creation of credit, of bank money, would be socialized by being handed over to the Bank of Canada, but any new issue would be debt free and done scientifically without having to increase materially- that is most important-the issue of credit or money, precisely because the circulation of money would be reversed so that consumption would be financing production.
Furthermore, through widespread public works which, in political economy, are called social capital expenditures, the government could provide employment for a very substantial labour force, thus enabling all Canadian family heads to obtain the daily bread and the decent livelihood they have a right to expect nowadays. It would not be a question, as our critics wrongly claim, of handing out money recklessly and of encouraging people to lie sunk in sloth. Quite the contrary, those measures would ease the

Interim Supply
burden of welfare expenditures and the like and would put us on the road to full employment, so that, in view of the many projects awaiting implementation in all parts of the country, we can be sure that under a Social Credit government we could even experience a serious labour shortage. What is obviously holding up the carrying out of those projects is the fantastic amount of interest paid annually on the debts-over $2 billion- which has discouraged any effort to that effect. At present, any new credit or bank money issue is done directly through the producers, with the result that there is an increasing concentration of capital in the hands of a smaller and smaller group, now, it is consumption that should be financed first, but not the way it is being done at present by finance companies at the rate of 24 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, those proposals are acceptable to all the parties in the house and, if I may, I should like to call on members of the three old parties of social debit who are sincerely interested in changing our national economy "to put on the new man" as St. Paul used to say. On the eve of Christmas, I urge them very specially to abandon the old parties of social debit which have led our country into bankruptcy and join the Social Credit party which will lead Canada into an era of prosperity thanks to the wonderful opportunities of modern technique.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Earlier today the Minister of Transport placed a statement before this house with regard to rail line abandonment and in the course of the discussion the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said something to the effect that I should know something about abandonment. I noticed the hon. member leave the chamber a moment ago. I wish he was in his seat, because I should like to remind him and his colleagues in the house that he and I both had the honour to represent an area in Saskatchewan, he in the provincial legislature and I in the federal parliament for a number of years. When he decided to leave the provincial field, it was he who abandoned the people of Assiniboia as a candidate for the New Democratic party, not I as a candidate for the Liberal party. I ran in my own constituency. I do not say he abandoned the constituency of Regina. Rather, the people of the constituency of Regina abandoned the hon. member, and he had to seek shelter elsewhere in order to get into this chamber.

Now we are all on edge this afternoon wondering whether we are going to hear from the Prime Minister. Yesterday afternoon the Leader of the Opposition delivered a most constructive speech in which he put forward certain proposals which, if they had been accepted, would have helped to expedite the business before this house, proposals which would have helped us to get on with the legislation which the government claims is so important. The Prime Minister rose a few seconds before five o'clock. Your Honour took notice of the clock, but the Prime Minister wished to make a statement and insisted, as best he could in those difficult circumstances. An effort was made a few minutes afterwards-after the Prime Minister had endeavoured to speak-by the Leader of the Opposition, who said this as reported in Hansard at page 2837:
Mr. Speaker, it should be possible to get these three measures through very quickly and I should like to suggest if they are through by half past five or a quarter to six we revert to interim supply.
To this the Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the sudden change of front and change of conscience, that offer is no longer acceptable.
We concluded those items by a quarter to six. The Prime Minister did not accept that offer. One wonders whether the Prime Minister really wanted to speak yesterday afternoon, or whether he was more preoccupied in trying to play the role of martyr if he could pull it off. When the story got to the press this morning I suppose he came in this afternoon and said "Well, I have done the job. They are saying that I was stopped from speaking". The Prime Minister had the opportunity to speak yesterday afternoon, but he did not avail himself of that opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then, of course, overnight something apparently happened to the Prime Minister's schedule. He was going to fly to Nassau, but Prime Minister Macmillan and President Kennedy had important discussions for which they needed additional time, and the Prime Minister's departure was very conveniently delayed for a number of hours. One would have thought that the Prime Minister, so anxious to speak yesterday afternoon and to answer the constructive speech of the Leader of the Opposition, would come into this house today and take the first opportunity of speaking. We are disappointed that he did not.


Mr. Churchill:: You are just lucky.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Veterans
Affairs says we are lucky.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said that you are.


Hazen Robert Argue: We would like to hear what the Prime Minister has to say. We challenge him to enter the debate this afternoon and tell us why the government has bogged down and has not been able to manage the affairs of this country in a more competent manner.


Mr. Rapp:: You are the ones who prevented him from speaking.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the Prime Minister would come in now I am sure that we would be delighted to hear him. He does not have to leave for a day. He has unlimited time and can speak for hours today. But the Prime Minister is sulking. He was not able to speak yesterday when he wanted to speak, and now he says that if he could not speak when we were to take up other matters, he is not going to speak at all. That is a rather childish performance, I suggest a rather juvenile performance, for the Prime Minister of this country. We are going away for a recess, but before we go we hope the Prime Minister will make some contribution to this debate.
We shall come back when the house reassembles to deal with important questions which we hope will be placed before this house. We have had a number of supply motions. We have had a number of want of confidence motions. I suggest that there is one question in the minds of the people of this country, and that is this. In the interests of good government and in the interests of democratic government we should have a government on the treasury benches that has a majority. The sooner the people of Canada are given the opportunity to deal with the situation which now prevails in this house, the better. We would welcome an appeal to the people at the earliest possible moment, as soon as the Prime Minister can gather the people around him who will encourage him to make this kind of decision.
We have had evidence in this house this session of the incompetence of the government, of the failure of the government to bring forward legislation in a regular manner which would deal with the pressing problems facing the country. The government has not acted in a way which would inspire confidence. The Canadian people have been told by cabinet ministers one thing one day and another thing another day. The Minister of Agriculture, who probably speaks more glibly than any other minister, has gone out and said there is a danger of credit losses on wheat sales. He has said "We want you to put up some money". He has said "I am having trouble with the cabinet. I cannot get these things through the cabinet. If you would help me by putting up some of the farmers' money, it would help me do a better job".
27507-3-181J
Interim Supply
Then he said "Oh, it is the opposition parties who are holding me up". He named two, and later said he had picked the wrong two, that it was another two.
The third reason for his difficulties, according to a report I have read, was that he said he was having trouble in the cities. The latest thing he came up with was when he said that there was a campaign against credit sales which was making it difficult, and that the campaign was coming from the island of Formosa.
I think the Minister of Agriculture has used every possible excuse or alibi for the proposals he has made, none of which has been accepted by any major farm organization as being workable. The chairman of the Canadian wheat board has turned down these proposals; he has said that he did not think they were workable in the international field. The Saskatchewan wheat pool has turned them down as not realistically workable. The stock of the Conservative party on the prairies in the last federal election was very high, but I suggest that the stock of the Conservative party on the prairies is not nearly as high today. Part of the reason that it is not nearly as high today is the confusion in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. McIntosh:: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would remind my friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek that the recent changes in the percentage of popular vote in the various constituencies of Manitoba as registered in a provincial election are definite proof that what I say is absolutely correct. I make the statement that if the Liberal party could come within six percentage points of the Conservative vote when the provincial party has been led by Premier Duff Roblin, the Liberal party will have far greater strength in the next federal election in Manitoba when the Conservative party is led by its present federal leader.
We have tried to get frank statements from the government about various policies. We think the government has very important decisions which should be made. We are not impressed by the competence of this administration. One of the matters which have been brought forward time after time in the present debate is the question of the Columbia river. It has been stated that the government bungled, that the government did not protect legitimate Canadian rights. There have been recent negotiations with regard to the export of Canadian oil to the United States. Certain negotiations were held the other day. The President of the United States some weeks ago issued a proclamation which the oil industry felt placed a severe limitation

Interim Supply
on the amount of Canadian oil going into the United States market; that it provided a very severe limitation which would prevent any substantial increase in exports of oil in 1963. So a discussion took place in the city of Ottawa, and on Friday, December 14 the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a report to this House of Commons. In this report he gave us, in my judgment, no information. He said that the discussions had been useful and informative and had provided an opportunity for the United States representatives to explain the recent proclamation. He went on to say, as reported on page 2671 of Hansard:
The two delegations noted that no change has been made in the overland exemption for oil which permits sales of Canadian oil in United States markets without licensing.
Then the hon. member for Ottawa West and I tried to get from the Minister of Trade and Commerce some further elucidation as to whether the proclamation by the President of the United States adversely affected the opportunity to increase exports of Canadian oil in 1963.
The minister gave us little information last Monday when we were asking these questions. I asked him a supplementary question, as found at page 2718 of Hansard:
I have a further supplementary question. I wonder would the minister be prepared to say to the house whether, in the opinion of the government, the U.S. president's recent proclamation affecting oil imports in the United States does in fact place a limit on increases in the exports of Canadian oil to the United States?
The minister replied as follows:
I would like to repeat to the hon. member, in answer to that question, part of what I said in the house on Friday last. I said:
"The two delegates noted that no change has been made in the overland exemption for oil which permits sales of Canadian oil in United States markets without licensing."
The Minister of Trade and Commerce was not frank, in my judgment, with the House of Commons, he was not frank with the Canadian people. There had been negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, and the Canadian government had failed to get from the United States any relaxation of this recent order. In my judgment the strength of the Canadian government in negotiations such as these comes from an informed public and an informed House of Commons. But this government is so interested in politics and in hiding the facts from the Canadian people that the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not give us a frank statement in the house, and there is now no opportunity for Canadians in a forthright way to register their dissatisfaction with a proclamation which so severely limits our sale of oil in the United

States market in 1963 and prevents in the future anything like the increase which we have been able to register in recent years.
I think there is every indication that this government is more interested in party political warfare than in doing a good job for the Canadian people. On a former occasion this session I pointed out that in the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in this country it had been made clear to P.F.A.A. inspectors that they would be required to do political work on behalf of the Conservative party, and that to those who have been hired into that organization it has been made clear that they are to be supporters of the government in office. This is a political machine, and it has been made a political machine by the Minister of Agriculture in the administration of this act.
I have information to the effect that Conservative members of parliament have been invited to and have attended meetings of the prairie farm assistance inspectors and have spoken at those meetings at schools in which the P.F.A.A. inspectors were being instructed in how to take crops reports. 1 say to this government that the P.F.A.A. machinery is or should be different from the Tory campaign political machinery, and that members of parliament from any party have no business being at such conferences and speaking in a political fashion at them. For various administrative posts of the government in connection with agriculture new people have recently been hired. In almost every instance they have been prominent Conservatives, and this seems to be an essential qualification.
In order to show what this government thinks of the ordinary administration of government and how it can be used in a political sense, may I say this. When the Minister of Agriculture wished to go to Regina some time ago, early in November, in order to speak to the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the Department of Transport plane was used by the minister; and on that plane for this junket were six Conservative members of parliament with a couple of wives for good measure. I see no evidence of anybody from any other political party. I do not think this is the use that should be made of a Department of Transport plane. I do not think this is a plane which should be considered by hon. members opposite as though it belonged to Conservative party headquarters, and that when it goes some place it should be loaded up with Conservative members of parliament in order to go out to do their political work.
That is another indication of the attitude of the government in using the machinery of government in a political way. However, they go even further. They believe that informa-

tion now coming from the government should not be available to the Canadian public generally and should not be available to the press generally, but should be available only to that section of the press which has shown that it supports the Conservative party. The Minister of Agriculture recently went out to Edmonton, and a reporter from the Edmonton Journal asked him to make a comment on negotiations with red China. The minister said it was pure speculation and declined to say more. However, in the Canadian Press dispatch we find the following:
Later Roy Faibish, Mr. Hamilton's special assistant, said the minister might have spoken if the Journal had not criticized the government on the day Mr. Diefenbaker visited Edmonton during the federal election campaign.
We suggest that in a democratic country the government has no business to try to discriminate between newspaper media just because the editorial policy of one particular paper happens to support one party or another. That is a further indication that this government is interested not in fair play, not in a policy of disseminating information in a fair way, but says rather that if it is a Tory newspaper reporter who calls up, he gets information. Mr. Faibish went on to say this:
But if someone from the Toronto Globe and Mail calls and the caller is known to be informed, he gets comment.
However, if it is from a paper that is not favourable to the government, it uses the iron curtain and brings it down over government or public information. I have in my hand a document which I think constitutes a serious indictment of the Conservative party. It comes from the headquarters of the Conservative party in the province of Saskatchewan. We know that the Minister of Agriculture is very close to the Conservative association in Saskatchewan. At their last executive meeting held in Regina he was in attendance and played a very prominent role. In order that this letter may be on record, Mr. Chairman, I should like to read it:
Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party, Provincial Headquarters-McGowan Building,
122 - 2nd Avenue North, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Martin Pederson,
Provincial Leader.
J. D. Leishman, President,
802 Medical-Dental Bldg.,
Regina, Sask.
September 28th, 1962
Dear Supporter:
As you were selected to do the enumeration in your poll for the June 18th election, we would like to ask for your helpfulness again.
Will you please check the enclosed voter's list, and indicate after each name, to the best of your knowledge, whether P.C., Lib., N.D.P., or S.C. The 1962 vote result is shown at the top of the list as
Interim Supply
a guide to select the various supporters. This is an arduous task, and even some names for each would be a great help.
The voter's lists are going out to each poll in the province to ascertain these details, and your co-operation in returning the completed list as soon as possible would be greatly appreciated. An addressed envelope is enclosed for your use.
Please indicate, where known, who the poll clerk was, also the scrutineers and workers in your poll.
Thanking you very much for your assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Lawson W. Procter, Provincial Organizer.


Mr. Ricard:: What is wrong with that?


Hazen Robert Argue: Conservative members are
asking, what is wrong with that? This kind of question indicates the mentality of hon. gentlemen opposite who seem to take the attitude that enumerators should be part of the political machinery of the Conservative party when these officials are appointed under the elections act and paid out of the public purse. In order to illustrate their belief that these people should be part of the Conservative political machinery the letter says it is being sent to every poll in Saskatchewan and it is addressed to, "Dear Supporter".


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


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe that this is something that should not be done; I think it is a mistake. I believe this is a misuse of our democratic processes. These people are paid with public money and they should not be asked to inform on their neighbours, to give political judgments or to indicate the political persuasion of the people whom they enumerate and place on the voters list.
Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think this is a very fair and proper procedure. They are interrupting-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Hon. gentlemen say this is fair, and I suggest-


Rémi Paul: Order; the hon. member for Vegreville.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor and I do not think it should be handed to somebody else.


Rémi Paul: I am sorry, I was under the impression the hon. member was raising a point of order. If the hon. member is just asking a question, the hon. member who has the floor can refuse.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. gentleman can ask his question when I conclude, and I will be happy to answer it. I believe this attitude of the Conservative party in Saskatchewan, which

Interim Supply
has been condoned in this house, is a shameful thing and should not be supported by any party. It is a challenge to our democratic process. I can tell hon. members who are shaking their heads that some of the Conservatives in my riding, and in other places, have criticized this attitude.
In recent days hon. gentlemen opposite have shown that they feel the Conservatives should be using the machinery of government, not so much in the interests of the ordinary people of this country, but to manipulate things to further their own political ends. For this, and other reasons-


Mr. Valade:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member who has the floor has imputed some dishonest motives to the members of this house. I think that is quite improper and he should correct his attitude.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I said the government was endeavouring to use the machinery of government for its own political ends. I repeat that statement and I believe it is correct. My reasons for saying it has been placed on the record this afternoon. I refer to the use of P.F.A.A. inspectors who were told they must do political work in Saskatchewan; the use of an airplane of the Department of Transport for a junket for Conservative members; the assertion to the press, "We are going to give you a political blood test before we give you any public information", and now Conservative headquarters in Saskatchewan has the blessing of hon. members opposite in its endeavour to use its enumerators in the last election to inform on their neighbours. I suggest that is a condemnation of this government.


Rémi Paul: I think the hon. member for Vegreville has a question.


Mr. Fane:: I should like the hon. member for Assiniboia to put on the record the name of the person to whom that letter was written, the letter from which he quoted.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have no intention of informing on any particular person so that action may be taken against that person by the Conservative party. However, according to the terms of this letter itself, it went out to every single enumerator in the province of Saskatchewan. My hon. friend can obtain their names, because that is public information.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member knows the rules of this house and he knows that when he quotes from a letter or any document it should be tabled. My hon. friend has been putting on the record more political claptrap in the last half hour than we have heard

in a week. Certainly, he should not be allowed to hide behind this anonymity.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I want to say a word about this phony point of order raised by the minister.


Rémi Paul: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking to a point of order.


Rémi Paul: I believe the hon. gentleman is not obliged to put on the table a private document.


George Clyde Nowlan: If he quotes from it he is.


Hazen Robert Argue: I quoted it all; it is all on Hansard.


Rémi Paul: I think the hon. member is not obliged to put a private letter on the table. The hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Assiniboia has made certain accusations, and amongst those accusations was one to the effect this letter went out to every enumerator in the province of Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what it says.


Edward Nasserden: I want to deny that. I want to say that not one of these letters went out in the Rosthern constituency which I represent. So far as I know, no such letter has been circulated in the province of Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: This letter is all over Saskatchewan. I have a copy of it in my hand and the letter itself says it went out to all enumerators, and that it is going out to each poll in the province of Saskatchewan. It is signed by Lawson W. Procter, provincial organizer.


Rémi Paul: Order; if all hon. members agree, we will recognize now the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, in the discussions that have taken place we gave the assurance that if the debate were to be concluded immediately we would not have any further speakers from this group. I should like to say we have a number who are very anxious to take part in this debate. As I have said, we were ready to forgo that privilege at the moment, but in view of the fact other members from other groups are proposing to carry on the debate, then we feel we ought to participate.
In rising to take part in the debate, Mr. Chairman, I should like the committee to consider for a few minutes a matter that has been under discussion on different occasions and which has to do with agriculture.

I have the privilege and honour of representing one of the major, if not the major agricultural area in the province of British Columbia and I would be remiss if, comparatively early in the session, I did not give some attention to this very important part of our community and economy. During previous debates we have had considerable discussion on various aspects of agriculture. We have thoroughly covered the credit facilities provided for this part of our economy, but while we recognize the importance of credit facilities to our farmers, these facilities in themselves are an indication of the fact that in the past the policies of governments in office were not such as to give the agricultural economy its fair share of the national income.
The farmers are finding it increasingly necessary to seek additional' help, and perhaps more generous sources of capital, in order to carry on their operations. Sometimes we think that some of the problems have been resolved, and there are those who feel agriculture is moving into a position where it has little to complain about. Yet we still find that agriculture is caught in the squeeze between increasing costs on the one hand and decreasing returns on the other.
I have in my possession a copy of the brief presented by the Manitoba farmers union to candidates in the last federal election and it points out very clearly that the situation is far from resolved. The problems are still there and the farmers, instead of moving up to a better position, are finding that their net income is decreasing.
I well remember the Minister of Agriculture outlining on one occasion some of the objectives that must be realized by the farming community. He said the first objective for the farmer was to maintain his holdings, the second was to provide for the needs of himself and his family, and the third was to have adequate retirement provision. I think those objectives are not being realized. Recently I spoke to a farmer in the province of Manitoba who told me that for a number of years he had been living on the depreciation of his equipment and holdings, and I believe that is indicative of the position in which many farmers find themselves at the present time. This situation is an indictment of the present and past governments for failing to introduce policies that would bring to the farmers their fair share of the national income and thus enable them to solve their own problems.
The fact that there is a continuing decrease in the number of farms across the country indicates that many farmers have given up
Interim Supply
the struggle for survival and, even though there are those who have moved off the land voluntarily, and their farms have been incorporated into larger units, still a great many farmers are off the land because they found they were not able to survive economically.
Agriculture in British Columbia is widely diversified, and this is particularly true of my own area. We have practically every type of farm operation in it. With such a diversified agricultural economy our farmers are faced with all the problems involved in diversified farming, as well as endeavouring to continue the job of providing foodstuffs for this nation and other nations of the world. However, though sharing the struggle for survival, the figures would indicate that that particular province is faring perhaps a little better than the average across the country.
In the past I have criticized governments and administrations for legislation that only applies to certain areas and certain localities. For instance I remember several years ago, when I had the honour to represent Fraser Valley in this house, I pointed out that even though other parts of the country had been able to benefit under P.F.R.A., and the maritimes had been able to benefit under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, there was nothing comparable to those acts covering the province of British Columbia. It is true there were isolated projects carried on under P.F.R.A. in British Columbia, but in general the benefits were not applicable.
Yet in spite of those representations about being denied such assistance, I am at present glad that at least we have some indication we will share in the benefits of legislation introduced more recently, and I speak especially of the ARDA program. The province of British Columbia is co-operating in that. It has already set up its committee. Particular projects are presently under consideration and we feel this is going to be of distinct benefit to us.
We also appreciate the fact that under the Farm Credit Act some of the producers in my area have been able to benefit. I am thinking mainly of poultry farmers and greenhouse operators, but I would point out there are still those engaged in various types of agriculture who are faced with an almost impossible position because of the fact that they have not access to adequate financing. For that reason I would urge that the government give continuing attention to the problems of agriculture in all its phases.
I should now like to refer to the disposal of agricultural products. I am proud of the fact that, down through the years, this group

Interim Supply
has advocated what we believe to be a very adequate system for the distribution of agricultural products as well as other types of production. We have supported and continue to support the principle of the two-price system. We believe it is absolutely necessary that our own people have adequate purchasing power so that they can buy the products of our farms, our waters and our forests, because there is a vast, untapped market right here in our own country.
We believe that if the consumers, the citizens of Canada, had the necessary purchasing power they would be buying agricultural products instead of some of the substitutes that have been presented and are being presented to them at present. We also believe it is necessary for us continually to seek export markets for the disposition of our agricultural products, and for this purpose we have advocated the acceptance of at least a certain amount of the currencies of other nations.
Hon. members will recall that on many occasions we raised the question of the Bret-ton Woods Agreements, which has interfered with the traditional markets we enjoyed for many years. In fact there is a strong suggestion that we should reconsider our position so far as the Bretton Woods Agreements is concerned. I have a clipping from The Producer of October 18, 1962, which is headed "Pakistan would buy more wheat."
A Pakistan government official says his country would buy more wheat from Canada but for the fact that it can buy U.S. wheat with its own currency while purchases made in Canada require payment in Canadian dollars.
S. M. Akhtar, deputy director of Pakistan's agriculture department, said in Edmonton that Pakistan bought about 50,000 tons of Canadian wheat a year, compared with some 1,500,000 tons from the U.S.
Mr. Akhtar, on a North American tour, described Canada's grain handling system as one of the best in the world. He commended the Canadian wheat board for its wheat grading program.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that anything that has contributed to the development of situations such as this should be given a second look. If other nations can engage in this kind of activity and dispose of their agricultural products in this way, why should we have to sit still and see our traditional markets go, and see those who want to buy from us unable to do so because of the restrictions that have been imposed? Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we believe it is absolutely necessary that we give consideration to this particular situation.
As I have said, I have the honour of representing an agricultural area very diversified in its nature. We have many problems that we would like to bring to the attention of the committee, but we are not going to do

so at the present time because it is our desire to get this item through. But on other occasions we will have an opportunity of dealing more specifically with some of these problems that are related to my own area and, of course, to other areas across the country.


Mr. Clunis:: Mr. Chairman, the year-end recess seems a fitting time to examine the accomplishments which have resulted from three months of deliberation here. I think perhaps we might look at it on the basis of what history books some years from now might record, if in fact there is anything worth recording. Perhaps some slogans could be evolved. It might be remembered that while we were here Canada was committed to a plan of play now and pay later. Young Canadians of another day may recall that in 1962 the government, with the help of the conservative Conservatives, made Canada the first nation in the world to operate on the monthly payment plan. But I doubt if these would really be worth recording.
It is true, as has been said, that never in our 95-year history has our nation been taxed without a plan of taxation, and certainly never since confederation has a government operated in this country so long without a blueprint of financial policy. These are not minor accomplishments, but perhaps historians will honour us more for formulating and implementing a new national policy, a policy that for want of a better name might be called taxation without information. But I doubt if any of these will be the real test of our stature.
It seems to me that our record, which surpasses all others, will be remembered for the number of questions that have been left unanswered. I do not have in mind, sir, the question period of written questions. I think these are the outward manifestation of an inner dissatisfaction, the uncertainty and disquietude of Canadians generally. This problem is not really a general one, Mr. Chairman; it is not really a question of supply or no supply, of estimates or no estimates, or even of budget or no budget. To think or speak of it in such general terms obscures the multitude of questions which earnest Canadians are asking. Day after day our business leaders, our editorial pages and the financial pages of our newspapers have asked these vital questions. Perhaps they have not made very good reading for the government. Maybe they have not got the message, so once more before the Christmas recess let us ask them here.
We are faced with a continuing deficit in our national account. Let us ask, how does the government propose to deal with it? Does the ministry propose to cover the deficit by reducing expenditures? This was the solution

promised on the night of June 24. If this is the solution, how is it to be done? What reductions are to be made? What reductions have been made? Are we to be denied the right to consider these proposals? Are they sound or unsound? Are they wise or unwise? Are they in fact in the national interest? Or another question is this, does the still secret cure lie in increased government income? Will the minister tell us that government income has increased? Has our economy regained its vigour over the past six months? Will existing tax sources produce sufficient income to balance our budget? If this is so, it would be pleasant to know now; it would be wonderful news at Christmas time and a gratifying Christmas message to take home. If this is not the minister's solution, does the government propose to raise taxes to pay for former financial folly? Will it be required to mention the unmentionable? Will it utter the suicidal phrase "increased taxes"?
If this be the solution, is the minister aware of the views of our business leaders, our economists and our tax experts? Does he recognize that our taxation system is totally unsuited to a growing nation in Canada's stage of development? Has the Prime Minister heard that our income tax levy is stifling initiative; that our corporation tax is rendering our industries less competitive, less able to capture a share of the export market? Has he been advised that the forced sale of Canadian-controlled industries is attributable to our succession duty law? Does he concede that family corporations are shopping for foreign buyers to avoid the forced sales which otherwise result when an owner dies? Does the Prime Minister really understand the sacrifice that a working Canadian makes when he pays his taxes?
Is the minister in agreement with our financial leaders, that tax and monetary reform cannot wait for a royal commission? Has he overlooked the two or three years required for investigation and the subsequent time necessary for implementation; a matter of three years, usually, at the very best? Or, as an alternative, does the minister propose nothing? Does he intend to sit and hope that somehow the deficit will correct itself; that somehow things will get better? Finally in this regard, Mr. Chairman, does the minister not know what the government is going to do about our deficit? Is there an insolvency of ideas? Has the oracle not spoken? If the minister has no information at this time about the budget deficit, and if these answers, like so many others, are to be announced at the proper time, then may I ask, what about our imbalance of foreign trade? What proposals has the government of Canada for the long term solution of this problem? We are 27507-3-182
Interim Supply
advised that the import-export gap grows wider. Even as our exports edge forward, the cost in Canadian dollars of our imports grows even faster. This, of course, is the inevitable result of dollar devaluation on a nation of importers. The new price tags of devaluation and austerity have now been attached to the goods on the shelves. The proof, if proof is required, is that we now have the highest cost of living index in our history.
What medicine does the minister prescribe for these ailments? Are we to put off the evil day by relying on foreign loans? Each time the day of reckoning arrives are we to seek to borrow again and again? How long can we continue to interest these foreign investors? How long can the balance of payments account bear the burden of high interest rates on foreign borrowings? The minister recognizes, I am sure, that already one tenth of our income is contracted to pay the interest on this nation's debts.
If the minister does not propose loans as the answer, what other solution has he in mind? Is the government depending on provincial trade crusades whose real effectiveness no one can assess and, which, if successful, would take years to provide necessary relief? Or will the government ultimately recognize the hard facts of our economic life? Will fearless leadership come forward and tell us seriously and clearly what we believe we already know, namely that we Canadians enjoy a standard of living beyond the nation's present capacity to supply-that we in Canada are enjoying a standard of living made possible by foreign borrowings? Shall we be told that we who have become relative to our population, the largest importing nation in the world, must give up in this generation many of the imported luxuries and the foreign travel to which we have grown accustomed?
Devaluation was inevitable under this government. But it cannot be repeated. High tariffs and the violation of our government's agreements under GATT cannot recur. If this is so, should we not put it up squarely and courageously now? Should it not be made clear that over the immediate term, and until policies which create the proper atmosphere in which the efforts of government, labour and management may combine have been introduced and are in effect, we Canadians must make some personal sacrifices? Must not this message now go out: Buy Canadian? Must we not say: be selective; if you need goods not wholly Canadian, then select those which have the greatest Canadian content? The chief criticism directed against this government is not one based on its past shortcomings. It is, rather, that it lacks the very vision of which it boasted-that it lacks the courage to

Interim Supply
admit its mistakes; that it lacks the courage to call on our people to do what they must do.
These are some of the vital questions which remain unanswered. A thoughtful article in a recent issue of Maclean's allotted 40 months for the conception and implementation of saving legislation. Three months-three profitless months-have now gone by. It is procrastination, not the opposition, that steals our time. As we go home, one final question will echo in the minds of all of us who sit here. I suggest it will be the cry of Job- "How long, O Lord, how long?"
(Translation):


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Chairman, there are many other things that could be said on that point. On behalf of my party, I wish to say that we are pleased to co-operate with the other groups this afternoon and to close the debate on interim supply so that the house may get on with the urgent business that should be concluded today, before the adjournment.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a couple of questions to put to the Minister of Finance and since he is in the chamber I think I might put them now.


George Clyde Nowlan: Would it not be better for us to carry the resolution? Then the hon. member could put his questions on the schedule. I think we might make progress to that extent. I put this out simply as a suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was about to say that before I put my questions I had a word or two I wanted to say. So I will say what I have to say and save my questions until we are in committee after the bill has received second reading.
Even at the risk of being accused of offering an unnecessary lecture there is something I should like to say at this time. I speak as a Canadian who thinks that this institution of parliament is one of the finest ways which has been devised for conducting the affairs of a society such as ours. I found myself yesterday in almost complete agreement with the opinions expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech between about 4.30 p.m. and five o'clock. It is natural I should agree with what he said, because there was a certain similarity between his remarks and those I had made a few days earlier. I think the government has to consider seriously this whole question of the extent to which it is running things by executive action and not according to parliament the rights that belong to it. When this year 1962-1963 is over, the number of things which were not allowed to go before parliament will make quite a story. This was the burden of my remarks last Monday. This view was also expressed

by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, on Tuesday. It was expressed-* and expressed well-yesterday afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition. But I must say I was equally horrified by what happened when the Leader of the Opposition sat down. Just as I have said to the members of the Conservative party that they should do some serious thinking about the effect of some their actions on the institution of parliament, so I say to the members of the Liberal party that when they act like an unruly mob and think they can come to power by shouting loudly, by denying freedom of speech after protesting that the rights of parliament have been curtailed, they, too, are doing irreparable damage to the institution of parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman think that some members of this house should be allowed to disregard the rules which are imposed on others?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I really think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would be well advised not to ask questions like that or to pursue what happened yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to pursue it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the name of the Liberal party the Prime Minister was given unanimous consent by the Leader of the Opposition. He was given unanimous consent, and then he was heckled in ways, according to the record, which suggested that some members of the Liberal party, some of whom have been in that party for quite a while and some of whom have only recently joined it-which indicated that they did not want the Prime Minister to carry on.
I have on my desk the Hansard for June 1, 1956, and I have been looking at two or three pages, looking at the account of all the noise, all the rabble and the strange singing that went on that day. The reason I have been looking at that Hansard was because what happened yesterday reminded me of it. I am not taking the Conservatives off the hook. I think they are doing untold damage to parliament by taking under executive control too many of the functions which belong to the institution of parliament itself. But, Mr. Chairman, along with the rights of parliament in terms of control of the purse strings and the right of dealing with matters of policy also go free speech and fair play. The rule of law, not the rule of the mob which we had here last evening at five o'clock, should govern our proceedings. Yesterday afternoon I had the privilege of having a group of high school students as visitors in the gallery.

They were here during the early part of the afternoon. I spent a few minutes with them in a committee room answering their questions, and then they went home. I am glad they went home and did not see that performance.
Mr. Chairman, I know I run the risk of being accused of delivering a gratuitous lecture or an unnecessary sermon, but I submit that what I have expressed is, in our better moments, the view of all of us in this house. I would ask that we think about this carefully. It is the view of Canadians generally. This parliament is an important, sacred and valuable institution; let us not damage it, in the way it has been damaged this session, by not letting decisions be made by parliament, or by allowing to happen the things I talked about in my speech on Monday night, or by the kind of rowdy and unruly demonstrations which we had yesterday afternoon. The people of this country are looking to us to uphold the traditions of responsible, free, democratic government. An election is coming. It may be sooner or it may be later, but it will be pretty important when it does come that we go to our constituents, those of us who are here now, with the others who are nominated, as men and women who will uphold all the rights and privileges of parliament, particularly those which have been damaged in this session by both sides of the house, and uphold the traditions which are ours from across the years. Mr. Chairman, I plead that we think seriously about these things. I did not rise to deliver a blast at one side or the other. I rose rather to express what might be called a voice of conscience over what happened yesterday, and to suggest that we try to recognize our responsibility to maintain all of the traditions of parliament.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I take it that everyone has spoken. I know that I am not expected, and that the committee would not expect me, to reply to all of the points which have been raised. We have had a wide-ranging discussion on matters such as the Columbia river and the rights of minorities, as was discussed yesterday afternoon. Reference is now made to the privileges of the House of Commons. This has been a rather lengthy debate-I am sure I will be forgiven for saying that-but I think on the whole it has been a very worth-while debate. I am sorry that parliament does not have more time to deal with these matters. A great deal of controversy has been injected into the debate, but that is only natural in the political arena in which we live. When the hon. member for Assiniboia suggested this afternoon that the government was guilty of politics throughout this debate, I only hope that the Canadian people will read Hansard, and particularly 27507-3-182J
Ways and Means
his speech, because then they will decide where the political emphasis has been during the debate.
We did have this unpleasant, unfortunate incident yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman, which I hope will not occur again. I am sure that it will not if leadership can prevent it. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, it was reminiscent of another day in 1956, the alleged "black Friday", when we saw incidents of the same nature. But we have not seen them since.
I am sorry that we have to deal with this matter on a 30-day supply motion; I would much rather have had a 60-day or 90-day motion. We discussed it earlier and thought this was a better way to deal with it. This debate has been longer than I expected, and there will be others in the future. I assure hon. members that after the Christmas recess we will be going into supply and opening up the departments, reviewing estimates, and also bringing forward legislation just as rapidly as possible. I do not want to take further time of the committee now, but I would hope that after the longest debate ever, I think, on a 30-day supply motion we might pass this resolution, get into the bill and dispose of it very quickly.


Rémi Paul: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Chown in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, house again in committee of ways and means.


George Clyde Nowlan: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, the sum of $330,089,511.93 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not until I have put one question to the minister. My question is this: Does the minister know where the money is coming from?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am fairly confident that I can find the money, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
Ways and Means
Mr. Nowlan thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-105 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1963.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


George Clyde Nowlan: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Lionel Chevrier: There is one question I Should like to ask, if I may. The interim supply document that was circulated at the outset contained a number of items of the estimates. However, as I look at page 3, schedule A, I see just three items and the bill seems to refer to more than one schedule. Is part of this bill missing?


Stanley Howard Knowles: See clause 2.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is nothing missing, Mr. Chairman. The resolution, paper or document to which my hon. friend referred exempted certain items which are not included in the bill, "save and except". That is what made the resolution look longer than what he was looking for. This was deliberately excluded from the bill as the moneys had already been voted. We therefore did not include them in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By special invitation of the minister I am going to ask him a question at this stage.


George Clyde Nowlan: An unwilling invitation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In tonight's Journal I notice there is a report which says that I tried yesterday to get certain information from the minister and that I was unsuccessful for the second time. The Journal is out by 300 per cent or 400 per cent. I was unsuccessful yesterday for about the sixth time. As the minister knows, a week ago last Monday he made certain announcements about increases in salary for the public service and there followed for the next few days certain questions. On Thursday in particular, a week ago today, I asked him if he could tell the house whether there were any categories of the civil service for whom the civil service commission had recommended pay increases but who were not given such increases by the government. He told me last Thursday that

he did not happen to have the information but that he would get it later. I asked him again on Friday and he told me he would try to produce it early this week. I asked him on Monday but he did not have it. I asked him on Tuesday and he did not have it.
I asked him on Wednesday and he still did not have it.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that the present minister is not that kind of minister. He is really in command of his job. I am sure that he knows the answer to this question, and I do not know why he has kept putting me off. I could find other questions to ask on the orders of the day. I am not obliged to keep repeating the same one. I ask him now to answer this question, and to clear this matter up. The reason I do so is this. Not only do many civil servants feel that they were dealt with unjustly in that they were not given increases, but there is a strong feeling that the minister has tried to put the blame elsewhere than on the government when, in fact, that is where it should be placed. A week ago Tuesday, when the hon. member for Hull asked a question about certain groups which had not been given increases, the Minister of Finance blamed the pay research bureau. The next day, in response to my question he blamed the civil service commission. My understanding is that there are a number of categories of classified civil servants for whom recommendations were made by the civil service commission on the basis of reports to it by the pay research bureau, which the government on the advice of treasury board did not implement. I understand as well that there are some instances in which pay increases were recommended by the civil service commission, but that the government on the advice of the treasury board, which after all is the Minister of Finance, scaled down those recommendations.
As I say, there are two things here which I think constitute real grievances. On the one hand many civil servants did not get their increase. On the other hand, the minister has sought to leave the impression that the blame rested on the civil service commission or the pay research bureau. I therefore ask him now this question: Were there such categories of civil servants for whom recommendations for an increase were made but were denied by the government? If so, how many and what is he going to do about it?


George Clyde Nowlan: Many changes were made, of course, in some of the recommendations which were brought forward. When I said, "the civil service commission" I was referring, of course, to the pay research bureau which operates for the civil service commission in

making the survey. I may also tell my hon. friend that there were quite a few civil servants for whom the civil service commission, not the pay research bureau, recommended no increase, and for whom the treasury board recommended an increase. As my hon. friend and all hon. members know, this salary increase is not a matter of right. It is not a statutory increase like some of them every year. It is an evaluation of the rates of pay in industry or in private employment; and that is why you have this pay research investigation made.
It develops, of course, as it always would, I presume, in dealing with a huge number; and when I say, "huge number" what I mean is that there are about 60,000 in this one category to whom I think my hon. friend has reference. There are over 100,000 altogether, of course, as he well knows. It is a tremendous task to make comparisons of the rates of pay which will be equivalent in private industry and to which salaries should be compared, after making some allowance for the fringe benefits. The reason I have held this thing up is this: I appreciate the very flattering comments by hon. friend made with respect to myself. I hope they are deserved. I am not going to argue with him about the matter at any rate. He has referred to categories. I am not sure as to the different categories. Adjustments were made in various groups within a category. That is why I have not been able to produce the information in detail, as the hon. gentleman undoubtedly expected I would do and as I will do. However, particularly owing to the fact that I have been sitting here off and on for seven days or eight days and was sitting in treasury board for four weeks prior to that time, I have not been able to go over the voluminous mass of material which is involved in this pay review. There were undoubtedly several thousand who, it was found, were getting paid more than they would be getting paid if they were working in private industry or private employment. That number is not large in proportion but there were several thousand altogether; perhaps 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000. Undoubtedly, they were disappointed. Undoubtedly, these are usually the under ones, the ones who are moving up from grade 1, or grade 2 to the higher ranks.
The civil service today is a profession. It is not a lifelong job where you come in as a tenant for life and hold on to the same position throughout life. You are supposed to come in, write your competitions and advance. It is unfortunately true that in grade 1 and grade 2 the rates are obviously lower than in others where experience is necessary. There were classes or grades within the classes-as I said, that is one thing about which I am not
Ways and Means
sure-where the pay research bureau found and afterwards the review by treasury board found where adjustments were either substantiated or not. These grades should not be touched or the individuals within the grade should not be touched at the moment. I will have a detailed breakdown for the hon. member as soon as I have a chance to review this whole situation. However, I certainly have not had an opportunity to do it up until today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Five o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask one question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre continuing on the same subject?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not wish to get into the same trouble that we got into yesterday. What are we doing about the fact that it is five o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Five o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would request that we carry on and complete interim supply and then that we adjust ourselves accordingly to what other business we might do. This procedure will be of great assistance to members of the other place. The other matter of business with which we would really like to deal relates to the world's exposition bill which would make a very fine wind-up to this part of the session.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, in so far as
we are concerned, it is five o'clock and it is private members' hour. However, if we had the assurance that a full hour would be given to us at a later hour-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Today.


Lionel Chevrier: -today, we would have no objection to proceeding now to get interim supply through, and the bill which my hon. friend the Associate Minister of National Defence would like to get through, or any other business that might be disposed of.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Supposing we do that, and over the supper hour I will confer with the genial member for Essex East____


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will tell you right now that it is understood we go on at nine o'clock with the motion for the production of the legal opinion, otherwise we do it now.


An hon. Member:: What about the Christmas cheer?


Lionel Chevrier: If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, the suggestion made by the hon. member for Essex East is what I had in mind earlier, although he has put it more forcefully than I did.

Ways and Means
I think the point the hon. member is raising is that if this discussion continues he might lose out on that hour during which the motion might be discussed. The suggestion now is to provide that hour and make sure it is not lost. I think we would be willing to co-operate on the distinct understanding, then, that he might go on not later than nine o'clock, so that he might have a full hour, from eight to nine or nine to ten.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I feel in a very co-operative mood and I hoped the hon. member for Essex East would be in the same frame of mind. Despite the forcefulness of his suggestion, upon which I do not want to comment, we are content to proceed now as I have suggested and take the motion for the production of papers at nine o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the Minister of Justice will give us the opinion and save all this time.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it agreed that the committee follow this procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for his offer to get all of the statistics and detailed information that are called for by my inquiries. 1 hope that he will have it by the time we come back on January 21. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, although we usually like to have things produced in this house first rather than in the newspapers, if the hon. gentleman can give this kind of information to the civil service organizations even before we come back, this would be quite satisfactory to all of us. I believe that the civil service organizations are asking for even more, and are asking for the recommendations that the pay research bureau made. In fact, they are asking for some consistency in the matter of letting them have these reports.
In this general field, Mr. Chairman, there are two other things I want to say, and I might have another question after that. The first is that, no matter what explanation the minister gives, no matter what assurance there may be that matters will be dealt with at some future date, I think it is most unfortunate that a number of these groups in the lowest categories had to be missed. I think it is particularly unfortunate that postal employees, along with those of customs and immigration, were left out.


George Clyde Nowlan: My hon. friend knows, I am sure, that they were not left out. They were not included in the review which had taken place, but they are being reviewed now in the next class. It is not the omission of them, but it is a matter of the review not being completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I appreciate the semantics, but being left out or not being included are really the same thing. Either way, they did not get the increase now when other public servants are getting the increase. I realize that it is going to be retroactive, but I say it is most unfortunate that some of these groups that needed it most have to wait so much longer. In view of the fact that this whole question of the pay freeze was put on on June 24, in view of the fact that there were representations made by various civil service organizations and the trade unions involved and representations on the floor of this house, it seems to me it would have been possible to have all the reviews made so that when the announcement finally was made on December 10 it would have covered all groups.
All I can plead now is that the minister do his best to speed up the completion of this job, the adjusting of the wages and salaries of all public servants. The other comment I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is to remind the minister that the new machinery, the so-called consultation, really is not working very well. It is not helping the morale of civil servants. I would ask the government to give very serious consideration to the request made by civil service organizations all across the country for full collective bargaining rights for the organizations chosen by public service employees. I congratulate the organizations themselves on having come, even more now than they had some time ago, to the realization that this is necessary. I think they did right in accepting in good faith the proposals for consultations that were made when the last amendments to the Civil Service Act were made. They have found, through experience, that that arrangement is not good enough and they are now asking for the same right that many other employees in Canada have, in many other sectors of our economy, full collective bargaining. I urge this government to give serious consideration to this important request being made by the civil service organizations.


Lionel Chevrier: There is just one question I should like to ask the minister. It has to do with the $50 million item which was in group "A" of the supplementary estimates under vote 213A, the interim payment for the royal commission on railway matters. I cannot see it here, and I understand it has been taken out. Can the minister tell us why?


George Clyde Nowlan: My hon. friend who prepared the original estimates says that when we revised the estimates it was taken into the main estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: The point is, it was voted upon last month and this bill should contain one twelfth of that item of $50 million contained in vote 213A. I do not see it in the bill or in the schedule, and I just wanted to know why it was not included.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not in clause 2(c) of the bill?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre points out that it is referred to in clause 2(c) of the bill, but it is clearly set out there that it is exempted and not contained.


Mr. Graffiey:: Eleven twelfths have already been approved.


Lionel Chevrier: My question is then, why is the one twelfth not included in the bill?


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, this is the eleven twelfths up to date. The hon. member will remember there were certain items in the paper I passed him last week when we started this rather long performance, which were "save and except," and there were various items on which exceptions were made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why was it voted earlier?


George Clyde Nowlan: It was a month ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And I ask why, because $50 million is a lot of money and surely the minister knows why it was voted earlier?


Lionel Chevrier: Why was it voted earlier and not included in the bill now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister can tell us why the $50 million is not in this?


George Clyde Nowlan: Because the $50 million was voted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suspect the Minister of Justice has something to do with it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
On the preamble.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the preamble carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the preamble carries may I ask the minister when he plans to bring down his next interim supply bill?


George Clyde Nowlan: After consultation with the house leader and after the Christmas recess.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then assuming the house does not come back until January 21, and since February will be just around the corner there will not be many days until the minister needs money for February. In other words he will be coming to the house for the
Royal Assent
eleventh twelfth. May I ask him whether he expects to move to go into supply shortly after we come back?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not the house leader, but I would expect I would be moving to go into supply shortly after we come back. We have already opened up a certain number of departments and I am sure the committee will want to co-operate and pass those estimates. Then we will have to bring in further supplementary votes to open all other departments, and I suppose that action would be taken fairly soon.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister do it per saltum?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because we have not had much time to scrutinize it I ask the minister to give us a categoric undertaking that this bill does not contain the total vote for any item whatever in the annual expenditures for 1962-63?


George Clyde Nowlan: I gave that undertaking when I moved the resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not with respect to the bill.


George Clyde Nowlan: Then I am very glad to repeat that undertaking. It does not contain the final vote on any individual item nor does it preclude discussion on any matters when we are discussing the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa, December 20, 1962
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 20th December, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair-


Mr. Speaker:: One moment. For the purposes of the Journals it should be agreed that it is now five o'clock and that the agreement
2872	HOUSE OF
Canadian World Exhibition Corporation entered into in committee be ratified by the house, because actually the committee of the whole has no right to consider the order of business of the house. I think now that the Speaker is back in the chair the arrangement that was agreed on at five o'clock in committee should be confirmed.


Lionel Chevrier: I have a point to make, Mr. Speaker. The agreement was that the motion of my hon. friend for Essex East would carry on for an hour between nine and ten o'clock, or eight and nine o'clock in accordance with where we had advanced our business. But now Your Honour has just read a message from the other place which indicates we are going to be called there at 9.45. On the understanding that we be given the full hour does the house leader have any objection to that hour running from 8.45 to 9.45?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Then it is agreed instead of nine o'clock it will be 8.45.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could we down at this end of the chamber be told what is agreed to?


An hon. Member:: 8.45 to 9.45.



CANADIAN WORLD EXHIBITION CORPORATION


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill No. C-103, to establish the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister wants to make a statement on this. I expect he will.


Mr. Speaker:: We have given second reading. I do not know that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that was done inadvertently.


Mr. Speaker:: We could revert to the discussion before second reading, or it could be done in committee. However, I do not wish to speak for the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the understanding was that the minister would carry on with the statement today, and I would hope we could get consent for that purpose.


Mr. Sevigny:: Mr. Speaker, if it is agreeable to the hon. member I could make my statement on clause 1 of the bill in committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I think we would prefer to have it with Your Honour in the chair.
(Mr. Speaker.)


Mr. Speaker:: Very well.
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I am most happy to have this opportunity of putting before the house a bill entitled: "An Act to establish the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation".
In view of the national character of this magnificent project, I intend to make my remarks in both official languages of the nation, French and English. And I also intend, because of the short time at our disposal, to keep my remarks at a minimum.
This world exhibition project may be the most extensive economic undertaking of Canada since confederation. This is a project of an extraordinary scope which will certainly contribute to the economic and cultural development of the Canadian nation.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, we were privileged indeed last November 13 to receive, after many deliberations, authority from the bureau of international exhibitions to hold in Canada, on the occasion of our centenary, a world's exhibition of a No. 1 class. We had already in 1959 solicited from the bureau permission to hold this exhibition in Canada in 1967. However, at that time the Soviet union also wanted to hold an exhibition in Moscow in 1967 in order to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of their revolution. For that reason a vote had to be taken and unfortunately Canada lost by one vote. However, those who were then connected with this project-and I was one of them-had the impression that there was still a chance for Canada to eventually secure that exhibition which we considered necessary in order to celebrate in proper fashion the hundredth anniversary of our confederation. We therefore never lost hope and we kept in contact with the bureau in the hope that something would happen which would permit us to have this exhibition.
The event for which we were hoping eventually came about, and in due course the U.S.S.R. announced that they were renouncing, for reasons of their own, the permission given them to hold this exhibition in Moscow in 1967. This permitted us to renew our application to the bureau of international exhibitions. We received the co-operation of the officials of the bureau and the various personnel of the Department of External Affairs, who actually succeeded in securing the concurrence of the 30 member nations of the bureau of international exhibitions. Thus on November 13 we managed to get a decision by acclamation that we could hold this

Canadian World Exhibition Corporation
exhibition in Montreal. This exhibition must of necessity be a national project and we hope that the provinces of our nation will co-operate so that each province will have a chance to show at this magnificent exhibition the nature or our projects and the evolution which has taken place in every part of Canada. With the co-operation of all provinces we shall be in a position to show to the world a picture of the greatness of our country.
In 1967 the eyes of the world will, without doubt, be fixed on Canada. We must of necessity unite and give to the world a true picture of what is beautiful and what is great in Canada, whether it be in the field of the arts, science or agriculture. We must show to the world the progress we have made in every possible activity. The fact that we expect at least 50 nations to come and build pavilions here and exhibit their wares will mean that all Canadians will get to know better the other nations of the world. It is true that with exhibitions of the type which will be held in Canada in 1967 the nations of the world will get to know each other better, appreciate each other better and thus may the foundation be created for a sure and lasting peace. There is no doubt that the best way to preserve peace and to secure peace is to talk, to get to know each other, to get to appreciate each other. By grouping the main nations of the world here in 1967 Canada will thus play another role in its constant quest for peace in our time.
(Translation):
Montreal is rightly considered as the Canadian city most suited for the kind of world exhibition we have in mind.
That is why the federal government decided that the exhibition would be held in the Canadian metropolis. It is obvious that the cosmopolitan and international character of Montreal, its bilingual feature, as well as the exceptional development that is taking place there, are all factors which contribute to make our city the ideal site for an exhibition of this kind. But we do not want the national exhibition to be considered as a provincial exhibition or the exhibition of one city. It is imperative that all Canadians see the 1967 world exhibition as a national venture to which all Canadians from coast to coast will have contributed through their individual or joint efforts, so as to realize that it is not only Montreal's or the province's exhibition but a truly national exhibition.
I should like to thank especially those who have co-operated with us in the carrying out of this tremendous project. I should mention in particular His Worship Mayor Drapeau who has always given us his support. Our joint efforts have resulted in this much hoped for outcome.
When the holding of this exhibition was finally decided, it was agreed that the best way to administer an exhibition of this type would be through a crown corporation. The purpose of the legislation now before us is precisely to set up such a corporation. It was not easy, of course, to agree on all matters pertaining to the establishment of this crown corporation, mostly because three governments were involved. First of all, the federal government is directly responsible for this exhibition to the Canadian people and to the international exhibition bureau; then, there are the provincial government, which has generously contributed the sum of $15 million to this magnificent project, and the municipal government of Montreal, with a contribution of $5 million to ensure the success of the exhibition. I think the time has come to reveal the amounts subscribed by the various governments: the federal government, $20 million; the province of Quebec, $15 million; the city of Montreal, $5 million.
It is obvious that, to ensure the success of such an undertaking, the corporation has to be set up in such a way that everything will be run jointly by the various governments to which the corporation is responsible.
I must say that the many and lengthy meetings which took place were always conducted in an atmosphere of co-operation and understanding, and with the firm intention of seeing that magnificent project achieve the desired success.
A while ago, I thanked Mayor Drapeau. I now wish to thank Mr. Andre Rousseau and the Hon. Gerard Levesque, the Quebec minister of trade and industry, for their cooperation in all our discussions.
It should be pointed out, while we are studying the bill, that the operation will be carried out in such a way that each interested party will share equally the responsibility of appointing commissioners. The commissioners, who will constitute the guiding body of the project, will be appointed by the governor in council, that is to say, by federal authorities, after discussion and agreement with the provincial authorities. Twelve directors will be appointed to the board of
2874	HOUSE OF
Canadian World Exhibition Corporation the corporation. Six will be selected by the federal authorities and six by the provincial and municipal authorities. They will work in an atmosphere of mutual co-operation.
It was necessary to do so because, of course, the minister responsible to the federal government for that exhibition will have to account to parliament for the operations of the corporation. The minister of commerce and industry for the province of Quebec, Mr. Gerard Levesque, will also have to explain to the legislature the uses to which the money will be put by the corporation.
The mayor of Montreal will have to account to the members of the city council for the expenses made by the city.
Therefore, it is truly a joint undertaking. I wish to say that we all intend to put it above political considerations that may arise. We want it to be a joint undertaking in which everyone will take part whatever the political party to which they belong.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that the people in general find it rather difficult to understand the gigantic scope of that undertaking. Therefore, in order to better illustrate my thoughts, allow me to say that we expect that 50 countries will have pavilions to show their exhibits and will take part in the activities of the exhibition in Montreal. We think that the construction of the buildings needed for all the foreign countries will cost approximately $200 million.
It will be necessary to build roads and even tracks for a monorail. It will be necessary also to build sewers and water works to the exhibition site that will cover 800 acres, according to the report submitted by experts on that matter. Those figures are based on surveys made by specialists in that field who have taken into account what happened in the case of other world exhibitions.
We expect to welcome about 40 million people during the six months of the exhibition. If each visitor spent an average of $50, it would mean that Canada would be getting an amount of $2 billion it would never have had without the Montreal world exhibition.
Mr. Speaker, we expect that we will have to build theatres and sport stadiums. We will also have to build pavilions for exhibits of scientific and artistic progress throughout


the world. In fact, we have chosen the motto "Man and his World" for this exhibition because we would like those who come from every comer of the world to visit Canada, in 1967, to realize the accomplishments which have been made in this world of ours. It is also our wish that all phases of human activity be illustrated at the exhibition.
As I stated earlier, we would like the exhibition to further the cause of peace, to give new impetus to our economy, and to foster the advancement of culture in Canada.
As soon as the corporation is set up, we will make the necessary appointments in accordance with the standards I outlined a while ago. The appointees will get to work immediately and, obviously, hundreds of people will be called upon to fill positions of various importance in the organization.
The location of the exhibition will be chosen after consultation with experts because it is imperative to launch the whole project not later than the beginning of next year. Indeed, we must not forget that we have only four years left to carry out this extraordinary venture which will mean so much to Canada if we achieve the aims we have set for ourselves. Mr. Speaker, what is most important is that this exhibition be the outstanding feature of the celebration of our confederation's centennial. This exhibition must prove to the face of the world that Canada is a united country, a great country, a sovereign state, where live in harmony both great races of this nation. This exhibition must also serve the interest of the other ethnic groups that are the same as we are, really, a part of the large Canadian family. This world fair will serve to mark the extraordinary progress accomplished in the 100 years since 1867, and it will also have to be the starting of another era of progress and magnificent achievements.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the object of the bill before the house is to incorporate a crown corporation to look after the administration of the world exhibition to be held in Canada, more precisely in Montreal, for six months in 1967.
This will be an extraordinary event for Canada, for the province of Quebec and the metropolitan area of Montreal. This world exhibition's theme shall be "Man and his World" and shall illustrate the interrelation of man and nature.

Canadian World Exhibition Corporation
Since one of the great laws of the community of man is unity through diversity, co-operation through mutual respect, association through equality, Montreal was especially suited to hold the world fair.
I believe it is in order at this time to thank the bureau of international exhibitions for selecting Canada and the city of Montreal, for the site of the exhibition. The decision was reached after careful consideration of the claims of other world centres. It is an honour for Canada that Montreal was selected. On account of that decision, it is our duty, as the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) has already done, to congratulate warmly, the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, for his initiative and his determination. From the start, he was convinced that the city of Montreal deserved to be chosen on account of its tremendous advantages. He was right and I am sure that the House of Commons expresses its gratitude to him.
Mr. Speaker, we must also congratulate the three levels of government involved without giving more credit to one than to the others. I mean the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government, because all three have encouraged the idea of holding a world exhibition and have collaborated and contributed to its realization not only by their valuable advice, but also by a large amount of money, without which the preparation of this project would have been impossible.
To all those who have contributed in some way to this wonderful initiative, the Liberal party offers its thanks.
The choice of Canada's metropolis must be not only a cause to rejoice but also an occasion to show what Canada can do and what Montreal can offer the whole world under the circumstances.
"Man and his World" is the theme of the exhibition which was approved by the bureau of international exhibitions and it does illustrate the new possibilities opened to man's activity and progress. Those four words contain all the creations of mankind. This theme aims at glorifying man without distinction of boundaries, in all the manifestations of his active life, for, after all, the starting point of all discoveries, of all undertakings and of all scientific and technical developments is man himself.
I feel that such a theme constitutes a kind of inspiration capable of creating unity among
nations. In short, the world exhibition is a factor of peace, friendship and progress.
Mr. Speaker, "Man and his World" is a theme which will call to mind the peaceful part played by Canada in the world. With a population of 20 million, a vast territory stretching between two great powers, the U.S.S.R. and the United States, member of the British commonwealth of nations, bound to the western European countries by the Atlantic pact, having contributed considerable amounts of money to underdeveloped countries, on the eve of becoming a member of the organization of American states, with no territorial ambition but wishing peace, seeking from the first to obtain it through its foreign policy, Canada can, through that exhibition, set an example of peace and progress for all countries in the world.
"Man and his World" is also an appropriate theme for the centenary of confederation, when we should stop to consider in what measure the hopes, apprehensions, doubts and fears of the fathers of confederation were justified.
Some recent events have shown that we are going through another crisis of national unity where the very foundation of confederation is shaken. It is not the first time that we undergo such a crisis. We shall overcome it provided we can avoid both extremes. The exhibition will be a splendid occasion to preach and claim Canadian unity, to achieve it and above all to recall that confederation, while it was only a treaty between four states, to certain people, was also, to others, an agreement between two equal partners, its aim being political unity, but without cultural, racial or ethnic uniformity.
"Man and his World" is a theme that will preach respect for human rights. The respect of those new Canadians who, escaping the terror of dictatorships, left their original country to settle among us and look here for freedom, peace and quiet. It will be necessary that they feel perfectly at home in Canada and that they are never done any injustice.
"Man and his World" is a theme that could very well evoke the story of a people that was 65,000 strong two centuries ago and which now numbers 5 million, a people which is determined, to keep at all costs, its language, traditions and culture, which twice in its history pushed back American invaders and preserved Canada against them, and which is now claiming its rightful place in

Canadian World Exhibition Corporation the sun, all over the country, from shore to shore.
"Man and his World" is a theme which will conjure up the ideas of peace, friendship and progress. In order that true peace may settle on earth, amongst all of the nations, it must derive its roots, first and foremost, within the individuals and nations; injustice, suffering and hunger will have to be eradicated from the surface of the earth in order to make way for social justice in a new world order.
Speaking about the Montreal world fair, recently, Mr. Valmore Gratton, director of the Montreal Economic Development Organization, had this to say:
The first large fair inaugurated in 1851 under the reign of Queen Victoria, led to the construction of the Crystal palace in London. In France, the Eiffel tower has remained as a living witness of the world fair which was held there towards the end of the nineteenth century. Nearer our times, Brussels gave rise to the Atonium and Seattle to the Space needle.
What will come out of the Montreal exhibition? The works I just referred to should stimulate the imagination of our fellow Canadians.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there will be things to avoid. There will be no need to copy blindly the great exhibitions of New York, Brussels and Seattle. We should rather try to benefit from their mistakes. But what we need in particular is a new outlook, worthy of our centennial and worthy of Canada.
It will be appropriate also to give the second largest French city in the world well defined French characteristics and architecture. People coming from all over the world will not expect to find here what they have already seen in New York, Brussels and Seattle. They will want something new. Montreal, a first rate cosmopolitan city, can give it to them.
In another area, when we consider that the Brussels exhibition has provided employment for 12,000 workers and more, the Montreal exhibition which will cover an area nearly twice as large, will be a source of prosperity for the metropolis and the whole province of Quebec.
One last word. We are convinced that this crown corporation will play a prominent part in this great and grand project. The success of this exhibition might very well depend on the selection of the officials to be appointed. For a project of such magnitude, the selection should not be made for political considerations but, above all, on the basis of the merit and qualifications. The government can boast of some good nominations. Others were not so good. All appointments to this new

corporation must be fortunate as well as good. The corporation will thus be able to depend, from the very beginning, on the cooperation, not only of the Liberal members for the island of Montreal, but also of parliament and the Canadian nation as a whole.
May I pause here to point out and to recall to the government the long delay in making appointments on the centenary commission. It is high time the government made the appointments so that action can be started not later than January 1, 1963 on the world exhibition project.
May success crown the efforts of this new corporation, and may the 1967 world exhibition be worthy of Canada, the province of Quebec and the great city of Montreal.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, in the name of this group, it gives me pleasure to join with the two previous speakers who chose to support Bill C-103, to establish the corporation of the future world exhibition to be held in Canada in 1967.
We, in this corner of the house, welcome the fact that Canada and especially the city of Montreal, were chosen as the site of the 1967 world fair.
The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) gave us details concerning the world exhibition and set forth the magnitude it will have.
Canada must get ready for that imposing exhibition; our country is worthy of it and, with the support of federal, provincial and municipal governments-we congratulate them for working together-the future exhibition will be the finest one ever held in any country in the world.
Mr. Speaker, that fair is a very important thing and that is why we, Social Crediters, are glad to see that it will be held in the province of Quebec.
We shall have the pleasure and honour to welcome in our province representatives of all countries in the world. More than 50 countries will delegate ambassadors and representatives in the cultural and artistic fields, as well as in the agricultural, industrial and economic fields.
Therefore, we are very glad, we citizens of Canada and particularly of the province of Quebec, that Montreal should have been chosen unanimously by the bureau of international exhibitions. And, in four years, when we celebrate the centenary of our magnificent and great country, we shall see that grand exhibition, whose main theme has been very judiciously and intelligently chosen: "Man and his World".
"Man and his World" will be the theme of the 1967 world fair, and because such a theme

Canadian World Exhibition Corporation
has been chosen it is important that the fair be well prepared. It is important also that it be a great success and that it constitute a source of wealth, from which we shall be able to benefit in the future, both from a financial and agricultural standpoint, and from a technical, industrial and social standpoint.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, when the
house took recess at six o'clock, we were on Bill C-103, to establish the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation.
There are only four more years to go before this world exhibition is held and the work to be carried out by that corporation is great on all counts.
It is up to the parliament of Canada to see to it that the title of the world exhibition: "Man and his World" be endowed with real meaning in 1967 for the people coming from all over the world who will visit us on the occasion of this exhibition. They should be able to see that Canada truly is the "Terre des hommes", that of Canadians. We have only four years left to take the giant step which will allow us to change the present system and say, "Canada, terre des hommes".
On that occasion we will receive a great number of visitors from all countries. They will come not only to derive knowledge from our culture, traditions and art, but to see if the theme we have chosen, "Man and his World", is consistent with the facts, and not "financiers and their world".
Today Canada, the world of financiers, is well known. The world of financiers, we know it. It is not man's world which prevails now in this country.
When this theme was chosen, in my opinion, it is because before 1967 we shall have time to give a Social Credit government to our country precisely to achieve that program, "Man and his World".
(Text):


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, after the eloquent words from the hon. members from the province of Quebec
who have preceded me in this debate, it may not be inappropriate for a member from another part of Canada to say a few words in support of this bill. I think all Canadians should have interest in this bill to establish a Canadian World Exhibition Corporation which will be charged with the responsibility of the creation of a Canadian international fair in the city of Montreal in 1967. I suppose that the constituency I have the honour to represent in this house is at least as far away from the city of Montreal as any other constituency in Canada.
In rising to support this measure, I want to say, as one who has had too little opportunity to become acquainted with the colourful and historic metropolis of Montreal, I believe it will be a good thing for Canada and for Canadians if a great many of our people do find a worth-while occasion for visiting that city during our centennial year. Other hon. members have pointed out that the theme of this fair is to be the land of men. I may say that as I cross Canada, coming from my constituency to the capital city I realize that, while this is in a sense the land of men, we still have many great open spaces.
As some hon. members are aware, my constituency is bounded on the west by the great reaches of the open Pacific. I should like to draw the attention of the house to a particular spot in my constituency which has some significance for Canada as we approach our centennial year. I am referring to a little place which is relatively unpopulated and is known as Friendly Cove. It is significant, in my opinion, as we approach our centennial year because that is where the history of Canada began in so far as our western shore is concerned. It was at Friendly Cove on Nootka island in 1778 that Captain James Cook became the first European to set foot on the shores of what is now the western coast of Canada.
In a very few words, therefore, I wish to say I support this bill. I do so as one who, in a sense, represents the opposite extremity of Canada from the area in which this fair is going to be located. I felt I should like to participate in this debate to indicate to the members from Quebec who have taken part in this debate, and to the minister who introduced the bill, that there is a realization on the part of all members of this house, from wherever they may come, that the passage of this bill will launch something which we are all agreed will be a most significant and appropriate part of the celebration of our centennial year.
2878	HOUSE OF
Canadian World Exhibition Corporation
The house in committee on Bill No. C-103, to establish the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation-Mr. Churchill (for the Prime Minister)-Mr. Paul in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Rémi Paul: Shall clause 1
carry?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to delay passage of the bill, but the minister should give some explanation as to why there was a change in the original bill as compared with this one. I think there are one or two changes and perhaps the minister might be good enough to explain what they are.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I will do so with great pleasure. Actually, the first bill just referred to an exhibition which was to be held on the island of Montreal, and we felt it would be preferable to mention that this exhibition was to be held in connection with the celebration of the centennial of confederation in a manner in keeping with the national and historical significance of this great event. Consequently we decided that since this was to be a national event it should be clearly mentioned in the bill that such was the case. Consequently clauses 1 and 3 were changed and also a reference to this change is made in clause 9, which I will refer to in a moment.


Mr. Rock:: I would like to ask the minister what qualifications the commissioner general should have?


Rémi Paul: Order. I think the hon. member should wait a few minutes until we come to clause 3 when he can ask that question.


Lionel Chevrier: Clause 1 has to do with the corporation, and says the act is to be cited as the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act. In his earlier remarks the minister announced that there would be a number of directors, the commissioner general being one, and so I think the hon. member is in order in asking what his qualifications will be.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: In answer to that, we are presently dealing with clause 1 and if we could dispose of it we can debate clause 2 where this question of the commissioner general is mentioned. I mention this for the sake of good order in debate, and at that stage I will give the necessary explanations required by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle.
(Translation) :


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, I have
a problem to put to the minister concerning section 1 of this bill and more particularly about the title.

The minister undoubtedly knows that a corporation is already set up under the name of Montreal international trade fair. Was it seen fit to do something about this, because there could be some misunderstanding since that corporation is called the Montreal international trade fair?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I think a distinction should be made between the terms fair and exhibition.
The word fair applies to shows like the one existing at present in Montreal and that is called an international fair.
But the word exhibition applies more particularly to a show like the one to be held in Canada in 1967 and which is much larger.
In fact, it is precisely because we wished to avoid confusion between the various fairs held across the country that we selected a quite distinct name, that of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation. I think that name explains quite well the important event which will take place in Canada in 1967.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Raymond Rock: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have answered the question I previously asked.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The commissioner general will be a man who will have immense powers in the corporation. He shall be responsible for his actions not only towards his directors in his own corporation, not only towards the people who will work within the framework of the corporation, but will also have to answer concerning the actions of the corporation to the minister of the federal government who will be responsible for the corporation, to the minister of the provincial government who will also be connected with it, and to the mayor of Montreal.
He must be a man who has all the abilities to administer a project of such magnitude, and a man who can actually deal with foreign powers and foreign corporations so as to attract them to come to Canada to take part in this project.
(Translation):


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, could the
minister tell us whether, as a result of his talks with the tripartite committee, including representatives from the city of Montreal, from the federal government and from the provincial government, a final decision has been taken concerning the site of the fair?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, the meetings which were held between the representatives of the federal government, the provincial government and the city of Montreal were characterized by the greatest cordiality, and it has been agreed that the selection of the site deserved a detailed study on the part of town planners and experts in the matter. Consequently, that study is being carried out at present and will be completed, I believe, within 30 days at the latest. Following the reports which will be submitted to us, we shall then be in a position to determine definitely the site of the fair.
For the time being, we have not yet decided on any particular site, except that it will definitely be located within the limits of the island of Montreal.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just said that the site of the fair would be within the limits of the island of Montreal. May we expect that it will be in a neighbouring municipality? Will the site be finally selected by the members of the world fair corporation or by the members of the committee which has now been sitting for some time?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, the site will be definitely on the island of Montreal, which means that the fair will be held in the city of Montreal or in a neighbouring municipality.
As regards the selection of the site, it will be made by the general commissioner and the directors chosen by him, in co-operation with the members of the present committee.


Mr. Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us what are the dimensions of the area required by the commission at present? Furthermore, could he tell us what minister will be appointed to administer the fair?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, as regards the site, it is specified in the bill that it will require at least 500 acres, but actually this figure will be much nearer to 800 acres, and here is why.
In the light of what happened in countries where world fairs have been held, and following the advice given by our experts concerning what we should do to ensure the success of our fair, we have come to the conclusion that one of the main difficulties in the case of previous fairs was the congestion brought about by the great number of visitors. It was found very difficult to get to and from those fairs. Therefore, a lot of time was wasted owing to the lack of means of communication and of parking space. As
Canadian World Exhibition Corporation we want the exhibition site to be easily accessible, we shall see to it that there are vast parking lots on the site which will be selected.
That is why I mentioned the fact that around 800 acres of land would be required to make this exhibition as successful as we are hoping it will be.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked a second question, but I must admit that I have forgotten what it was.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister to tell us which minister would be responsible for the administration?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, the exhibition shall be the immediate responsibility of the federal government, and here is the reason why: the bureau of international exhibitions wishes to deal with the central government of the country where the exhibition is being held-and I believe they are right in asking this. Moreover, as it was rather difficult to explain to them our confederative system and the reasons why we have three governments involved in this project, we therefore decided that the central government would be responsible for the exhibition with regard to the corporation, on the one hand, and to the bureau of the international exhibitions and to the provincial and municipal governments, on the other hand.
For the time being, your humble servant shall be the responsible minister as far as this exhibition is concerned.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, since the city of Montreal is going to start clearing the slums in the Point St. Charles area, does the minister believe that this is an indication that this area might be favoured by the city as the site for this world exhibition?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have always been in favour of slum clearance.
However, a distinction should be made between slum clearance and the selection of a site for the world exhibition. The two problems should not be too closely united, if I may say so.
In any case, as I said a moment ago, the selection of a site is yet indefinite and shall only be made after a careful consideration of the reports submitted by the experts on the matter.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just said that nothing is definite in this regard. However, after the meetings which were held, it seems to me that the minister must have quite definite information.
2880	HOUSE OF
Canadian World Exhibition Corporation
On the other hand, since the Point St. Charles area is situated in my riding, next to Montreal harbour, near the Dorval air terminal, I wonder whether the minister could not commit himself a little and give us an indication regarding the site?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that I would like to commit myself, if I could. I know the Point St. Charles area very well, and I appreciate the reasons which lead the hon. member to try and influence the committee's choice so that it would fall on Point St. Charles as exhibition site.
For the moment, I am unable to be more definite.
May I tell him that there are, on the island of Montreal, six or seven possible sites for the exhibition. Of course, we shall proceed by elimination and, eventually, make a final choice which, as I hope, will meet with general approval.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned a moment ago the committee which has been set up and has studied up to now the problem of the universal exhibition. He stated also that this committee would pursue its activity.
Do I understand that this committee will continue to function after the establishment of the world exhibition corporation, or will it immediately stop its activities so that the corporation will remain the only body entrusted with the task?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, once the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation is established, the activities of the committee will necessarily be limited. But, anyway, the company will be responsible to three governments, that is, the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
The present committee is composed of a representative of the federal committee and his colleagues, of a representative of the provincial committee, and a representative of the municipal committee and their assistant staff.
As we shall be always consulted with regard to this project, it is to be expected that the committee, in its actual or improved form, will continue to function.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. Did he receive any questions from the town of Repentigny and any representations on behalf of some public bodies in Montreal, claiming that the


exhibition should be located in the east of Montreal, where several hundred acres of land are available?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we did receive some representations from businessmen in the east of the city, and from almost every single municipality in Montreal. Those representations and requests will be submitted to the committee where they will be studied with the greatest care, and the choice of the site will be made with due regard for the representations that have been made.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, in his statement, this afternoon, the minister mentioned the names of some people who had participated in the preliminary research work. Could he give us the names of those who took part in the initial organization work which included the preparation of the bill we will pass tonight?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to give that information.
The federal government was represented by the hon. member for Longueuil, who is known to everyone in the house, and his executive assistant, Mr. Gaston Levesque, the assistant deputy minister of trade and commerce, Mr. Leslie Brown, and the representative of that federal department, Mr. Glen Bannerman. There was also a representative from the federal Department of Justice.
The provincial delegates we had the pleasure of dealing with included the Hon. Andre Rousseau, a good friend of mine who, I hope, will remain as interested in the exhibition as before, in spite of what happened to him recently. There was also the minister of trade and industry, Mr. Gerard Levesque, and his deputy minister, Mr. Bernard Tremblay.
I wish also to emphasize the excellent cooperation we received in Paris from Mr. Charles Lussier who is the general delegate of the province of Quebec.
Of course everybody is aware of the wonderful job done by the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau who was skilfully assisted by Mr. Valmore Gratton and Mr. Lucien Hetu.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us how many locations are being considered at the present time?


Rémi Paul: Order. May I suggest to the hon. members who are particularly interested in this item, that they should reserve their remarks until we discuss clause

9 of the bill, regarding the site, the possible selection of the location, which would bring about a more orderly discussion of this bill?


H.-Pit Lessard: I do not believe my question had anything to do with your remarks, Mr. Chairman, because I was simply asking the minister how many sites the corporation was considering, as possible locations for the world exhibition.


Rémi Paul: I understood the meaning of the hon. member's question, that is why I wanted to suggest that he delay it, if possible, until clause 9 of the bill is called.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence. I believe that while giving the list of the acting directors he named Mr. Bannerman. But there is a rumour that Mr. Bannerman will be the next commissioner. Has the minister any comment to make on that?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, numerous
rumours are circulated when a project of such importance is mentioned. The one concerning Mr. Bannerman is one of those rumours about a project like the world exhibition.
(Text):


Raymond Rock: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister whether the commissioner general will be bilingual.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the
minister a question too. Could he say whether either the commissioner or the deputy commissioner will be a woman, because surely there should be at least one woman in the land of men.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a serious question.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows me well enough to know that I will not exclude women.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 8-Employment of officers and servants.
(Translation):
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, clause 8 is of a rather urgent importance for a great number of us, because since mention was
Canadian World Exhibition Corporation made of this corporation to be set up, many of us have received applications for jobs. So, I am wondering-


Gilles Grégoire: No patronage.


Lionel Chevrier: -I am wondering what senior official will look after those applications. Will they have to be directed to Mr. Bannerman, who has acquired a lot of experience in that field in connection with previous fairs, to the corporation secretary, or to the civil service commission.


Gilles Grégoire: No patronage.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, in reply to that question, I must say that we have all received, of course, quite a number of requests from persons interested in the study of that question. For my part, I gave them all the same answer, that is, their applications and their names would be submitted to the members of this crown corporation which will be set up to administer the world fair.
And here is how the fair will more or less operate.
First, the general commissioner will be the big boss of the organization, skilfully assisted, no doubt, by the deputy general commissioner.
Twelve directors will be selected as provided by the bill.
Under that directing body, there will be an executive council headed by a general manager who, of course, will have all the qualifications required of a general manager, that is, those required to administer the operations of larger corporations.
The directing body will be divided into branches. For instance, there will be a legal branch. There will be town planning, architectural, external relations and internal relations branches. There will be also an arts and sports branch, because sports will play a very great part in that undertaking. There will be also scientific branches.
So the chiefs of all those branches, of all those sections, if you like, will report to the general manager, and will find a system which will permit the selection of the most competent people to serve on the corporation.


Rémi Paul: Is clause 8 agreed to?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Chairman, could the
minister tell me in what part of Montreal the headquarters will be located?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I wish I knew it, Mr. Chairman.
2882	HOUSE OF
Canadian World Exhibition Corporation


Rémi Paul: Is clause 8 agreed to?


An hon. Member:: The member for St. Henry has a question.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask my question a second time concerning the site for the universal exhibition. How many sites are under consideration at present?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Six, I would say, and possibly seven.
(Text):
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Powers.
(Translation):


Georges-C. Lachance: Is the minister in a position to tell us whether of those six sites some are located in the eastern part of Montreal?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Georges-C. Lachance: Could the minister tell us how many?
(Text):


Raymond Rock: I should like to find out from the minister whether he has considered the advantages of the county of Lasalle, which constitutes one third of the island of Montreal. There are thousands of acres of virgin land there and the cost of development would be less there than anywhere else. I understand that other hon. members would like this exhibition to be in their own county, as I would like to have it in mine, and I understand it will be up to the commissioners themselves to describe where it shall be situated.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Everyone knows the advantages of the beautiful riding of Jacques Cartier. I have many friends there among whom is the distinguished and competent mayor of Dorval. There is no doubt that the commissioners named will be pleased to consider the merits of Dorval, Lachine and similar areas and that they will be delighted to consider the requests coming from that charming region.


Raymond Rock: I did not mean to suggest I wanted it actually in Lachine or Dorval. I wanted it in the county somewhere. The minister mentioned Dorval and Lachine. I did not want an answer in that manner.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member's riding will be considered, but not exactly because of his representations.


(Translation):


Prosper Boulanger: I would like to ask the
Associate Minister of National Defence a question following the inquiry of my fellow member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon).
The minister received a brief on behalf of people in Repentigny, businessmen and companies of eastern Montreal and elsewhere. Is this brief actually to the effect that the site be what is called in the east, Maisonneuve centre, or was the request that reached the minister of a wider scope? By eastern Montreal do we mean Maisonneuve centre?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, I glanced
through the brief I received from those gentlemen in Repentigny and elsewhere, but I must admit that at the moment I forget what exactly they asked for. I do not remember whether they asked that the site be the one specified by the hon. member, or another.


Prosper Boulanger: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. I understand very well that when the hon. minister says that he only glanced at the brief, there might be some misunderstanding, but we read some statements in the press-


Gilles Grégoire: He stayed up too late last night.


Prosper Boulanger: I shall wait until the hon. member for Lapointe stops talking, before finishing my remarks. Very well.
According to statements we read in the papers, the Maisonneuve sports centre was an ideal site, because its choice would prevent much speculation with regard to land or other projects.
I want to point out this fact to lend new support to the request made by the people of Repentigny, or by businessmen elsewhere.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member's question, I wish to tell him this: representations from businessmen and politicians from Repentigny and the eastern sections will be considered with the greatest care by the committee to which they will be submitted.
You may rest assured, Mr. Chairman, that my hon. friend's representations will get all the attention they deserve.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Chairman, I only have one question to ask. I wonder why the minister is letting himself be tormented and goaded in this way. In my opinion, there is only the Point St. Charles district that is suitable. You should say so tonight.
Here is my question. What are the requirements and conditions for the selection of a site?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, when I hear my hon. friend pleading the cause of his constituents with such eloquence, I understand why they keep placing their confidence in him.
Mr. Chairman, in reply to my hon. friend, I wish to say that, first of all, the site must be easy of access, developable, not too expensive and, in addition, it must be attractive and impressive to all visitors. Because of the importance of our exhibition, the site will then have to offer certain advantages from an aesthetic point of view. It will have to be reasonably easy of access. Of course, there are other considerations to take into account, but I think I have underlined the main points.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-Grants to corporation out of C.R.F.
(Translation):
Georges-C. Lachance: I only want to ask a short question. Section 11 refers to a sum of $20 million which shall be payable to the corporation. I wonder whether the wording is not ambiguous here. One would think that the corporation can only receive a maximum of $20 million.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Chairman, let me say this in reply to the question by the hon. member.
Hon. members know, as I have mentioned it, that the government has already granted a sum of $20 million. The province contributes $15 million and the city of Montreal, $5 million.
There is a section in the bill to that effect. I have forgotten which one it is, but it is there. This section gives the corporation a borrowing power, which will be in effect providing the federal and provincial governments agree to it. The borrowings will be negotiated by the corporation on a 50-50 basis.
Therefore, $40 million will be voted for the efficient administration and the progress of this corporation. Should the corporation need more money, it will use its borrowing power at the appropriate time.
(Text):
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Bank accounts.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may we recommend that the corporation do not go and borrow from finance companies, at 30 per cent interest?
Business of the House
(Text):
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 19 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
(Translation):
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: With your permission,
Mr. Chairman, although there is only 30 seconds left, I should like to simply say this.
I attach a tremendous importance to this exhibition for which I have worked for so long now. I wish to thank the hon. members in this house for their wonderful co-operation. I am satisfied that all together we have accomplished something great and that the people of Canada, and especially those who live in Montreal, are delighted this evening.
(Text):
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: It being 8.45 o'clock p.m.-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately I am precluded by the clock from hearing the hon. member. I must call private members' hour.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think unanimous consent will be given to the request about to be made by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent that I defer seeing the clock. Then I will recognize the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I call on the hon. member for Trinity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-16 was reported back to the house earlier this day without amendment, and would ordinarily appear on the order paper tomorrow. In view of the circumstances, I wonder whether the house would give its consent to considering the bill at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Unanimous consent of the house is sought by the hon. member for Trinity that Bill No. S-W3 be considered later this day. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 8.45 o'clock p.m., in accordance with the order made earlier this day the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion (papers), as appear on page 20 of the order paper.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that we should deal with this bill

Private Bills
immediately, if that is agreeable to the house. It would take only a moment or two, if we could go into committee of the whole on the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity seeks leave to consider Bill No. S-16 in priority to the notice of motion for production of papers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the agreement was that we would let the hon. gentleman go ahead, but in view of what you have just said, we will be taking the full hour on the motion. That is the agreement, and I think the understanding, as stated by the house leader, because it is conceivable that we might have a longer discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members that if a certain event transpires at 9.45 p.m. the Chair has no alternative but to interrupt the proceedings.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The house can give unanimous consent, but I think it was understood that the motion-


Mr. Speaker:: That may be, but the hon. member is making a request which would be in derogation of the understanding. I do not think there could be any particular undertaking on the part of the government with regard to that matter. There is either unanimous consent or there is not. Now, is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Trinity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-16, respecting The Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada-Mr. Hellyer-Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1-Change of name in French.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, this bill was considered earlier today in the committee on banking and commerce, and the other members of the committee have agreed that perhaps I should make a few remarks about it this evening, both on behalf of their parties as well as my own. I should just like to compliment this company on moving part of its mortgage operations into the maritime provinces during this past year. We have had problems with other companies which had done substantial business in the maritimes investing their money in other parts of Canada. We are certainly glad to see that

the company named in this bill is opening up operations in the maritimes.
Clause 1 agreed to.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, December 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East):
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of correspondence or any documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the crown and officers of the Department of Justice or the privy council or any other government department or agency on the subject of surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-902, dated June 24, 1962, and the amendment to the surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-987, dated July 11,	1962, and the import control list as
amended by P.C. 1962-903, dated June 24, 1962, with particular reference to the legality of such orders.
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonion-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I started to talk on this subject two weeks ago. On looking at Hansard to see where I was, I was a little confused for a while; I thought that perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) had been speaking instead of me. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that I yielded the floor to a question from the hon. member, who I think forgot himself and started to deliver a very impassioned speech of his own which could be thought by some people to have some bearing on this topic. I do not want to discourage the hon. member, or any other hon. member of the house, because I am always happy to entertain questions, and I am even happier when they are pertinent or even intelligent. I hope, however, that these questions will not merely be an excuse to deprive me of the floor, as I have only a short time left this evening, no matter how long it may seem to some sufferers in this house.
I think 1 had made, or had started to make one point on this topic which deals with the production of papers. The motion of the hon. member for Essex East asks for papers, including all correspondence, in very broad terms between ministers of the crown and departments of government, especially with regard to legal opinions. I think I had made reference to the fact that it was the opinions which were asked for which disturbed me most in connection with this motion.

This motion is to be distinguished from those in which purely factual or statistical material is requested. As I read this motion, it asks for the most intimate details of everything that would go into the consideration the crown gave in arriving not only at the order in council but at what items might be affected by the surcharge. I wonder whether the hon. member would really seriously ask members of this House of Commons to require the government to produce the opinion of every civil servant who might have had a hand in arriving at the list of articles that should be subject to surcharge. 1 wonder whether he would really wish to have every written note of every discussion between various members in the department with regard to whether a certain item should or should not come within the list to be subject to this surcharge.


An hon. Member:: We have heard that before.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It would seem to me to be a little bit strange that a member having experience, especially cabinet experience which the hon. member for Essex East has had-


An hon. Member:: What experience?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Especially cabinet experience. It seems strange to me that he should have brought forward a motion such as this one, when he knows what pressures are brought to bear on government and indeed on private members of parliament and on various servants of the crown in connection with each and every item proposed. I know we all have been subject to letters and personal interviews and have heard complaints about this or that item on the tariff list. I know we are all aware of the fact that there are, day in and day out, countless requests for exemptions from tariff duties for various reasons with regard to various items. It seems strange to me that we should be asking the government to produce in this house every argument which was brought in on both sides of the question and which entered into the government's decision, so that those people who are primarily interested in a particular item, those private individuals who have the most at stake in trying to change the mind of the government, should be provided with the ammunition with which to attack the government right from the government's own files.
It seems to me that not only is this course going to subject the civil servant to the necessity of proving his opinion to his own superiors in his own department, but it is going to pit civil servant against civil servant within the department. If any value is to be gained from the advice of people who are charged with the duty of giving the minister
Correspondence on Surcharges responsible advice in connection with these problems, surely we must do what we can to make sure that his opinion is respected. We must make sure that the only thing with which he is obliged to concern himself is the strength of that opinion, the effect it is going to have on that particular item or product under consideration and whether or not it is a good idea to have a surcharge on that particular item. Surely this is the basis of the advice we ask the civil servants for, not the question of who has the most industrialists clamouring on his side or which civil servant, once the argument has become public, has the most newspapers backing up his side of the argument. I suggest that I am not going too far when I say that this is the logical outcome of the complete revelation of every item in the files going into this decision.
Mr. Chairman, this is the extent of the motion before us. Up to this time I have dealt only with the ordinary civil servant and the ordinary item of a tariff surcharge. But here we are especially interested in the legal opinion. I suggest that matter becomes even more delicate when it is a legal opinion which is to be attacked. Certainly the accountant or the statistician is able to compile enough facts and figures in order to be able to show a rather fair brand of proof on one side or the other of an argument as to the economic effect. You can reach a degree of certainty and be able to some extent at least to discount the opinion or the fallibility of the person who is interpreting those figures. However, when we come into the realm of the law, may I say that any lawyer in the house knows that legal opinion has always in it an element of doubt which does not exist to the same extent with regard to mathematical questions. There must therefore be perhaps more hesitation in giving it. There must be more care. There is also undoubtedly on the part of the legal officer giving the opinion a little bit more worry since, after all, it is not provable as such. It is only his own reputation, his own character and his own knowledge of the law which sustains it.
If then we are to ask these people to give their honest opinion, I suggest that the least we can do is to give them protection from argument in public. Certainly no legal officer wishes to be subjected in the newspapers of the country or in this House of Commons to a running critique of the effectiveness of his work from day to day, as to how many cases he has won and lost or how many times his opinion was not taken by the department. I suggest that we must do all we can to make sure that the legal officers are encouraged to use as much discretion and as much care as they can use and must do all we can to remove all thought of the effect on themselves
2886	HOUSE OF
Correspondence on Surcharges of any question with which they are dealing. Certainly, it takes a long time to develop the judicial mind. It would have to be a very strong judicial mind in order to wipe out completely any thought of self, any thought of the possible effect of publicity in the newspapers, the possible effect on his colleagues and other departments if his opinions were to be broadcast to the public if he is proven to have chosen the wrong side; that the minister should have taken the advice of a junior member rather than the senior member.
I was much impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am sure most of us will recall with what an impassioned voice he presented to the house the necessity for producing these papers. I am not sure he was exactly on the point before us, but I recall his speech dealt almost entirely with the subject of taxation and the rights of parliament. I have heard this same hon. member get up in this house on many, many occasions, but during the last two or three weeks he seemed to be trying to give us the impression he was the only one interested in the civil service in this country. I am surprised that the hon. member should have apparently overlooked completely the necessity for protecting civil servants from this sort of adverse publicity, from this sort of criticism, both in this house and in the press.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I must inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Did the hon. member ask me if I had already spoken in this debate? I have not, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: It only seems like that.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would hate to appear in this debate this evening, with the spirit of Christmas upon the house, and have my hon. friend from Essex East liken me to Ebenezer Scrooge by denying to him the pleasures of all the legal opinions now in the government files concerning surcharges, et cetera. I am sorry I must do so. If the hon. member really wants legal interpretations by Mr. Dreidger, he should go to that gentleman's book on interpretation and he will find that, among other things, the author points out the distinction between the words "shall" and "may".
One of the advantages of taking part in a debate such as this where very fundamental issues are concerned is to hear the fine contributions from those in this house with legal backgrounds, starting with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), a leader at the bar; the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) who but for heavy


duties elsewhere would have continued on to the bar, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has become a sort of latter day Philadelphia lawyer. All these gentlemen have looked at the surcharges and have said that in their opinion these are illegal. Nobody else in Canada seems to share their opinion, but these gentlemen say the surcharges are illegal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nobody else?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Nobody else has come around to that opinion, or perhaps if they have their voices are equally in the wilderness. The Canadian importers association has not tested this measure in the courts.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think we are discussing the legality or the illegality of the surcharges. We are discussing whether certain documents shall be produced. There is a very narrow point of debate. I would ask hon. members to observe the strict rules of relevance in this regard.


Robert Jardine McCleave: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I understand clearly the limits of the debate? I understood there were two points at issue. The first one was whether it was proper to produce these things in parliament. If I am correct in assuming that this is one of the questions then, I would suggest with all respect that it would be equally proper to argue whether it be in the public interest to produce these documents. This was one of the points I was trying to make.


Mr. Speaker:: With greatest respect to the hon. member, they are identical points. They are different versions of the same thing. One cannot go into the illegality or otherwise of the surcharges; one can go only into the question of the production of papers.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank Your Honour for pointing out that I am really on one track, although I thought I might be traversing two. One of the strong points made by the hon. member for Essex East in his argument is to be found in Hansard of November 9, page 1427. The hon. member is arguing that the Minister of Justice should produce the opinion because the hon. member said the minister has quoted from that opinion.
In other words, what the hon. member for Essex East is arguing analogically, Mr. Speaker, is that the exchanges between the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Essex East-this reference is to even earlier questions and answers on orders of the day-put the minister in exactly the position envisaged by May, because the minister spoke of a legal opinion, and did identify the source of that legal opinion, the deputy

attorney general. The hon. member contends that, having done so, he is obliged under the rules to produce the legal opinion, having already gone so far as he has in the identification I have just mentioned.
I suggest that the argument of the hon. member for Essex East would, on the face of it, have great merit, as indeed does everything he says in this House of Commons. As I say, he has made out something of a prima facie case, at which he is very skilful. So, I looked up Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms, the fourth edition, to find the citation to support the hon. member's argument. I find at page 134, citation 159, subsection (2), the following:
A minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other paper not before the house, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested;-
Now, sir, I then refer to the exchanges which took place in this house between the minister, the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I found that the hon. member for Essex East was guilty of a grave error, I am sure inadvertently but nevertheless a grave error. The Minister of Justice at no time quoted from the legal opinion of the deputy minister or anybody else. What he did do was give the result of that opinion, an opinion that said certain surcharges were lawful; but at no time did he cite from the opinion or go into the details of that opinion. In short he was saying what the result of the opinion was, rather than exposing any part of that opinion in parliament. Therefore I say this particular argument of the hon. member for Essex East falls to the ground, and it seems to be really the strongest part of his whole argument.
There was also the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this whole matter be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for opinion. That was the suggestion made in this debate. Perhaps I am out of order in referring to it, but if so I imagine he would be equally out of order making such a suggestion, which is to be found at page 1432 of Hansard for November 9, 1962; and I suggest that if he can make an argument such as that, then surely somebody should be allowed to answer it and say why this sort of step would not be proper. I do so say; because there has been no suggestion here from any responsible source that the opinion given with regard
Correspondence on Surcharges to the legality of the surcharges is in question, except from certain sources, motivated by political reasons, within the chamber itself.
I also share the views put forward so ably a few moments ago by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), and I shall not cover that ground except to say I fully agree with his reasoning, that a civil servant should not be dragged into the political arena, which would be the effect of the motion of the hon. member for Essex East if it should be carried.
Finally, in paying tribute to the interesting speeches I have heard in this debate I would like to refer particularly to the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith). He brought a tremendous amount of scholarship into this field and he completely punctured the prima facie case that had been placed before us by the hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).
The hon. member for Simcoe North showed that their arguments were extracts and quotations of contents from previous debates in the house, and that in short their arguments really dealt only cursorily with what had gone before and did not show the precedents which should guide a responsible House of Commons. I am glad to see the results of such burning of midnight oil, because surely the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe North have helped to set this House of Commons on the straight path as to the circumstances under which documents such as this should be produced. For these reasons I would reject the notice of motion proposed by the hon. member for Essex East.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, only a few words on this motion before the vote is taken. First, since this is the last day of the year, I want to take the opportunity of congratulating you on all the patience and firmness you showed for three months in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but perhaps the hon. member remembers that he has already spoken on this motion and since the Speaker is in the chair, the rules do not permit him to hear the hon. member again.
(Text):


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there would be unanimous consent to hear the hon. member for Lapointe on this very happy, festive evening.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
2888	HOUSE OF
Correspondence on Surcharges (Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask all
my hon. friends, to whom we were kind all day long by allowing them to pass special motions and bills without any filibustering, to give us their unanimous consent. And here, we shall see whether they are kind or not. I appeal to their kindness.


Mr. Speaker:: Do we have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: The Leader of the Opposition did not say no.


Mr. Speaker:: I sincerely regret, but some hon. members expressed their opposition.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Your Honour was misunderstood. I am sure there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: That may be so in so far as the hon. member is concerned but I think if he had either rear-vision mirrors or sound detectors towards the rear he would have heard nays from behind him.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there would be unanimous consent, if you wished to call for unanimous consent again.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I- (Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: Do we have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to thank all the hon. members of this house for the kindness they have just shown me.
Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, one must ask for a lot if one wants to obtain much. And I wish to ask for a little more. Would it be possible to obtain the unanimous consent of the house to give priority to the bill in the name of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), to amend the Canadian National Railway Act (salary of president).


Mr. Speaker:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the last time I talked to this motion, I asked that all documents be tabled, at that time, I asked that all documents related to the crisis of June 24 last be tabled. I got the answer that there were too many of them.
There was even a newspaperman from Le Soleil who told me it would make a huge pile of paper. Now, I obtained those documents that we may add to those requested


today and that we could enter under the category of those I have here, and that have been printed in Hansard today.
In my opinion, if the hon. members want to consult them, they will notice that the year's deficit in our balance of payments comes to exactly the same amount as the money paid out of this country, or $770 million, paid in interest on foreign investments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to come back to the bill,
I feel that the documents requested here should include a certain one which was before the privy council. According to information I have, it would have come before the council in 1947. We would like to see it included with the one we are interested in.
It was mentioned in 1947, 15 years ago, that if the government of Canada did not take proper care, we would experience a serious economic depression.


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that he is straying from the point like he did the first time.
This motion calls for the tabling of certain papers; it does not deal with an amendment nor is it a speech or a debate.
Could the hon. member address himself to the motion to which he is restricted. It states the nature the date and period of the document. An hon. member cannot ask for the tabling of a document going back to 1947 or, for that purpose, to Noah.
I would therefore ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the motion.


Gilles Grégoire: The document I am interested in is a copy of any letter or paper which may have been exchanged between the Prime Minister-no mention is made of the year; it may be 1947-and an official of the Department of Finance. That document would be the prelude of all those which brought about the crisis of June 24, 1962.
The documents being asked for today have to do with the legality of the tariff surcharges which were preceded by a document announcing that those surcharges were forthcoming. That document would involve correspondence between the Prime Minister and a Department of Finance official.
That document, according to my source of information, would have mentioned that, if the government did not change its policy, exactly what is happening today was going to happen and that, in 1965, even more serious causes would appear which would result in our making concessions in our trade with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: It is quite apparent that the hon. member is building up to an argument with a certain subtlety, but I cannot accept his point. Therefore, I must ask him to come back to the motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I regret having been out or order. That document is the one we would have liked to have on the subject.
In closing, I ask that all documents which could still throw some light on this matter be tabled.
(Text):


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hasn't the hon. member already spoken?


An hon. Member:: If he has, he has unanimous consent.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, there has been for some days now a very interesting debate on this motion of the hon. member for Essex East. I have done considerable research; but having-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: -sat here and seen most of my material used by previous speakers I do find it difficult to raise something new.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then let us vote.


Thomas Miller Bell: However, it is very gratifying to take part in this debate because there are some serious thoughts that I wish to put forward. I had not realized that I might be one of the last speakers of this very interesting and productive pre-Christmas session of 1962; but none the less there is, even in these last minutes, some importance to the matter we are considering. In order to bring my thoughts back to the matter at hand I want to read the first part of the motion, which appears on the order paper today, which is the sixtieth day of this session.


Mr. Habel:: Which page?


Thomas Miller Bell: It is page 20.


An hon. Member:: What paragraph?


Thomas Miller Bell: These are the words of this motion:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of correspondence or any documents exchanged between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or any other minister of the crown and officers of the Department of Justice-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.
27507-3-183
Correspondence on Surcharges


Thomas Miller Bell: I continue:
-or the privy council or any other government department or agency on the subject of surcharge and imports order-
Then it names the respective P.C. orders. It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that I do have the actual P.C. orders here. However, I am not going to take up the time of the house by reading them because I want to get down to the two basic issues that I feel have importance. I want to say very seriously that I think the hon. member for Essex East deserves credit for bringing this matter before the house. I think he has a very weak case and I think his argument when moving the motion proves that; but nevertheless it is an issue we should take time from our other busy work to consider, because it does have certain ramifications for the future.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since the hon. member has said he has no new argument to offer, does he not think it would be becoming of this parliament to decide this matter tonight by a vote, and does he not realize that if the government refuses a vote it is obviously afraid of being defeated tonight?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Rubbish.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, there is a temptation for me to break the happy festive spirit tonight and to answer old Scrooge from Essex East. However, I will not indulge in nasty remarks; I will simply say that I have one or two arguments that might be interjected here; and I add, in answer to the second part of his question-* and surely this has been evident in the 60 days we have already sat-that this government is not afraid of anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then let us have a vote.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: What about Bill No. C-81?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, what about the customs bill?


Thomas Miller Bell: There are, Mr. Speaker, two aspects-


George James McIlraith: There is no government.


Thomas Miller Bell: -of this motion that are significant. The first is the matter of the confidentiality of documents and the second, which is perhaps of greater importance and more concern, is the matter of legal opinions. Hon. members who have spoken previously have dealt with both these

Correspondence on Surcharges aspects, but I want to run through the thoughts that come to my mind. First, with respect to the confidentiality of documents that may be a consideration of this house, Bourinot in his Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, makes certain observations. I mention these references, Mr. Speaker, particularly because the hon. member from Essex East in his opening remarks on this motion quoted from them but did not complete the quotations, and I feel they have considerable significance with respect to these types of document, whether they be public or private.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Could he speak more slowly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fairweather:: Read the Toronto Star editorial of today. That might be useful.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to co-operate, particularly with regard to any matter the hon. member from Bonavista-Twillingate has difficulty understanding. I may say, judging by the list under his name in the Hansard index and his various interjections and points of order, that this includes nearly everything we have discussed this session. I refer to Bourinot's fourth edition, page 251:
The practice of asking for reports from officers, addressed to particular departments of the executive government, is considered to be open to serious objection. As to "confidential documents" passing between officers of a department, Mr. Speaker Peel observes:-"They are not necessarily laid on the table of the house especially if the minister declares they are of a confidential character."
He continues:
"If a minister stated in his place that a document was of that class, the house should take his word and he was not bound to lay it on the table."
I omit some of the references I have here in order to get all my thoughts on the record of Hansard this evening.
I will quote now from May at page 254:
However ample the power of each house to enforce the production of papers, sufficient cause must be shown for the exercise of that power and if considerations of public policy can be urged the motion for papers is either withdrawn or otherwise dealt with according to the judgment of the house.
This follows my argument with respect to the confidentiality of documents. I refer now to the same issue of Beauchesne at page 179 where it is stated:
A motion for a return may be opposed on the ground of public policy, such as that the disclosure of the information sought is not in the public interest or that its supply would involve unreasonable labour or expenses.
Then there is the part of the quotation from May which the hon. member for Essex East
[Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert) .1
in his opening remarks neglected to make clear. I think it is a most significant argument with respect to the first part of this whole discussion concerning the confidential nature of all these documents. This is from May's sixteenth edition at page 273:
Returns may be moved for, either by order or address relating to any public matter over which the house or the crown has jurisdiction. They may be obtained from all public offices, and from corporations, bodies, or offices constituted for public purposes, by acts of parliament or otherwise: but not from private associations, such as Lloyd's, nor from individuals not exercising public functions. The papers and correspondence sought from government departments should be of a public and official character, and not private or confidential.
In other words, the hon. member for Essex East quoted from this page in his opening remarks but did not distinguish between the type of information which is private and confidential and that which is not.
There are also a number of passages in Hansard which have relation to this matter of confidentiality. I refer particularly to the debates in the House of Commons, and there were many of them, in the 1955 session reported in volume 3, page 2434. This particular passage concerned the then minister of national defence, Mr. Campney. The motion was moved by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton). I will quote Mr. Camp-ney's words because they have some significance.
As my hon. friend from Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is I am sure, well aware, the reports made by the chief auditor of the Department of National Defence are confidential documents dealing with investigations into the internal investigations of the department and are a means of checking the efficacy of the administrative practices of the department. They are prepared solely for the guidance of senior officers of the department. It has long been the custom in this house to regard such documents as privileged and I will therefore have to oppose this motion.
There are other instances. I recall the former minister of citizenship and immigration who is now, by the will of the Canadian people, merely the hon. member who sits for Bonavista-Twillingate making some remarks which bore out this contention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise on a point of order. I believe there is a rule in this house against tedious repetition and it seems to me that the hon. gentleman has so far transgressed the rule on both counts, particularly when for about the twentieth time in this debate I am quoted by the other side as an authority. Otherwise, perhaps I would not have raised the point. I suggest to the hon. member that he should let this matter be determined tonight-that

the government should allow it to be determined tonight. Is the government afraid it will be beaten?


Mr. Speaker:: While the hon. member may be free to raise a certain point of order, some of his remarks were not at all germane to the point of order. As far as the question of whether debate may be tedious or repetitious is concerned, the Chair is not going to be dragged into any comment on that subject, because if we were to line up all those who were guilty of that I am afraid this chamber would be somewhat empty.


Thomas Miller Bell: When this matter of tediousness was mentioned I was about to quote from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, so there is no doubt about it; it would have been tedious and I probably was out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I recognized that myself.


Thomas Miller Bell: To continue my remarks. I merely wish to say that this question of confidentiality is important in order to get the frank opinions of civil servants in these various documents and reports which are made available interdepartmentally. I think that has been proved and, probably there is little disagreement about that among all members of the house.
However, I turn now to deal with the second matter which is of considerable interest to lawyers and all who take these questions seriously. I wish to refer to the subject of legal opinions. I have some quotations to put on record in this regard. I will begin by quoting from Bourinot. This is from page 253 of the fourth edition:
A sound rule generally observed by the house is that proceedings before a court of justice are not given except for public purposes and still more is this the rule when a case is pending.
Another opinion which, possibly, is more germane, is from Campion, the third edition, at page 197. I am sorry the hon. member for Essex East, who is apparently so interested in this matter, did not have the time to look up these quotations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They have been put on the record ten times already in this debate.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am not certain that this one from Campion has been quoted. This is in respect of law officers' opinions:
These opinions, being confidential, are usually not laid on the table or cited in debate, and their production cannot be demanded as of right but a minister is not debarred from citing them if he chooses.
27507-3-183i
Correspondence on Surcharges
This is very destructive, if I may say so, of the contentions of the hon. member for Essex East.
In the course of my research I came across an interesting debate which took place in 1947. I know this is not being referred to in any great detail in connection with this motion. This relates to some remarks which were made by the then hon. member for Broadview, the irrepressible Tommy Church. I mention this because not only does it have a very pertinent relation to the debate but it also shows the great clairvoyance which that hon. member possessed with regard to this question becoming a future issue. No doubt some hon. members will remember this debate. Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, though he was not in this chamber, was in the back room and will recall the discussion which went on at that time. It was the famous debate on the emergency powers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What page is this?


Thomas Miller Bell: Page 1790 of 1947 Hansard, volume II. I am not prepared this evening to discuss in a very informed way this emergency powers debate, but I do want to quote from the speech made by the then member for Broadview, who as everyone knows was succeeded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), who has done such a job in supporting Canada's interests. However, to get back to the former hon. member's criticism, he said, as reported on page 1790:
I have great admiration for the minister in many ways. In 1924 I asked the Minister of Justice a question when he got up to give an opinion on a matter concerning the Toronto hydro electric commission which was before the privy council and with which I had something to do on this side of the water. The minister was asked by the head of what was then called the progressives to give an opinion, and he gave that opinion. After he had spoken I called his attention to the fact that the Minister of Justice should not do what was done last Friday night.
That was with reference to the emergency powers debate.
It has been a rule since confederation that the Minister of Justice, who is the Attorney General of Canada, should not be asked to give a legal opinion. I raised this question in 1924 and his predecessor said that I was right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member and his colleagues are so sure of the decision, would it not be reasonable to let the house come to a decision tonight?


Thomas Miller Bell: I think the house will still benefit by hearing my modest remarks. I want to say to the hon. member
2892	HOUSE OF
Correspondence on Surcharges for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is undoubtedly some sort of expert on house procedure in constitutional matters, that I thought his argument in this debate was very weak. In fact, he did not deal at all with this problem of the confidentiality of documents and legal opinions, and I would be very interested at some later date-because obviously there is not time this evening -to hear him in a pointed way express himself as to whether he thinks legal opinions should be tabled in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member not aware that I have expressed my opinion on that matter already?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In accordance with the order made earlier in this sitting, the hour for consideration of private members' business has now expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it was clearly understood that the five minutes taken by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) would not be deducted from the hour, and that there would be one hour permitted for this measure. I am sure that that is the basis on which we facilitated the supply and the Montreal bill, and there is yet five more minutes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not five minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, if the government wants to close the debate and shut us off-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Read tonight's Toronto
Star.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have read it.


Mr. Speaker:: As far as the Chair is concerned there was an order made earlier today, and the hon. member for Trinity asked for a certain right which was in derogation of the order. Of course, the house can continue if it so desires, but I am within the four corners of this room and the order made therein today. What is the desire of the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that in view of the fact that we are about to celebrate Christmas and that the government feels strong in its position in this house, the government ought to test that position and give the house an opportunity tonight, before the new year, to show how weak the government is by its refusal to have a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood the hon. member rose on a point of order, but I fail to see what the point of order is.
(Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert).]


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was a little
impulsive.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that there are certain agreements which have been made. I have one or two minutes more, if I could finish my remarks. I was quoting from the hon. member for Broadview in 1947-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret that the hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, if I recall, when the house gave consent to the hon. member to move his bill five minutes was asked for, and in fact the hon. member only used two minutes of the time of this house. Consequently, I submit that the time has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hour has
expired.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement has been completed. A full hour has been allowed for this purpose. Although it might have been interesting to draw the matter to a conclusion tonight, I myself have some remarks on this vital matter affecting the conduct of parliament, which will be helpful to an opposition which at one time might have hoped to get back into office-


Thomas Miller Bell: But not after
yesterday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -but not after yesterday. I think their chances now are slim.
If we may now revert to government business, I have a suggestion to make to the house which the house might find agreeable. As far as the government is concerned, we would be prepared at this stage to deal with the divorce bills and to pass those tonight in the few minutes which are remaining, if the house so desires. We would gladly give the time for that purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I want to register a formal protest at what has just happened. This afternoon we gave our consent in good faith to allow the government to get through its supply after a motion has been passed, which if we had not so consented would have left this country without any supply until January 21. We did that, as I say, in good faith and on the clear understanding that there was to be one hour allowed for my hon. friend's motion. The hon. member for Trinity asked for five minutes for his bill outside of that hour.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He did not take five minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the government has not carried out its undertaking which was given to this side of the house in a co-operative way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the government will not allow me to speak when I am talking about the rights of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity was allowed to proceed, not by the government but by the house. Therefore, there is no question. Unanimous consent was given by the house, not by anybody else.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest to Your Honour most respectfully that when the record is examined tomorrow it will be seen that my hon. friend from Laurier at the time-it may have been my hon. friend from Essex East, I am not sure which-made it very clear before consent was given that there was to be a clear understanding that there would be one hour allowed in addition for this measure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have here the actual transcript-


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member afterwards, and I will see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming).


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have taken very definite steps tonight to observe the time which was involved. The hon. member for Trinity did not take five minutes. He took three minutes; and a full hour, 60 minutes, from 12 minutes to 9 till 12 minutes to 10, was taken on this motion to produce papers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I looked at the clock and it was ten minutes to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I looked at the clock and it was 12 minutes to nine when the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) rose to speak on the notice of motion for the production of papers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, so that there is no doubt that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) will be proven correct by the record, you said at one point that the hon. member for Trinity sought leave to consider Bill No. S-16 in priority to the notice of motion for production of papers. Then I observed:


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-
Correspondence on Surcharges


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I inquire what the hon. member is reading?


Murdo William Martin: I am correcting my blues and I have my words here.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect may I draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that he may not quote from the blues. It is against the rules. I think he will recognize that fact.


Murdo William Martin: I know that rule is supposed to exist, but I would be grateful if Your Honour would point out where in the rules it is stated that when the blues have been delivered and a member is in the process of correcting them, he is precluded, in a conflict like this one, from seeking to substantiate what the record is by reading from those blues. I should like to know what rule prevents my so doing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The rules of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is it in the rule
book?


Mr. Speaker:: The blues may not be referred to.


Murdo William Martin: There is no such rule.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why are members opposite afraid of the record?


Mr. Speaker:: In any event the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has long since expired.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before calling a government order I again repeat my suggestion and hope that the house would deal with divorce bills which now number so many hundreds on the order paper. Is there consent to that procedure?


Mr. Speaker:: There cannot be consent. The hour for private members' business has expired. We are back on orders of the day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was suggesting that the house devote this time to private members' business. That is something that could be done by unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: No.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I hope it is noted for the record that the hon. member for Cape Breton South is the one who objects to that humane procedure.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. member for Cape Breton South is not here to object.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would ask that item No 25 be called.

Judges Act


John Whitney Pickersgill: How about calling the customs tariff? It was urgent three months ago.



JUDGES ACT

[Stage Direction]
amendments providing additional judges in

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, November 21, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Fleming (Eglin-ton)__Mr. Fairweather in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide for salaries for two additional judges of the supreme court of Nova Scotia, including one chief justice, and for one additional judge of the court of appeal for British Columbia.
George James McIlraith: I should like to point out, even at this late hour, that this is not one of the measures listed by the government as urgent. Those measures we were led to believe were urgent at the time parliament was convened this fall, for the first time after the general election, have not yet been brought forward for consideration.


Michael Starr: They are all on the order paper.


George James McIlraith: Yes, they are on the order paper; but the government has failed to bring them forward for consideration. If the Minister of Labour is interested in this bill, I shall be interested in hearing him discuss it. If he is not interested in it, I suggest that he devote his mind to government business and give it some of the attention which it deserves, if the people of Canada are not to be adversely affected by the delinquency of the government in failing to consider public measures which affect the people of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a fine contribution.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member's comment is interesting, if useless. However, the point I wish to make about this matter is that it provides an opportunity for a short discussion on a matter which I believe affects the judicial system in Canada in a real way; I refer to the matter of judicial salaries. A situation is now revealing itself whereby, owing to the inadequacy of judicial salaries, the Minister of Justice and the government in making these appointments find it difficult to get the kind of appointees that all hon. members of the House of Commons would wish were available for appointment.
While I am not one of those who assert or believe that judicial salaries need necessarily be in keeping with the current income that an able professional lawyer could earn in private practice, I believe they must be adequate to guarantee that a judge being appointed has complete independence and secur-

ity of office, and is enabled to live in a way in which he will not be put in an inferior position in the community.
At the present time I am afraid that, with the rising cost of living in the last number of years, the judicial salaries in this country are such that judges are put into an inferior position in relation to the community at large.
I should like to develop this subject at some length. I believe it is of the utmost importance in our governmental system that the position of the judiciary be maintained by every means possible, having regard to its independence and the respect in which it is held in the community, and so that we are enabled to get for appointment to these positions the best possible persons available.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


George James McIlraith: I need not remind the Minister of Justice that he has just recently been obliged to appoint a superannuated civil servant, whole legal training comes from one province, to a judicial position in another province as a result of lack of willingness of qualified personnel he might have wished to appoint to that position. I think this is something-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not understand what the hon. member is referring to.


George James McIlraith: I do not wish to identify the position more clearly than that. What I said was this, and I will repeat it. The Minister of Justice has recommended to his government, and his government has appointed a retired civil servant to a judicial position in one province, although the training of that retired civil servant was in another province altogether. That procedure was made necessary-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is quite wrong.


George James McIlraith: I am quite familiar with the situation. The minister's denial is not sufficient treatment of the subject.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it is ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: As the house is aware, we are awaiting the call of the messenger from His Excellency the Governor General. They are still considering a certain matter in the other place. We can either suspend the sittings to the call of the Chair or we can wait here. I am open to suggestions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may make a suggestion, I would say that since the government has a

great deal of urgent business and it is so anxious to get through, since the first item of government business is the Customs Tariff, which in early October we were told was a most urgent matter, we would be only too happy to proceed until Black Rod comes by debating the Customs Tariff measure. I am sure there would be unanimous consent from all opposition parties to this course to assist the government by getting on with the measure, and perhaps disposing of it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is unfair to hon. members because several wanted to speak on this important subject and they are not here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where are they?


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are Liberal members, as I understand it, who wanted to speak on this subject. I feel, therefore, we should suspend to the call of the Chair. The bells will ring and we will come back.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the minister what business we will be asked to undertake on January 21 when we come back to the house, so that hon. members will have an opportunity to be prepared to deal with the business expeditiously? Can he give the business for the whole week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No question could be easier to answer. The order paper contains many items of government business, some of which have already been called and have proceeded one or two stages. I think if hon. members prepared for all the matters appearing under the heading "Government Orders", during the recess, then they will be prepared to go ahead on January 21 with any of the bills or resolutions which are therein inscribed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is more evidence of the fact the government does not know where it is going or what it is doing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the house leader whether we will not be presented with a motion to go into supply on the first Monday we come back, because there are many supply motions that have yet to be passed in order to get all the departments into the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The suggestion will be considered. We could also proceed with the divorce bill on the day we come back. Perhaps the hon. member in his party will negotiate with us and give us some understanding on that score.


Mr. Speaker:: The sitting will be suspended to the call of the Chair, and the bells will be rung.
At 10.05 p.m. the sitting was suspended.
Royal Assent



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 10.30 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting the trustee board of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
An act to incorporate the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada.
An act respecting Merit Insurance Company.
An act to amend the Department of National Health and Welfare Act.
An act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
An act to provide for the establishment of an Atlantic development board.
An act to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act.
An act respecting the construction of a line of railway in the province of New Brunswick by Canadian National Railway Company from Nepi-siguit Junction on the Bathurst subdivision of the Canadian National Railway in a southerly and westerly direction for a distance of approximately 15 miles to the property of Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation Limited.
An act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
An act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act.
An act respecting the Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada.
An act to establish the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1963.
Mr. Speaker:: Before closing the business this evening I should like to extend to all hon. members present and, through you, to those who are not with us at this time, on behalf of the house officers and myself our most sincere wishes for a Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before Your Honour leaves the chair I should like to express to Your Honour, to the Deputy Speaker, to the deputy chairman of committees and to all the officers and servants of the house the same good wishes which Your Honour has expressed to us on their behalf. I would go on to wish every hon. member, even the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), a Merry Christmas. However, I cannot bring myself to wish this parliament a happy new year.

Royal Assent


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the house leader I should like to utter the same wishes that have been uttered by my good friend from Bonavista-Twillingate and yourself as to the officers of the house and all those who have worked so well and so hard in helping us to discharge our duties, and to all members of the house. Despite the jaundiced prejudices of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I can assure him that the government is going to have a very happy new year and that because of that this house is going to be a much better one.
(Translation):


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, to close on a French note, may I offer to everybody my best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year "et le paradis a la fin de vos jours".
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we of this party should also like to join in felicitations to all the members of the house, to the officers who have served us and finally in wishing a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to yourself and Mrs. Lambert.
(Translation):


Mr. J. P. Cook (Monimagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit
group, I would like to offer you our best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, hoping that you will come back on January 21 next, in as great a form as you have been since September 27. I also take this opportunity to offer, on behalf of all my Social Credit colleagues, to all the hon. members of this house our best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, allow me also, on behalf of the French speaking members of the province of Quebec, to express my best wishes for a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and the best of health, to you, your spouse and your family, and to all my colleagues in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: I am most pleased to accept the good wishes expressed not only to me but also to my wife and my family. Needless to say that I do express the same wishes to all of you.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, until Monday, January 21, 1963, at 2.30 p.m., pursuant to the order of the house passed December 20, 1962.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 21, 1963