1962-12-14

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport a question? Has the minister received now the brief prepared by the chamber of commerce of the district of Montreal concerning the means of transportation between the Dorval international airport and downtown Montreal and which he had not yet received the other day? Has he had an opportunity to study its recommendations and does his department intend to put them into effect?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I still have not received that brief. I inquired at my office yesterday and it had not come in yet. When it does, I shall reply to the question.


Lionel Chevrier: I am taking the liberty of sending it to the minister right away, since I have it in my possession.
(Text):



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether any diamonds have been found in the district of Moosonee, in the province of Ontario, as the result of recent explorations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With the greatest
respect to the hon. member, I think that question should go on the order paper.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. The minister has had several days in which to inquire into the
allegations that R.C.M.P. officers are interrogating students and faculty members across the country. Could I ask the minister whether he is prepared to make any statement on this matter now, or would he give the house the assurance that he will make some statement when the interim supply motion is before the committee of supply?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Whatever may be the wish of the house, Mr. Speaker. There is no hesitation on my part to discuss this matter any time it happens to be in order under the business before the house at the moment. If the hon. member wishes to do it in committee of supply, perhaps there might be a little more freedom there.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice when the government will be in a position to produce the correspondence from the Canadian association of university teachers respecting security practices as they presently affect association members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member made a request for the production of this correspondence?


John Ross Matheson: Yes, sir, and some time ago the Minister of Justice was kind enough to indicate that this would be done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it was only a few days ago that the motion was passed. I think it was passed on November 28. I can assure the house that there will be no delay in the tabling of the correspondence. It is not extensive.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I correct the answer I gave a moment ago to the hon. member for Leeds in respect of his notice of motion to produce certain papers. I said his motion was passed on November 28. I was wrong about the date. It was passed on December 5, as appears in Votes and Proceedings of that date at page 362.



DENIAL OF U.S. CARGOES TO SHIPS TRADING WITH CUBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John H. Addison (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport and in view of

Inquiries of the Ministry the mass of blue flowers across the floor of the house this morning I should like to direct the question to the Atlantic ocean. Has the Canadian government been notified of the intention of the United States to deny American cargoes to our vessels if they are trading with Cuba?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister could inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation at this session in keeping with the Prime Minister's election pledge to make annual permanent acreage payments?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for his conversion to a belief in the things which he previously ridiculed.


Hazen Robert Argue: I voted for them.


John George Diefenbaker: I can only say that when a decision is made in these matters it will be announced in due course.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. 3ernard Dumont (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. On this occasion of so much happiness but also of so much misery for the oncoming of Christmas, does the government intend to grant a cost of living bonus of $50 a month to every family whose income is less than $1500?
Mr. Dumont:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address another question to the Prime Minister. Since I did not get an answer to my earlier question, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether we could not get at least a pair of moccasins for Christmas?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what answer I could give to that question. In so far as the earlier question is concerned, that too is a 
matter of government policy. It is not as simple as the hon. gentleman seems to think. Governments cannot give Christmas presents.


Mr. Byrne:: It could dissolve the house.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he has yet received the French translation of the Gill report? If he has not received it, can he tell the house what steps he has taken in order to see that it is made available as soon as possible so that we might save some indication as to wnat it contains, and so that we might have some action by this government with regard to the state of the unemployment insurance fund in this country.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, every possible step has been taken to get this report as soon as possible.


Hon. J. W. Piclcersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: I was going to ask the Secretary of State whether the printing bureau has yet delivered the printed copy of the Gill report to his colleagues?


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister explain the reason for the additional delay?


George Ernest Halpenny: The other day I said this report would be delivered some time before the end of the year so that it can be studied during the recess.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say when the printing of this document started?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[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 Finance. Is the minister yet in a position to answer my question of yesterday as to whether there are any categories of civil servants for whom pay increases were recommended by the civil service commission but who were not included in the list in last Monday's announcement?
Hon. George C. Nowlan Minister of
Finance): No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had time to check on the matter. I will do so and advise the house early next week.

Inquiries of the Ministry

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Turner (Si. Lawrence-Si.
George): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the Minister of Finance consider making the production of the tables showing the forward commitments entered into by the Bank of Canada on behalf of the minister during the months of April, May and June one of his New Year's resolutions?
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be reminded of New Year's resolutions. I was wondering what I should adopt, and I will take the suggestion made by the hon. member into consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State. I wonder whether over the week end he could have tabled, for the convenience of hon. members, an up to date list of the returns that have not been made?


George Ernest Halpenny: Mr. Speaker, the last one I tabled was on November 20. I will get a current one and table it next week.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, on December 10 the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question on the subject of Soviet imperialism and consideration of this problem by the United Nations.
As I have stated on several occasions, my objective has been that the Canadian government should through international consultation secure sufficient international support to focus United Nations attention squarely on the unsatisfactory conditions in the Soviet empire. This government deeply deplores Soviet Russia's hypocritical position on colonial questions arising in the United Nations, especially in the light of the Soviet union's own record of subjugation and tyranny over races and nations. Our view is that the provisions of the charter of the declaration on human rights and of the declaration on colonial independence are universal in their application.
I had hoped that the consultations which have been going on throughout the year and
also during the current session of the general assembly would serve to mobilize sufficient support for a resolution in regard to the question of Soviet colonialism. At a time when the concern of a great many members of the United Nations is principally engaged in respect of colonial questions affecting Africa, the moment for the successful presentation of a resolution aimed at the situation in the Soviet empire has not yet come.
Nevertheless there is a growing awareness that a Soviet imperialistic system does exist and that the United Nations cannot ignore it. The forthright condemnation of Soviet imperialism which the Canadian representative, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Mac-quarrie), made in the general assembly on November 23 was intended to bring home to all members of the United Nations the essential fact of Soviet domination of subject peoples.
I assure the house that it will not be long before this resolution can be introduced. Every effort is being made to secure the widest possible general support and as soon as we are in a position to be reasonably assured of substantial and, indeed, more than a bare majority support, the resolution which we undertook to introduce will be brought before the assembly.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the government informed the national legislative committee of the railway operating brotherhoods within the last day or two that the government planned action this session on amendments to the Railway Act in line with the committee's recommendations.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I informed the committee that at this session we will have a motion on the order paper to refer some matters that have been raised by the committee to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. Did the legislative committee request the government to support public Bill No. 26 to amend the Railway Act, which is now on the order paper?


Léon Balcer: They did not mention my hon. friend's bill.

Interim Supply SUPPLY
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.
['Order. The house will now revert to the business that was interrupted by the reversion to motions for the purpose of permitting the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make his announcement.', 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.']
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: When 1 rose immediately before the close of proceedings last evening I indicated to the committee that I wished to address a few remarks on this occasion on Canada's foreign trade policy. In bringing this question forward at this time I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by other members of this party with regard to the fact we are being asked now to vote the tenth of twelve instalments of expenditures totalling approximately $6 billion by the federal government for the current fiscal year. I deplore the fact that an important question like Canada's trade has not been brought before the house before this time, so that the members of this house have not had an opportunity to consider in detail the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce or to examine more fully with representatives of the government the trade policies which the government is following at this time.
I submit to the committee that the question of Canada's foreign trade relationships is perhaps one of the most critical questions arising in Canadian public affairs today, and one of the questions which should commend itself to the attention of hon. members of this house. Perhaps the best point at which to commence this discussion is to make reference to the
actions of the government itself in this field. We have heard from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his assistant, as well as various other spokesmen, and we have seen evidence in the press and elsewhere in recent weeks about the government's principal action in this field, a program known as "Operation world markets".
May I hasten to say that members on this side of the house can only commend the minister and the department for the effort being made in connection with that program. The program is really designed for the purpose of disseminating more widely information on trade prospects and trade possibilities, and indicating to both Canadian manufacturers and foreign purchasers the opportunity for trade with Canada. In fact an even more extensive compliment has been paid to this program, not so much by members on this side of the house but by the Ontario department of economics and development and particularly the minister of that provincial department. He has emulated the federal minister's policy with Ontario's trade crusade.
I should like to address a few remarks to the committee on the question of Ontario's trade crusade, particularly with a view to bringing to the committee's attention the fact that one aspect at least of that crusade represents an invasion by the provincial government into the federal field. It represents a usurpation by the province of Ontario of the responsibility of the minister in the field of trade.
Hon. members cannot have escaped being exposed to the extensive advertising campaign which has been conducted by the Ontario government in radio, television and the press during recent weeks. The principal purpose of that particular advertising is to persuade the Ontario consumer to discriminate in his buying decisions between domestic and foreign products where quality and price are equal, purely on the basis of national production. I submit to the committee that this is discrimination, a boycotting of the products of our trading partners, and that as such it involves Canada in a serious derogation from its international legal obligations with regard to trade.
In support of that argument I should like to refer the committee to the opinion of Sir H. Lauterpacht, a recognized authority on international law in this generation and formerly one of the British judges of the international court of justice, as outlined in an article entitled "Boycott in International Relations", which may be found in volume 14 of the British Year Book of International Law, page 125 and more particularly at page 131. The writer makes particular

reference to commercial treaties entered into between nations, similar to the kind entered into by Canada for foreign trade relations whereby access to the Canadian market is assured for foreign products, and he makes the following observation:
The commercial treaty obviously implies that the state cannot prohibit generally the importation and sale of goods coming from the territory of the other contracting party. But does it mean that it may not exhort its citizens not to buy the goods of the state with which it has a commercial treaty and that it must not place its governmental departments at the disposal of the boycott propaganda? ... If a state promises to another state to grant to its merchants "complete protection and security for their commerce" then it ill becomes it to exhort its citizens to suppress such commerce and to make its governmental services available for propaganda to this end. By no stretch of interpretation could such an attitude be squared with the undertaking to confer upon foreign merchants the same "privileges, liberties and favours" as are enjoyed by the state's own citizens.
On the basis of that authority, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the Ontario trade crusade, or that part of it which is directed to discriminating between foreign and domestic products purely on the basis of nationality, involves the federal government in a breach, on the international scale, of Canada's foreign trade obligations.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the committee at this time a further legal objection to that aspect of the Ontario trade crusade. Under the constitution of Canada, the British North America Act, and more particularly under the provisions of section 91(2) of that statute, it is provided that the regulation of trade and commerce is the exclusive responsibility of the government of Canada. The general words of that section have been more particularly elaborated upon by the courts in various discussions through the years, and it has been conclusively established with respect to import and export trade that the government of Canada, not the provinces, has sole jurisdiction with regard to legislative and executive measures affecting the import and export trade.
In support of that proposition I would like to refer the committee to the margarine reference in the Supreme Court of Canada in re the validity a section of the Dairy Industry Act which may be found in 1949, Supreme Court Reports, page 1, and more particularly in the remarks of Mr. Justice Rand at page 53. Mr. Justice Rand, in upholding the fact that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over imports, made reference to the particular import restriction contained in the federal statute there in question:
Such scope of action is clearly necessary to the nation's jurisdiction over trade with other states. Only parliament can deal with foreign commerce:
Interim Supply
provincial power cannot in any mode, aspect, or degree govern it: and it would be anomalous that the jurisdiction to which regulation is committed, which alone can act, and which in this segment of trade is in substance sovereign, should be powerless to employ such an ordinary measure of control.
I therefore make the observation that this government, and more particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce, should take an early opportunity to make representations to his colleague who represents the provincial riding of Riverdale that this aspect of the Ontario trade crusade program which relates to restriction of the free circulation of imports in the province of Ontario is in derogation of federal government responsibility in law, and is also in excess of the provincial government's power in trade and commerce. Indeed, the failure of the federal government and of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to take action in this regard is an astonishing failure. In fact just the other day, on Tuesday, the minister spoke in this house, and I quote his words as recorded at page 2527 of Hansard:
I am always interested to hear any observation of Mr. Macaulay because in representing his government he is doing the same kind of job for the producers of Ontario as this government is doing for the producers of Canada.
My submission is that it is not Mr. Macaulay's right or duty to do the identical kind of job. It is rather the exclusive duty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make regulations with regard to the export and import trade. The minister has failed to carry out that duty. It is all the more interesting to note that as a result of the initiative which Mr. Macaulay has shown he now appears to have taken over the trade and commerce of this country altogether. In answer to a question yesterday it was indicated that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had complied with an invitation from Mr. Macaulay summoning him to attend a meeting on trade and commerce next January.
Reference to the Ontario trade crusade assists me in introducing a second aspect, namely the limitations of a trade policy which is based entirely on an advertising campaign. It is all very well to provide the public with trade information and intelligence as to the availability of Canadian products, but at the same time there must be some assurance that the products available are capable of competing in international trade. In this connection I should like to quote what the Canadian consumer has to say for he, perhaps better than any other, can judge the effectiveness of Canadian products in this regard. I intend to refer to a number of letters which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail

Interim Supply
in connection with the Ontario trade crusade. The first appeared on November 26, 1962. I quote:
"Who is the world's greatest importer?'' I am asked every morning over the radio. And I am not kept in suspense, but told right away that I am- that is, the Canadian public is the greatest importer-and I am urged to buy fewer imported goods and more Canadian ones.
With this in mind, I inspected the Christmas gifts I had bought the night before. I found that X had purchased:
One necktie-made in Switzerland; one ladies' scarf-made in France; one pair slippers-made in England; one pair gloves-made in Japan.
Frankly, I was dismayed. So I set out to buy some more gifts, this time inspecting the place of origin before buying. Specifically, I was looking for a key chain (found that it was made in Italy) and a plastic cosmetic case (found that it was made in Sweden). The only Canadian gifts I could have purchased were coasters with flying Canada geese on them, or a leather bookmark-Indian handcraft-but even there sometimes you discover a tag saying "Made in Japan".
I ask again: "Who is the world's greatest importer?" The answer is obvious. It is not the public, certainly. If the public wishes to buy, it has no choice but to buy imported goods, as these are the ones offered on the counter.
So, may I suggest, instead of wasting time and money on this radio announcement day by day, let's rather ask those responsible:
"Why don't you sell more Canadian goods?"
That letter invited a second which appeared on December 1 as follows:
For six Christmases now we have played the "Made in Canada" game in our search for gifts to send to Britain. If anything we are even more frustrated than Mrs. A. E. Vayk (Who is the Greatest Importer?)-November 28, by the Ontario government's fanciful commercials.
So far, this is what we have bought: Writing paper and envelopes (made in Sweden)-the alternatives were made in Britain or the United States; phonograph records (made in Canada by a British owned company); wooden bowl (made in Canada)-surpassed in quality by U.S. products which we decided not to buy; books (all printed in the United States); nylon stockings (made in the United States).
It's the old story: the consumer will buy Canadian if well made products are available at the right price. My answer to the Ontario government is nuts (from Brazil).


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if I might raise a point of order. The hon. member has almost succeeded in proving to our satisfaction that trade is under federal not provincial jurisdiction. Now he is carrying on with an attack on the Ontario government's trade plan. It seems to me that the very logic of the argument he used in the first part of his statement makes the remarks he is now addressing to the committee out of order. If not I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether we can embark on comments along the same lines, because I should certainly like to say many things about the Ontario government's trade plan.


The Chairman:: I thank the hon. member for Port Arthur for bringing this point to
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).I
the attention of the committee. The legal argument presented so ably by the hon. gentleman is one of relativity. It must be related to a particular item in the resolution, which he can probably do now for the benefit of hon. members of the committee. Apart from that I would have intervened had he continued in the provincial field, dwelling too heavily on the policies of that government.


Mr. McGee:: My suggestion concerning the point raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur is that clearly the hon. member from Rosedale is denouncing the activities of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and saying why he is opposed to them, and he is opposing the policies of the Ontario minister inasmuch as these relate to them. I think it is interesting for the country to note that the Liberal party is opposed to this policy.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the parliamentary secretary, and I think I can anticipate the concern of the hon. member for Port Arthur. The crux of my argument was that there is an inadequacy, as indicated by the material I have quoted, in the Canadian products offered in this purchasing field. I was going on to suggest specific measures which this federal government could take to encourage Canadian manufacturers to remedy that inadequacy. I am suggesting that the improvement of Canadian products cannot be brought about by any fiat of the Canadian government. The ultimate decision must be taken in the private field.
In the session of 1960-61 this parliament included the activities of the design centre in a statute known as the National Design Council Act, which endowed that council with certain powers in respect to design in Canada. I suggest to the minister that the activities of the national design council should be expanded, and that in particular the council should set up a procedure whereby it would carry out examinations from time to time of all the products offered on the Canadian market in a particular field.
What I am suggesting is action of the kind carried out in the United States by the consumers' union, the results of which are published in the Consumers Reports. There would be an evaluation of the functional quality, design and workmanship of the products being placed on the Canadian market, both domestic and foreign, and the results could be made available to Canadian manufacturers so they might determine whether their products were competitive and the manner in which they could be improved. One benefit of such a study would be an indication, in a manner which has not been possible under previous arrangements and under the

jurisdiction of the tariff board, of what the real interest of the domestic consumer is. If it turns out that there are no competitive domestic products offered, the argument becomes impressive that whatever tariff charges exist should be dropped.
But the principal question arising in the trade field at this time surely concerns the action which Canada should be taking with regard to foreign trade agreements. For the first time in a generation the log jam of structural arrangements in the international economy is being broken. We are now, and will be for the next two or three years, in a period of flux. In that time we will have an opportunity to make for ourselves trade arrangements which could assure the Canadian manufacturing industry and other Canadian producers effective participation in world trade.
I would like to enunciate a number of principles which I think should govern the government in its trade policy, and more particularly a number of realities which the Canadian government and the Canadian public should bear in mind regarding their forthcoming trade negotiations.
The first of these principles is this. We should recognize that not only should the British be sympathetic to our position but we should show some sympathy for theirs. Their current negotiations with the European economic community are nothing less than negotiations for the continuing survival of their community. The British, in exactly the same way as we have, have inherited from the past an economic system and a societal structure which may not be too directly related to the political realities of the present. No doubt all hon. members of the house over the years have approved the political decisions whereby the British government gave up control of its overseas colonies and thereby gave up control of economic matters in those countries. In the same way we must recognize that to sustain the same population and to maintain the standard of living for the British community we must permit them, and indeed assist them, to establish an equally advantageous trading relationship so they can be assured of continued prosperity.
The second major reality is that the arguments of the high protection group, and the argument in particular that Canadian prosperity can be assured by a general raising of tariffs, is no longer valid. This is so not only because of the fact-and I think we must recognize this-that the Canadian consumer will not tolerate a lower standard of living
Interim Supply
which would be the result of greater protection, but also in an increasingly interdependent world our trading partners will not tolerate this sort of action.
Third, we must bear in mind that tariff negotiations have all the aspects of a primitive bargain; that in going into these negotiations we must be prepared to give in order to get.
We must also bear in mind that Canada is at a not inconsiderable disadvantage in the sense that with our domestic market of only 19 million souls we do not have as advantageous a plum to offer as the European economic community which, including the United Kingdom, has a population of 225 million people. In other words we wish to secure access to that very much larger market for a limited number of products, but we can only offer a very much smaller market for a wider range of products. We must bear in mind the fact that it is not so much a matter of our being able to blast our way into world markets, or negotiate our way in, but that we do not have that much to offer in the way of an advantageous market for, particularly, the producers in the European economic community.
The fourth reality I think we should bear in mind is that the tariff reductions which must come as a result of the multilateral negotiations will have a severe effect on Canadian industry. Indeed, in some industries the effect may be well nigh fatal. This is the necessary cost of expanding to make our products competitive on a world basis, and this is the kind of problem that we face. Hon. members will find in title III of the U.S. trade expansion act of 1962 very elaborate provisions for adjustment assistance to both employers and employees in industries which have been affected by adverse import competition.
The fifth and final reality, Mr. Chairman, is that we must in the interval prior to negotiations, govern our trade policies in such a way that we enter those trade negotiations, which require nimble footwork, not on a limping basis but with full ability to assure our trading partners that we will accord them fair treatment and also live up to our obligations. I suggest that in very recent years, perhaps even more so in the past five years, this government has failed to discharge its international obligations with respect to foreign trade, first by acting in direct contravention of our obligations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade and imposing the tariff surcharges, and second by the boycott campaign which has been carried on by the Ontario provincial government. We must be prepared to act fairly in

Interim Supply
the agreements arising out of these trade negotiations, and we must be prepared to win the confidence of the other negotiators by indicating that we are prepared to live up to our existing agreements.
Mr. Chairman, the action which I propose in the face of these realities is, first, that Canada should take every step to assist the United Kingdom negotiators in their Brussels discussions. It has been suggested previously in this house that there has been some hesitation on the part of the common market negotiators to reach final agreement with the United Kingdom, particularly in reference to products in which this country and others of the senior dominions have an interest, because the common market is looking forward to the negotiations which will take place next year and they are unwilling to act now in regard to something they may well be asked for next year, something they may well need as a bargaining advantage then.
I suggest that if this is feasible within the terms of the negotiations, a Canadian team should be dispatched to Brussels endowed with full powers to negotiate any arrangements with the European economic community that may assist Britain in arriving at a favourable bargaining position with the community. Second, bearing in mind the relative weakness of our bargaining position, we should take very action to assist the United States, and especially the United States efforts in the field of agriculture, to deter and reduce the present tendency toward high protection that the common market negotiators are showing. In other words we must not give a delayed and lukewarm response to President Kennedy's initiative; we must back him up and come forward with a detailed list of our own proposals on what we seek to gain in the multilateral tariff negotiations in early 1964.
Finally, we must and should have presented to this house for consideration a type of program similar to the program set out in title III of the U.S. trade expansion act of 1962, which would provide adjustment provisions for Canadian industry in the case of loss of trade, loss of markets and loss of domestic possibilities due to import competition.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is an area in which at an early date there should be some opportunity of hearing the definitive proposals of the government and of considering its own recommendations on Canada's foreign trade policy. This is one of the principal questions upon which we have very little time left to take decisive

action, and I suggest that at an early opportunity we should consider not only the estimates of the minister's department but we should have a full scale debate and full consideration of these matters so that we may know exactly where we stand in these negotiations and where we are going.
Mr. Chairman, when I rose last evening I indicated that I intended to speak on trade and not on the subject of the Columbia river. However, moved by the eloquence of my colleagues on this side of the chamber I should like to add a few remarks to what I have already said. In doing so I wish to stress the fact that I believe I am the first person to rise in this party on this subject who is not a resident of or representing a British Columbia riding. The point I should like to make is that the Columbia river treaty in its present form is a matter of national concern, not only by reason of the fact that the revenue of Canada will be charged with an initial sum of not less than $250 million for the purposes of construction of the dams in question, but also because of the very much broader contingent liability to which Canada will be subject in the event of failure or accident on our part in the flood control provisions.
I suggest to the committee that if the treaty in its present form is ratified, this would amount to a national disgrace, I suggest to the committee that the treaty in its present form imposes upon Canada Carthaginian terms which may be found only in international treaties where the victor nation has imposed a treaty upon the vanquished nation. I wish to associate myself with the view of a very authoritative source, which has pointed out the fact that since the Alaskan boundary dispute there is no more gross example of a bad deal for Canada and a sell-out to the United States.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who spoke last said he was the first member of his party to participate in this debate who did not come from British Columbia. I take it that was because the Liberal party had run out of British Columbia members. We are not faced with the same difficulty in this party; we have plenty of British Columbia members.
We in this party are concerned about a matter which we have raised in the house on two previous occasions this week. During the orders of the day on Tuesday we asked the Minister of Justice whether the R.C.M.P.

was interviewing students and faculty members at Canadian universities about the political activities that students and faculty members were engaging in. We raised this matter on Tuesday with the Minister of Justice. It was raised by three members of this party, and the minister did not give us an answer. He said there had been no complaints. However, we take the view that it is not a question of whether the minister has had any complaints. Members of this party have had complaints, and we should like to know whether in fact the R.C.M.P. is being instructed by the minister to carry out this sort of activity.
We raised the matter again yesterday on the orders of the day. We asked the minister whether in fact the R.C.M.P. was interviewing students and faculty members at Canadian universities for the purpose of getting them to inform on one another with regard to their political activities, and once again we failed to get any response from the minister. We take the view that the minister's silence is significant and bolsters the information which we have received from a number of sources; and we should like to have from the minister an assurance that this sort of thing will not continue but will stop at once.
This, of course, is something which it seems to me cannot be blamed on the R.C.M.P. The R.C.M.P. is simply acting under instructions from governmental authorities, and it is the government's responsibility if in fact the R.C.M.P. is interviewing students and faculty members at universities for the purpose of discovering what political activity is taking place on our campuses and who is taking part in such political activities. This is something which the members of this party wish to see stopped. We would welcome from the minister an assurance that in fact it is going to stop.
We believe it is wrong for the R.C.M.P. to engage in this activity. We believe that universities ought to be places where young men and women and faculty members may speak their minds, about politics and ideas and do so freely, without members of the national police force coming on to their campuses and asking them questions about the political activities of their friends, their teachers or their fellow students. We believe that otherwise no university can be truly free or can really spawn the kind of discussion that produces new ideas or new concepts or the kind of thinking which must be in the van of any civilization that is moving forward. For the R.C.M.P. to engage in interrogating students and faculty members about their
Interim Supply
political activities and about the political activities of their colleagues is to engage in something which can only breed suspicion and fear at Canadian universities. If this continues the effect, of course, will be to curb freedom of thought discussion, and the development of ideas.
If subversion is taking place or if the government is fearful that subversion is taking place in this country, may I make this suggestion; and when I speak of subversion let me make it perfectly clear what I mean. I mean violations of the Criminal Code, violations of the criminal law. That is all I mean, and I hope this is all that hon. members in all parts of the house mean by subversion, namely violations of the laws of this country, violations of the Criminal Code or other federal or provincial statutes which relate to the problem. With great respect I submit to the minister and to the members of the committee that the only thing which can justify the intervention of the national police force is evidence of overt acts in violation of our laws, and not the kind of tittle-tattle and gossip that we have found has in so many cases prompted these interrogations.
If the ministry is concerned about violations of the Criminal Code we suggest there is a way in which to go about the matter. There is a way in which to carry out effective police work, and there are ways in which to carry out what will only turn out to be quite ineffectual police work. There are ways of enforcing the laws of this country. We in this party suggest that one way which has nothing to do with law enforcement, which has nothing to do with protecting this nation against violations of the Criminal Code and other federal and provincial statutes, is by having police officers interrogating students and lecturers at Canadian universities for any purpose.
We suggest that this sort of thing, emulating the methods of the police state, must come to an end. We suggest that this sort of thing constitutes a misguided attempt to protect freedom and can only result in destroying freedom. Let me read to members of the committee what was said by a distinguished Canadian educator, the former president of the University of British Columbia, Dr. Norman MacKenzie, at the University of New Brunswick delivering the founders' day address on February 16, 1953. Hon. members will recall that it was during that period in the early fifties that Senator McCarthy was riding high in the United States. It took someone with a good deal of courage to deal with McCarthyism which had crept across the border and was seeping into Canada, and

Interim Supply
to deal with that subject in the forthright language which Dr. MacKenzie used. He said this:
That Is why I view with such perturbation both the development of fifth columns in our society and the repressive and authoritarian measures that are frequently taken to deal with this. For these are certain to become a threat and injure or destroy many who have no other folly than that they are nonconformists, or liberals-
That expression is used with a small "1" here, I may say, so that there will be no misunderstanding about it.


An hon. Member:: It is the same thing.


Thomas Rodney Berger: The quotation continues:
-or in real fact are foolish or stupid people. Fear, suspicions, hatred, persecution, and repression, together with the smear, the big lie, and domestic espionage are among the instruments and weapons of the menace of communism and fascism, and are properly identified by us with those ideologies. Their introduction into our lives, and their use and indeed growing use in whatever measure in our western society is, to me at least, one of the most disturbing aspects of the continuing crisis. For it will not provide many of us with satisfaction if we save ourselves from the external attacks of the nazis, the fascists and the communists, only to discover that we, unwittingly under their pressure, have destroyed our own freedom; have established through ourselves their form of dictatorship and authoritarian control- we having, in fact, demonstrated for our enemies the proof of the proposition which they all along had been interested in making, that the values they esteem and the way of life they follow are superior to our own, that they are inevitable and must succeed.
I commend to the members of the committee what was said by this very distinguished Canadian, Dr. MacKenzie, because he has put his finger on the real problem. We do not want to use the technique of the smear and the big lie, we do not want to use tittle-tattle and gossip to discredit our fellow Canadians. We do not want to see through advertence or inadvertence members of the student bodies and members of the faculties of Canadian universities being subjected to this sort of treatment.
It seems to me that people who believe that the R.C.M.P. should engage in this work are people who do not really understand the real basis of our western civilization and society. Our society, our civilization, rests on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and these exist for the purpose of facilitating the development of our culture, primarily to assist us in the search for truth, to enable us to move forward. If we destroy these human rights and fundamental freedoms, if we curb freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of discussion-the freedom to generate new ideas, we are doing a disservice not only to the people who are concerned about

this matter today but to so many who in past generations fought to achieve these things.
There must be an opportunity to discuss ideas put forward from every political quarter, because surely if the ideas and institutions in which we believe, and which the R.C.M.P. are being used to protect when they are interrogating students and faculty members of Canadian universities, are valid, if they are proper institutions for Canadians, if they are the kind of institutions which will serve to preserve the things that we regard as the highest and the best in human culture, then they do not need any protection from the R.C.M.P. against the force of ideas opposed to them. Surely we can permit ideas from every quarter to contend in the market place of ideas. That was the view of a great liberal, John Stuart Mill, who said in his famous essay on freedom, in effect "Let these ideas clash in the market place of ideas". If the ideas which we espouse are the ideas which are most consistent with the truth and which lead us toward the truth, then they will emerge triumphant in the clash of ideas. If our beliefs are not tested they can have no firm basis. They can only be tested by exposing them to ideas opposed to them.
I was astonished to read in the Globe and Mail of Wednesday a report of a speech by the head of the Chrysler Corporation of Canada in which he said:
For some reason which I have never heard satisfactorily explained, a great many of our young people in the western world begin to sneer at the principles of democracy somewhere around the age of 16 and they keep it up for the next five or six years. It's a stage they seem to go through, like adolescent measles. And it's not a very flattering commentary on our educational system.
The article continues:
Mr. Todgham said to combat the problem businessmen should encourage youth to form junior achievement clubs, miniature companies with shares.
"Everything they learn, observe and absorb in the course of junior achievement activity is calculated to expose the fallacies of communism and to emphasize the virtues of the free enterpise theory," he said.
He also said that on most of Canada's college campuses there are communist or pink cells. I do not know what pink cells are, but probably this gentleman has some knowledge of the subject. He also said there is a danger of some of the students becoming "permanent converts to alien ideologies". I do not know what junior achievement clubs are all about or whether the real answer to this problem is to set up miniature corporations and dish out shares, but I am not entirely convinced that this is really the way to deal with alien ideologies. I think the way to deal with them is to have them out in the open, discuss them

and put them up against the ideas we espouse. In those circumstances I suggest that young Canadians are far more likely to find the truth and to adopt ideas that are consistent with the truth, and to learn the real basis and the real validity of the ideas that western civilization holds dear, than by forming junior achievement clubs and miniature companies with shares. I do not think young people are likely to benefit a great deal from that when it comes to a question of ideology.
I think members of the committee should realize that we will not be protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms which we regard as the basis of western society and civilization if we do not allow ideas which are opposed to our beliefs to find expression because, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, there must be freedom for the ideas that we hate. Members of the committee will recall that John Milton in his "Aero-pagitica" said that he could not praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue. You cannot praise the virtue of adherence to the principles of western democracy if you have never been exposed to the ideas that are in contention all over the world with the principles of western democracy. How can our young people be equipped to contend with the ideology of communism if they have never been exposed to it, if they have never tested it against the ideas they themselves hold? I suggest that if the R.C.M.P. are interrogating students and faculty members of universities all over the country about their political ideas the result will be that we will simply breed a generation of students who have never been out of the incubator, who have never been out in the world where these things are real.
Many of us have to contend with the forces of communism. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is nonsensical to expect R.C.M.P. officers to be able to find through interrogation what the political beliefs of faculty members and university students are, and to find out the type of political activity in which they are engaging. How do you tell? Do you tell by listening to lectures in the classroom? Suppose an R.C.M.P. officer asks a student what the political views and ideas of a faculty member are and the student ventures an answer on the basis of classroom lectures. Surely such an answer would be completely uninformed and completely spurious, because the lecturer may put forward any number of ideas to test the mettle of his students.
How do you tell from bull sessions what a student's political views are? Can you tell because he has engaged in the burning of an effigy of Donald Gordon or somebody like that? Sometimes it is difficult even in this
Interim Supply
house, Mr. Chairman, to tell what the political views and ideologies of members are. We thought that those gentlemen who sit opposite us were liberals, yet not very long ago we saw them espousing the idea of debt free money. What are we to do under these circumstances? How can we tell what they are? How can we tell where they stand?
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that to expect Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers at second hand to discover anything about the views of university students and faculty members is nothing more or less than extravagant nonsense. If the government is really trying to find out anything about the communist party, or any other party for that matter, this is an absurd way to go about it; because when you drive these ideas out of the market place you simply drive them underground, and they fester and sometimes grow in a cancerous fashion when you do that. The best way is to have these things out in the open, and they will not be out in the open-as they should be on our university campuses-if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are going to inquire of university students and faculty members about the political activities of these people.
The great danger is that in our zeal to defend freedom we will wind up by destroying it. I suggest that if we are going to build a truly free society we must allow, we must encourage the widest expression of ideas, because this is the only way in which Canadians will be intellectually equipped to defend the ideas that I believe the vast majority of the people of this country regard as of fundamental importance. I suggest, with all respect to the chairman of the Chrysler Corporation, that junior achievement clubs are not the best way of achieving this end.
We would welcome a statement from the Minister of Justice that this sort of thing is going to stop. We know it has been happening in the past. We believe it was a grave error on the part of whoever was responsible, and the ministry must take the responsibility for directing the R.C.M.P. into this activity. We would welcome an assurance from the minister that this sort of thing is going to stop and will not occur again. I know the minister is anxious to get the floor to make a statement on this subject, so I will not burden the committee with any further remarks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it is a rather different sort of assurance that I wish to give to the committee.
Let me observe, in the first place, that when questions were put in the house earlier this week on this subject, they were put on orders of the day and Mr. Speaker felt called upon

Interim Supply
to indicate that those questions were not of a nature that it was proper to ask on orders of the day. There was no reluctance on my part to deal with this subject at any time when the rules of the house properly permitted it.
I must draw attention to the fact that in his remarks the hon. member has been saying things which, in terms of general principle, I am sure are fully subscribed to and supported by all members of this house. But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has gone on to make statements about things he says are happening. The word "if" abounded throughout his remarks, and I must say that the assumptions upon which he has based his assertions this morning are, according to my information, quite unwarranted.
First of all, how does this matter arise? The hon. member makes certain statements as though they were of a positive nature. Well, one might have expected that if there were some intrusion upon academic freedom in this country by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the matter would have come to the attention of the Minister of Justice. Let me say at once that, having been Minister of Justice for just over four months now, I have not received any letter from any person on this subject. There is one exception I shall mention, but apart from that one exception I have received no letters. I have had my office check the files again this morning, and with this one exception which I shall mention I have received no letter on the subject from anyone.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Will the minister yield the floor so that I may ask him a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to continue. The letter to which I refer, Mr. Chairman, was written to me on September 17 by Dr. A. J. Stewart, the executive secretary of the association of university teachers. He had been in discussion last summer with my predecessor in this office. He asked a number of questions. He had a questionnaire that he wished to have answered. This is the one communication which I have received on this subject since I assumed this office.
Now, in so far as representations are concerned, one member of this house in all this time spoke to me about this subject. He had some incident, not of a very definite nature, and there was nothing toward which one could direct any specific inquiry. So I say, Mr. Chairman, I am unaware of what has suddenly agitated this question or given rise to assertions and inquiries in the house by some hon. members. I know what has appeared in several newspapers this week.
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) .1
The articles that I saw in one or two newspapers indicated simply that there had been a comment on this subject in an editorial appearing in an undergraduate newspaper of the University of Toronto, the Varsity.
Let me make matters very clear. The hon. member suggested that I had given some instructions to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to make inquiries on campuses or interrogate members of the faculties or students. I have given no such instructions whatsoever. The suggestion was also made that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were supervising political activity. Let me make it quite clear that the police are not interested in political activity. Their job is law enforcement, law enforcement throughout Canada. This is the function which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the finest police force in all the world, is under duty to carry out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister specifically saying that the R.C.M.P. have never made any inquiries about political activities?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member will be patient, I am making what I hope will be a complete statement on the subject. He has asked for it and perhaps he will allow me to make it.
There are questions, I am told, that are asked from time to time by prospective employees as to whether applicants-this applies to persons coming from academic life as well as others-are good security risks. Obviously a number of these people are going into situations where security considerations are important. I am told that the R.C.M.P. do have inquiries of this kind, and in those situations they have made inquiries in order to furnish information in relation to persons applying for jobs where security questions arise, and this of course can happen in public employment as well as in private employment. Apart from that, Mr. Chairman, let me make it quite clear-


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I ask the minister a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one
example-


Colin Cameron: Can the minister say-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may we have an orderly statement at this time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why should you refuse to answer the question?


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told, Mr. Chairman, that there are no special security activities in relation to students carried on by the R.C.M.P., and that the police have not

been approaching persons in universities with a view to developing sources of information. Let me add further that my information is that there has not been, in relation to inquiries, anything apart from what I have clearly indicated is the sort of thing the police are asking all the time.
Let me give an example of the sort of thing that happens in various fields of life. When persons apply to the registrar in bankruptcy for licences as trustees in bankruptcy the police invariably are asked to make a report on those persons because this is a matter of giving protection to the public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On political activities?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not on political activities, Mr. Chairman. It is not on their political activities. This is a matter of law enforcement accordng to the laws of this country. That is the duty of the police, and that is their proper function. So may I say, Mr. Chairman, that any suggestion that there is some kind of police state here in Canada, or some kind of McCarthyism in Canada, is completely without shadow of truth or foundation.
There is no interference with academic freedom in the universities, and as long as I have any responsibility in this respect there will be no interference with academic freedom in our Canadian universities, or with freedom of speech, or with political activities. I might add that I have spent a great part of my life trying to stimulate political activities in places like that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But not controversy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not see any
reason why controversy should be shunned, and as long as the law of this land is observed there will be no interference with any political activities. I do not think the suggestion that is made will commend itself to those who have knowledge of conditions in this country and of the make-up of the Canadian people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if I correctly understood him to say that the R.C.M.P. were being used to investigate applicants for private employment. The minister said, and maybe he did not mean to, that they were being used to investigate applicants for private employment, and I want to get that cleared up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has clearly misunderstood it. I related this to security situations where the public security is involved, because there are situations in private employment where that security is involved.
27507-3-169
Interim Supply


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister had better define them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member will appreciate that that is the kind of situation I am referring to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister should define them very clearly in his own interest and the interests of the police. He should tell us what these situations are, very precisely, because I think the suggestion the minister has left is that we are living in a kind of police state.


Mr. O'Hurley:: You would love that,
wouldn't you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister should explain why and in what circumstances applicants for private employment should be investigated by the police paid for by the taxpayers, if that is justified at all, and I am not saying that there may not be such circumstances. I think I know personally what the minister has in mind, but it would be in the public interest to have the position made very, very clear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not going to attempt an exhaustive review of those situations. I think the hon. member and all hon. members will realize what are those types of situations. Let me give an example. Suppose you take an industry that is engaged in defence production of something that is of a highly secret nature. There must be security clearance in these situations, just as there must be in other agencies directly related to the public service.


Mr. Malheson:: May I ask a question of the Minister of Justice? The minister will note that for some weeks I have had a number of questions on the order paper asking for the relationship of the Minister of Justice with these security operations of the R.C.M.P. Does the minister not feel that it would be highly in the interests of our important security section, the "I" section of the R.C.M.P., that the over-all policy of the government in regard to security be clearly indicated? Because I submit with great respect to the minister-and I am sure everything he said today was said sincerely-that there have been many irritations, even to persons serving on university faculties across the country. People have been very much concerned with the nature of the inquiries taking place in the last several months.
I have discussed this matter with people on the campus of the University of Toronto and other universities, people who in some cases held important appointments. We recognize that security investigations are necessary, but I suggest that the investigating constables and the officers of the R.C.M.P. would be

Interim Supply
assisted by being provided with a pro forma series of questions. Frequently in past months the police have commenced their investigations by appearing to ask standard questions, but what has become particularly obnoxious is when they embark on their own line of questioning in the course of an investigation. This has caused offence to many thoughtful people who felt the police were really witch hunting.
The Minister of Justice has a very competent staff, and the R.C.M.P. have highly qualified and dedicated people. We have only to remember their work in the Leopold investigation or the Gouzenko case of some years ago, or the roundup of fascists at the beginning of world war II to recognize that. But I think the time has come for us to have some kind of standard investigation for people employed in, say, a nuclear capacity. There should be a standard line of questioning and the police should not be left to ask tendentious questions on their own. I have no objection to information files, files on anybody and everybody including members of parliament. I have no objection to these investigations where they are deemed necessary, and I believe the R.C.M.P. have built up very wise and wide experience in this regard, but I know of cases which were irritating in the extreme and contrary to the concepts of liberty as expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, let me say very briefly that I appreciate the views expressed very earnestly by the hon. member for Leeds. I am very happy to make inquiry into anything that is brought to my attention that calls for inquiry, but to me it is an amazing fact that, if there are grounds for complaints in the universities, these complaints have not been brought to my attention. If there are persons who consider that they have been asked questions they ought not to have been asked, then why do they not write to me? As I say, with the exception of that letter back in September from an organization which had been in communication with my predecessor about a questionnaire, I have not had one single communication on the subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the minister says there has been no security investigation on the university campuses does he include in that statement that there have been no investigations of students and faculty members taking part in meetings to state their opposition to the acquiring of nuclear weapons?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not use the
expression which the hon. member has just attributed to me. I made it quite clear that there are no special activities on the part

of the R.C.M.P. in relation to students or academic circles. The function of the police is in relation to the enforcement of law in all parts of Canada and in all sectors of Canadian life. The security investigations will obviously involve the police keeping their eyes open as to anything which might go on which relates to the enforcement of the law or the subversion of our institutions by unlawful methods.


Mr. Hees:: I would ask the indulgence of the committee to report progress so that Mr. Speaker can take the chair and I can ask him to revert to motions in order to make a brief announcement with respect to the talks which have been concluded on oil exports to the United States.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Cannot that be done equally well at one o'clock without interrupting the proceedings of this committee? It is only half an hour from one o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We can do it at one o'clock.


Mr. Orlikow:: I must say the statement made by the minister is one of the most amazing, confusing and disturbing statements I have heard in all the years I have been an elected representative, which now number almost 20 years. The minister makes the statement that the R.C.M.P. are not carrying out security investigations on his instructions. The fact is, however, that the R.C.M.P. have been making security investigations over the years going back 25 or 30 years, and nothing has changed since the present minister assumed the office he now holds.
The matter has been raised repeatedly in the House of Commons, and members only need to look at the index of Hansard in order to see that every year one or more hon. members of the house have raised specific cases. The minister has said that the R.C.M.P. are only interrogating people about subversive activities, illegal activities. Well, I wonder if it is not time for us to know what the government considers to be subversive activities or illegal activities. I wonder also if we have the right to believe that the R.C.M.P. officers who are doing this work are really qualified to make these investigations.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: Somebody says "Oh". Let him look at Hansard of last year when the

former minister of justice made a statement-or an hon. member made a statement and it was not denied-that the minimum qualification for R.C.M.P. officers in this particular section is a grade X education. I question the ability of a person with a grade X education to decide what activities are subversive and what activities are illegal.
The minister may think, though he did not say so, that the movements which have sprung up in the universities and in other places urging the banning of nuclear armaments or nuclear bombs are subversive or illegal. I suggest that no law has been passed in Canada which makes this an illegal act. Yet the fact is-and the minister did not deny it, nor did the former minister deny it, although he questioned a complete report which appeared in La Presse last year-that investigations are always being made at Laval and other universities about this type of activity.
The minister says the R.C.M.P. investigates illegal activities. As to communism, I want to make it very clear, as one who comes from the constituency 1 represent, and who has had 25 years of experience of fighting it- I have certainly no use for the ideas of communism-that communism is not illegal and that the communist party is a legal party in Canada. The minister said he had only had one discussion with a member of parliament on this question. I want to make it clear, for the sake of the record, that I was the member of parliament who discussed the matter with him.
What was the matter I discussed with him? It was the fact that the R.C.M.P. came to make inquiries of a teacher in the city of Winnipeg, who happens to be my brother, about certain things he had done in what he considered to be the best interests of promoting a discussion among a group of students. I went to the trouble of telephoning my brother yesterday to find out what happened. What happened was very simple. I am not concerned with whether the teacher who happens to be my brother made a wise choice in doing what he did. He is a teacher, and every teacher needs the fullest freedom to promote questioning, to promote the free discussion of ideas.
What he did was to arrange for a group of students to hear a talk by the Manitoba secretary of the communist party; and I presume he would not be considered illegal, because he ran against me in the last election. That was permissible. He did not get very far, but he did run. My brother tells me that the R.C.M.P. officer who came to call on him told him that somebody "just happened" to see this group going into the headquarters of the 27507-3-169J
Interim Supply
communist party. What an amazing coincidence. They "just happened" to find out that this group from the United States was visiting Winnipeg and that my brother was making the arrangements. One of the things for which he also happened to make arrangements was to hear a talk by the attorney general for the province of Manitoba. I do not know whether that was subversive, but he happened to arrange for that, too.
I am not concerned about whether or not my brother had arranged a good educational project. The fact is that here is one more proof, added to all those cases related in this house and outside, that the R.C.M.P. is carrying on surveillance of this kind. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that it is neither necessary nor desirable that this kind of surveillance be carried out. However, if it is necessary the people of this country have a right to know what the policy of the government is.
Having said that, I wish to turn to the very brief and, I think, very careful reference the minister made to the supposed one letter received from the Canadian association of university teachers. My information is that in fact this association has been in correspondence with the Department of Justice for well over a year. While it may be true that the present minister has received only one letter, there has been a whole series of letters sent to the department. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Leeds has asked that this correspondence be produced. In addition to these letters there have been numerous telephone calls all connected with the desire of the association to discuss with the department the problems which have arisen.
Why should the association want to have these matters discussed? Surely it is because they must have been hearing from their members about these problems. The minister tries to make this whole matter seem unimportant. I presume the R.C.M.P. are as competent and as diligent in keeping reports of what university teachers are saying as they are in keeping reports of what trade unionists and members of the New Democratic party are saying. The C.A.U.T. board reports as follows:
At the June meeting of council at McMaster University the following resolution was proposed and referred back to local associations for consideration. It will come before council in November.
I quote:
Resolved, that the Canadian association of university teachers express its disapproval of questions concerning the political or religious beliefs, activities or associations of students or colleagues.

Interim Supply
Members of the association are advised not to answer such questions, even when they are part of the security investigation of persons seeking government employment.
That is a pretty drastic resolution. I am not expressing an opinion at the moment as to whether it is a good or a bad resolution to pass, but I suggest to the Minister of Finance that the Canadian association of university teachers would not put this kind of resolution on the agenda for their next meeting unless they had some pretty strong feelings that their members are concerned.
And why are their members concerned? I wonder whether the minister looked at the file of correspondence which the former minister of justice received from that organization. I wonder whether he looked at the questions which the Canadian association of university teachers submitted to the former minister of justice. If he did, I find it inconceivable that he could have made the kind of speech that he made this morning, in which he tried to wipe this away as being of no consequence.
I have those questions, Mr. Chairman, and I intend to put them into the record. The committee will realize that no responsible organization-and I suggest nobody would question that the Canadian association of university teachers is a responsible organization-would ask these kinds of questions of a minister of the crown unless they were satisfied there were valid reasons for asking them.
I want to quote from these questions, Mr. Chairman, and I do this because this document has gone out to members of the association across Canada and I think it is pretty public knowledge. These questions were addressed to the former minister of justice and have not yet been answered by the government. As a matter of fact neither the former minister nor the present minister in over a year has found the time to meet with a committee of this organization. I think that is a disgraceful situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member not aware that my colleague met the representatives of this organization in August?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I think here again we are getting the kind of backhanded answer which I guess is all we can get from the minister. Certainly the former minister met with the people concerned. When did he meet with them? After he was no longer the minister of justice, and he made it very clear to them that he could only speak to them in that capacity, that he could not speak as minister of justice and was not

representing the government of Canada. I presume that the present minister has the file in front of him and has not taken the time to read it. He has been all over the world making speeches. He has been speaking to boards of trade. I suggest that the university teachers of the Dominion of Canada are just as entitled to an hour with the present Minister of Justice as are boards of trade or the other organizations to whom he has been speaking, because these are the people who are helping, rightly or wrongly, to mould the minds and the thinking of the people who will be the future leaders of the Dominion of Canada. If they are disturbed, if they are uncertain-I am not saying that the minister has to agree with them; I am not saying that they will not go away from the meeting, if and when they meet, with a difference of opinion-this is a matter that should be looked into. There will be a difference of opinion; in fact I am almost certain, in the light of what the minister has said up to now, that they will disagree and disagree completely. However, Mr. Chairman, I think they were and are entitled to that kind of meeting so there may be the fullest discussion of the problems as they see them.
What are some of the questions which they ask? Let me read them:
1.	Do you consider it advisable to protect the members of the Canadian university communities from the impact of communist ideas?
2.	If so, do you believe that the R.C.M.P. is the proper body to provide this protection?
3.	If not, what in your view are the legitimate reasons for R.C.M.P. investigation of university organizations and university people?
4.	Do you agree that the university community is a special kind of community, with a special need of, and a special right to, freedom from pressures on matters of opinion or belief? Do you think that there is a case for "special treatment" of the universities?
5.	A statement of yours in the House of Commons last June has been rather widely quoted. Vou are reported in Hansard for June 9, 1961 (page 6120) as wishing that the R.C.M.P. were "mind-readers", and "supermen, so that they might know what people are thinking, and would not have to ask questions at all". Would you wish to qualify this wish as far as university investigations are concerned?
6.	What do you feel about a view which has been advanced by one American professors' group (at the University of California) that "the professional duty of faculty members requires them to refuse to disclose to anyone, under any circumstances information regarding the beliefs of students, present or past, obtained in the course of instructing them, whether on a formal class basis, or informally on other occasions".
7.	During your term of office as Minister of Justice, has the R.C.M.P. conducted any investigations of members of Canadian university faculties, for purposes other than the investigation of actual or suspected crime? If there have been any such investigations, would you tell us (a) the purpose of them, (b) who requested them, (c) what procedures were followed, and (d) what use was made of the results?

Mr. Chairman, I think these are very pertinent and very legitimate questions and would not have been asked unless there had been proof in the minds of association members across the country that these questions were being asked in the universities.
Having been unable for over a year to obtain a meeting with the minister of justice, present or former, where these matters could be discussed and possibly-I say only possibly-some amicable conclusion mutually arrived at, the C.A.U.T. is now circulating a form used by the British association of university teachers. I want to read this to the minister because this has resulted from his action in refusing to meet with them. His action in refusing to discuss this matter with them is going to bring a result that I am sure those people who believe in security arrangements, which I do not, are going to dislike intensely. I wish to read from the November issue of the C.A.U.T. bulletin.
Form used by the (British) association of university teachers: (supplied as a sticker, for attachment to security questionnaire forms):
"The association of university teachers has expressed its disapproval of questions concerning the political or religious beliefs, activities or associations of students. I share this view, and am not prepared to answer such questions.
Then there is a space for a signature and date. That is the kind of thing which the refusal of the minister to even discuss this matter is driving the university professors of this country to do. They have no alternative. Again, Mr. Chairman, I quote from a resolution adopted by the faculty association, University of California, Berkeley, October 28, 1958 and subsequently by the university senate:
This faculty asserts that the freedom of discussion in the classroom and in academic consultation is fundamental to higher education. The essential freedom of a university can be seriously jeopardized if argument and expression of opinion are inhibited, particularly in those subjects which are held controversial in some quarters and at some moments in history. Therefore, reports by a teacher concerning the beliefs, attitudes, activities and associations of a student regarding religion, politics and public affairs in general, are not permissible when the reports are based on information acquired by the teacher in the course of instruction or in the course of other student-teacher relations that involve the student's academic program".
This is the kind of discussion that is now taking place amongst the university people. The minister says he has had only one complaint. I can tell him that the professors in universities from one end of Canada to the other are now discussing this matter. The resolution which I quoted earlier was proposed to the C.A.U.T. by the following people,
Interim Supply
so the minister will be under no misapprehension: Professor L. C. Clark of the University of New Brunswick, Professor L. Lorch of the University of Alberta and Professor S. R. Mealing of Carleton University. Does the minister or do the members of this house think for one moment that professors of this type and from such widely separate universities are discussing these matters, raising these questions and proposing this kind of resolution out of thin air? Obviously they have facts to back up what they are saying.
The facts are clear that the R.C.M.P. is asking questions of students about views expressed by their professors and is asking professors about views expressed by their students. I do not believe that we can have a really effective educational system unless and until we have the widest spirit of freedom and unless and until professors and students can feel that they can express any opinion or that, professors can recommend to any student the reading of any book whether it be popular or not.
There can be nothing easier than to say that we believe in democracy for those people who agree with us. That is not democracy. That is a perversion of democracy. If democracy means anything it means the widest freedom for those people who disagree with the accepted standards. Surely the democratic system in which we believe is big enough and strong enough that it can withstand the widest discussion and the sharpest criticism, whether it comes from the totalitarian left or from the totalitarian right. For the minister to say today, as ministers have said in the past, that all the R.C.M.P. is doing is making inquiries is, in my opinion, patently wrong and it ought to be stopped immediately.
I have no confidence in the ability of the R.C.M.P. in this field. I do not think they have the trained people with which to do a job of assessing what are subversive or what are illegal opinions; and I do not think the universities or the schools are the places in which to do this sort of thing. I do not know from personal knowledge of a single professor in a Canadian university who is a communist. But even if it were so, I suggest to the members of this House of Commons and to the public that if one communist professor, two communist professors or five communist professors from one end of Canada to the other were a threat to democracy, then the democratic system in which we believe is indeed on shaky foundations.
I believe in democracy. I believe that democracy can stand up to any competing ideology without the use of the police. When we permit the R.C.M.P. to continue the kind of activities which they have been carrying on for the past 30 years or more-and in

Interim Supply
fact it seems to me that they are intensifying these activities-I believe that what we are doing in our desire to avoid the police state or the totalitarian state is in fact succumbing to that police state. It is my opinion that unless we stop it, in our desire to oppose communism we shall adopt the very procedures and the very methods which the communists have made so well known across the world. Speaking for myself, and I think for all other members of this group and indeed for every liberally minded, progressive and free thinking citizen of Canada, may I say that this procedure is not necessary and is not desirable, and that whatever has been done in the past ought to be stopped now.
I wish to conclude my remarks by quoting from a famous decision given by Mr. Justice Black of the United States supreme court. In dealing with precisely this kind of question he states that it is imperative to preserve-
-the interest of the people as a whole in being able to join organizations, advocate causes and make political "mistakes" without later being subjected to governmental penalties for having dared to think for themselves. It is this right, the right to err politically, which keeps us strong as a nation. For no number of laws against communism can have as much effect as the personal conviction which comes from having heard its arguments and rejected them, or from having once accepted its tenets and later recognized their worthlessness. Instead, the obloquy which results from investigations such as this not only stifles "mistakes" but prevents all but the most courageous from hazarding any views which might at some later time become disfavoured. This result, whose importance cannot be overestimated, is doubly crucial when it affects the universities on which we must largely rely for the experimentation and development of new ideas essential to our country's welfare.
I commend that quotation to the Minister of Justice for study and thought.


Rémi Paul: Order. Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was agreement that it would be done at one o'clock and it is not yet one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Rémi Paul: I recognize the hon. member for Verdun.


Mr. Mackasey:: Before commencing my speech, Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the hon. member who spoke last. I should like first of all to congratulate him on his remarks and to state that I agree fully with his principle. However, I should like to ask him whether or not he feels it is rather dangerous to allow one or five communist professors to have freedom to preach this kind of propaganda to those whose minds, on his own argument, are not yet formed.
[Mr. Orlikow.l


David Orlikow: I would say this, Mr. Chairman. One cannot eliminate dangerous ideas by driving them underground. In my opinion in Canada at the present time it would be worse to drive communist opinions underground than to permit them the freest expression, which can then be answered and exposed for the fallacies which they are.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might now call it one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Verdun has the floor.


Henry Frank Jones: I am quite prepared to begin my speech now if that is what the committee would rather have.


Rémi Paul: I was under the impression that the hon. member for Verdun had concluded his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Ricard:: He asked a question and then sat down.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I prefaced my remarks by requesting permission to ask the hon. member who preceded me a question, which the hon. gentleman was gracious enough to answer. I fully appreciate his courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, it is almost three months ago since I and so many other new members entered this house of parliament for the first time. However, I had a little experience in the realm of civic politics; hence I came here with a preconceived idea of the problems which a government must face and which sometimes impede the rapid progress of legislation.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member has half a minute to go.


Mr. Boulanger:: Very well.


Rémi Paul: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house or later today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Peters:: One o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Trade and Commerce wishes to revert to motions. Will the house give unanimous consent to reverting to motions?


William Arnold Peters: One o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, conversations were held yesterday and today with a United States delegation concerning trade in oil and petroleum products between Canada and the United States. The United States delegation was led by His Excellency Walton Butter-worth, the ambassador of the United States, and included Assistant Secretary Griffith Johnson of the United States department of state and Mr. John Kelly, assistant secretary of the department of the interior. The discussions were useful and informative and provided an opportunity for the United States representatives to explain the President's recent proclamation concerning the mandatory control system for importations of oil into the United States, and the amendments which have been introduced into this system.
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. The continuing importance to the security of the two countries of the availability of continental supplies was recognized. The two delegations discussed estimated trade in oil and oil products in the first six months of 1963. It was agreed that a further meeting would be held to review the situation and to discuss the future growth of trade in the light of the mutual interests of the two countries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To be continued.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The house will now revert to the business that was interrupted by the reversion to motions for the purpose of permitting the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make his announcement.

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



[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $330,089,511.93 being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except atomic energy item 5, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation item 5, finance items 45 and 50, forestry item 11, labour item 40, legislation items 30 and 35, mines and technical surveys items
Interim Supply
30, 35, 40, 70, 80, 125 and 130, national defence item 70, national health and welfare item 25, northern affairs and national resources items 10, 45 and 90, public works items 5, 45, 70, 100, 105, 125, 145, 168 170, 180, 190 and 200, Royal Canadian Mounted Police items 5, 15 and 25, transport items 35, 40, 60, 80, 85, 100, 125, 222 and 225 loans investments and advances item L20 $292,175,958;
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of defence production item 25, external affairs item 5, northern affairs and national resources item 105, of the said revised estimates, $1,842,041.67;
(c)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(A)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, except external affairs item 112a, transport items 213a and 222a, $8,738,178.92;
(d)	ten twelths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates
(B)	for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1963, $27,333,333.34,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1963.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
["Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired."]
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, almost three months have passed since I, like many new members, first took my seat in this parliament. Like most new members, I approached my new role with a preconceived idea of what parliament was all about. I had based this conception of parliament possibly on the many years I have spent in civic administration. I resolved to approach my duties without a very rigid party outlook on the affairs of parliament and a willingness to admit some merit in the present government. I came here, for instance, with sincere admiration for the performance of the previous minister of justice in so far as his efforts in the area of penal reform were concerned. I came here in appreciation of the winter works program which the Tory government had instituted, because the city of Verdun has taken full advantage of this program. I can realize how many other communities across the country have found it to their advantage.
I came here also, Mr. Chairman, fully aware of the problems that face this great country of ours. Like many Canadians not too well versed in financial problems I realized the pegging of the dollar indicated something drastically wrong with the economy of the country. I realized the necessity for the introduction of the austerity program. I realized, too, that the last few years of the history of this world have been very momentous ones, a period when flying around the world has become commonplace. I thought possibly this Tory government could be partly excused if they had not had an opportunity of adjusting

Interim Supply
to the times. I was even willing to realize that by the fortunes of war this government had been given a second chance to rectify its errors by introducing some of the plans that were so badly needed to get Canada's economy rolling again.
Almost three months have passed, Mr. Chairman, and those three months have convinced me that this government cannot or will not face reality; it will not provide the leadership and the legislation that this country needs. The lackadaisical, almost callous manner with which interim supply is treated makes a mockery of the fundamental rights of parliament. This is the tenth request for interim supply and it indicates the reluctance of this government to bring to the attention of the house the specific reasons for which this money is needed. In the three months that we have sat here, only the estimates of the Department of Agriculture have been discussed in any detail. Once again we are being asked to grant this government vast sums of money without being accorded the opportunity of protecting the interests of the people of Canada.
There may be a precedent for such a procedure, Mr. Chairman but I, for one, being used to the businesslike administration of civic affairs, cannot comprehend how a government can come back month after month and ask for money without indicating to parliament how this money is to be spent.


Mr. Nasserden:: I wonder if the hon. member would tell us from what document he is reading?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I did not hear the hon. member for Rosthern on his point of order.


Edward Nasserden: I wonder if the hon. member would tell us what document he is reading from?


Mr. Habel:: His own notes. He has not got to write his speech like you do.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: From notes I prepared; and I would say without any question, regarding the precedent established by the hon. member a few weeks ago when he spoke on the farm bill, that at least I think I read them well, which is more than I can say for him.
I can only say that the government must feel the average Canadian is not aware of the implications of interim supply, or does not care. So long as the government continues to ignore the fundamental rights of parliament the role of a useful minority cannot be exercised and, Mr. Chairman, since we are talking about reading I am one who has taken the Speaker's advice and read Beauchesne. It contains one paragraph which is of particular interest to me, a quotation from a speech made by Edmund Burke in
[Mr. Mackasey. J
1784 in which he emphasized that the role of a parliamentarian should not be limited to his interest in his own constituency but that he should be interested in all the affairs of his country.
In the light of that I would like to say a few words on the Columbia power treaty. For many years parliamentarians and leaders in civic life have viewed with alarm the constant encroachment of American culture into our periodicals, radio, television and private industry. Our newspapers and parliamentarians have cried out for a cessation of this trend and for a cessation to the constant outflow of Canadian profits into American industry; yet the government refuses to debate what is possibly the largest sellout of our natural resources in the history of our young nation.
I am the first to admit I know very little about the Columbia treaty, but many years ago I learned that the difference between a wise man and a fool is that the wise man knows how little he really knows. So long as there are great Canadians like General McNaughton who express misgivings and opinions that this treaty is not in the best interests of Canada, I feel parliament is duty bound to discuss the matter at the first opportunity, if only to convince the people of Canada that it is a good treaty. Certainly I cannot understand the reluctance of the government to discuss fully the merits of the treaty, if it is indeed good for the country; and in reviewing it we ought to bring to the attention of the house the fact that the day has long passed when we should sell our birthright and the birthright of future generations for immediate gain.
As a newcomer, I think our most productive hour of the day is that devoted to private members business. I believe that hour sifts out the interested parliamentarians from those who, just ten minutes ago, tried to mock my remarks. I wish to transcend political boundaries to pay tribute to hon. members in the corner, in the new party, who have introduced much useful legislation during that hour, and which the Conservatives find to their advantage constantly to talk out.
If I felt free to speak about the Columbia treaty I feel a little freer to speak about the Atlantic provinces. Although I do not live there I am happy to say my parents were born in the city of Halifax, and I am fully convinced that Canada cannot be prosperous as a nation as long as one segment of the country is not prosperous. The day has gone when there can be two standards of prosperity in Canada whether in the economic field or in the field of opportunities, and whether these opportunities lie in the crown corporations or in federal departments.

One of the items in the speech from the throne, which I regarded as a definite indication the government intended doing something about our economy, was the reference to the establishment of the Atlantic provinces board. Later however I was shocked to realize how little the government understands about the problems of Canada. Here was a golden opportunity; but instead of providing this board with adequate powers to implement projects, instead of establishing a board with money at its disposal-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. The hon. member for Verdun is getting into a subject matter that has already been disposed of by the house, so anything he says in that connection is out of order.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Then, Mr. Chairman, I might deal with another board that has not been passed by the house, although the time has long gone by when it should have been. I am referring to the centennial board, to which the leader of the government said he might eventually appoint a chairman. While we may all differ in our interpretations of planning, we all realize planning is necessary in some form or another, and I had hoped that the government's plans for celebrating Canada's centennial would be further advanced than they are. I refer particularly to the centennial board. This legislation was passed in 1960 but as yet the chairman and the commissioners haws not been appointed.
If this board is to fulfil its designated role it must get about its business. We must remember that this board with the proper personnel on it, with the proper outlook and with the full co-operation of the house, can play a very useful part in the economic recovery of the country. It is to distribute almost $20 million all across Canada on projects such as parks, concert halls, civic auditoriums, libraries and so forth, projects which will do a lot to stimulate the economy of the country. However, local civic administrations must be made aware at the earliest possible moment of the projects which are suitable. They must be given time to promote them in order to get the approval of the board. They must be given time to draw plans and implement them if the projects are to be completed by 1967. Therefore I would urge the government to give priority to establishing this board in the manner in which the legislation was designed.
Earlier I said I approved of the winter works program as a means to combat unemployment. Representing, as I do, a community that has taken full advantage of such legislation I take this occasion once again to congratulate the government on its original 27507-3-170
Interim Supply
implementation of that legislation, but I feel the time has come for the government to up date it. Under present circumstances it would not require much of a mathematician to realize that the government is diverting money from the unemployment insurance fund to the winter works program, but I feel the time has come when the government must assume some of the cost of capital equipment and some of the cost of materials that go into capital projects which it tries to encourage during the winter months.
Another field in which the government has failed so far this session to introduce legislation is that dealing with the building of houses for our senior citizens. We are woefully behind most countries in this regard, and with the continuing increase in the life span of the average Canadian, plus the constant pressure to reduce retirement age, we are gradually building up a problem that can only get worse until it becomes, if it has not already done so, a major problem which the government must face. Our senior citizens are growing in numbers, and I might add that their patience is astounding.
The day has gone when this or any other government could salve its conscience towards the aged by increasing old age pensions, and then forgetting about them until inflation once again rendered their plight desperate. I would suggest to the government that possibly our capital works program designed for the centennial celebrations in 1967 could take into consideration a richer and more rewarding form of housing for our senior citizens, carried out in close co-operation at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.
The other night during the private members' hour I heard a very enlightening discussion on the question of portable pensions. The reason I have found this hour probably the most satisfying occasion in the house is because this is when members are prone to forget their party differences and get down to the business in hand. The hon. member for Welland had introduced a private member's resolution, and once again I would say that members of the new party contributed greatly to some of the discussions that took place. However, I was very disappointed that the speaker representing the government stated that nothing could be done in this field until the unanimous consent of the provincial governments could be obtained. As a newcomer to the house I would be more prone to follow the Leader of the Opposition who in his remarks stated, referring to portable pensions-and I quote from Hansard of October 1 at page 73:
There is something in the speech from the throne on it and as could be expected, there is reference

Interim Supply
to discussing it at a provincial conference. The government says it will talk about it with the provinces before discharging its responsibility as a federal government. But a pension plan, as such, does not require any further constitutional amendment. It can be drafted by this parliament if any government would take the responsibility for doing it.
The Leader of the Opposition did qualify that by saying:
There is doubt, of course, about widows and orphans benefits but that need not hold up the main plan if the government had one.
I am inclined to think the only impediment is that the government does not have one.
As a new member of this house I am appalled at the way in which the rights of this house are shoved aside with apparent disdain when it suits political expediency. I am referring to the fact that at this moment we are asked to provide interim supply without there being any indication of when, if ever, we shall be provided with an opportunity of discussing the full budget-an opportunity of examining the sources of revenue, the proposed objects of expenditure, and so on. Certainly, in business both big and small everyone must periodically give an account of their financial position. Certainly, small business men render accounts periodically to government agencies which have been set up to receive them. Why is the government shirking it responsibility? Our government has a responsibility in this regard. How long is it going to shirk this responsibility and make a mockery of parliament? How much longer can this government expect to borrow and spend money without rendering an account to the Canadian people?
In closing I feel that this great nation will yet reach the heights predicted for it by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for underlying the fumbling and inefficiency of the present government are the Canadian people who have the power to remedy the situation. This government has made a serious mistake in not taking full advantage of its second chance to rectify its errors, and I am sure the Canadian people will do it for them.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Would the hon. member for Verdun, who has just spoken, permit a question? The hon. member in his remarks was criticizing the government for not bringing forward the estimates of more departments for discussion. I ask him this question: is it not his own party which has taken the lead in this house in requesting that legislation should be put on the books before time is spent in discussing the estimates?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is a fair question which deserves a fair answer. I would imagine that in the long interval between June 
and September 26, when the government insisted that this parliament should do nothing for almost three months, a great deal could have been accomplished. Had parliament convened, as we had asked, in the month of August, the affairs of the government would be much further advanced.
(Translation):


Mr. Marcoux:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.
May I submit to the attention of the Chair, in all due respect, that none of our members has spoken since last night.
(Text):


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Chairman, in what I am about to say I am not referring to the remarks which have just been spoken by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, because I think the Social Credit party together with the Conservative party have taken very little time in the debate on this supply motion. I think we should try to advance the progress of the work before the house and get the legislation passed.
When I heard the silly and irresponsible speech just made by the hon. member for Verdun, calling for this house to discuss simultaneously legislation, interim supply, estimates and the whole works, complaining with all the words at his command that one thing or the other had not been brought down, it was obvious what an exaggerated speech it was. I think the members of this house must get to the point of using some sort of language which would relate to the language of Her Majesty the Queen, either in English or French. We have got so far from the real meaning of words that one cannot decide, on listening to a speech and trying to interpret it according to the ordinary use of the language, what a person means. We have heard the speech by the hon. member for Verdun. He was the one who was talking about the pegging of the dollar as indicating something drastically wrong with this country. This is one example of the sort of nonsense that has been coming from the Liberal party for months now.
Mr. Chairman, I want to deal first of all with what has been laid before the House of Commons. In the 53 days up to December 11, ten days have been spent in this house on the speech from the throne, 26 days on legislation, two days on supply motions, nine days on ways and means, two days on interim supply and three days on estimates. Every item of legislation that could be brought before the house to give the house an opportunity to consider it has been brought forward consistent with giving it the attention it deserved. Mr. Chairman, 26 items of legislation have been placed

before the house for its consideration, in addition to the various supply motions, the speech from the throne, the ways and means motions and the estimates.
To talk, as the hon. member for Verdun has talked, about there being some sort of lack of action on the part of the government just defies understanding in the English language. It is the sort of talk people from other parts of the world are inclined to use when they say black is white, red is blue, and so on. It seems to me that in this House of Commons we have to get down to using the English language as it is spoken in this country, otherwise the people simply will not pay any attention to any of the politicians here. I have heard over and over again the dreary and trumped up charges that characterize the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, epitomized by the unreality which has been the hallmark of all Liberal discussions on the question of national affairs during these last eight months, this complete unreality in debate, unrealistic forays introduced into the discussions of our national affairs. This has resulted, I submit, in a breakdown of communication between parliament and the people, which is a very serious matter. Charges are made which are unrelated to actual conditions, opinions are expressed that are of a most exaggerated and wild nature. Inflamed and irresponsible utterances are made by the hon. member from Russell, for example. All this is leading us further and further from communication with the Canadian people. We must get back to this. Mr. Chairman, I will give the committee some examples, if hon. members wish.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, let us get back to the people.


Henry Frank Jones: I will give you an example right now. I just heard the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate interjecting in this debate. He has been the leader in one of the most distorted presentations of facts to the Canadian people that this country has ever known. All through the election campaign, and ever since, we have been told by him and other members of the Liberal party that this country was going to wrack and ruin.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, by any statistical records this has been the best year that Canada has ever had, and 1963 will be an even better one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Does the hon. gentleman say this has been the best year for the Canadian dollar that Canada has ever had?
27507-3-1701
Interim Supply


Henry Frank Jones: Certainly this has been the best year for the Canadian exporters that they have ever had for the last 12 years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said, the Canadian dollar.


Henry Frank Jones: I will deal with that point before I get through my remarks today, perhaps.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member suggest that this has been the best year for the unemployed that Canada has had?


Henry Frank Jones: I will be dealing with the question of unemployment and the great strides that have been taken by the Minister of Labour to improve the situation in that regard, strides that were ridiculed by the members of the Liberal party, strides that they said would be ineffective. I will be dealing with that in the course of my remarks. Be patient, my friends.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the committee a little story that I heard the other day about conditions down in the Spanish main in the days of the sailing ships. In those days there were pirates who used to place on the shoals and rocks around Cuba false lights and beacons to lure the ships that were passing by into those shoals and rocks near the shore. Those people used to be called moon cussers because they used to cuss the moon when it was out; it would shine on the lights and show them up, and the ships would not be lured on to the rocks. These people in the Liberal party have caused a new phrase to be invented. They are the boom cussers; they cuss when we have a boom. This has been going on in our country with growing intensiveness for the last eight months. Boom cussers Martin, Pearson and Pickersgill-the greatest collection of boom cussers we have seen in our nation's history.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. gentleman who wrote the script?


Henry Frank Jones: I will tell the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that if he would like to come over and sit in this seat beside me he will see the extent of my notes-and they are all mine, my friend. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate used to be called the surreptitious milk drinker, because when he worked for Mackenzie King he did not even dare take a drink of milk unless he took it surreptitiously. He even admitted this in the book that he wrote about Mackenzie King. I can imagine the fear and trepidation that was his. I hope he is in a better state of nerves now. Down in the maritimes you do not have to go very far; you just have to mention his name and they say, "Is that the surreptitious milk drinker from Bonavista-Twillingate that you are talking about?"

Interim Supply
Mr. Chairman, I would like to give a few other examples of the wild and exaggerated talk that has been going on in this house, unrelated to actual facts. When the leader of the New Democratic party was making a speech the other day he was talking about the great need for a housing program. Somebody mentioned to him that $1 billion of federal money had been put into a housing program. He then decided it was about time he switched his tactics, so he said, "Well, not a general housing program but a housing program for the aged". The hon. member for Verdun mentioned housing for the aged a moment ago. Mr. Chairman, at the present time there is going on the greatest expansion of housing for the aged in this country's history. It is going on all across this great country. In Saskatoon there are several houses going up-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Henry Frank Jones: -under C.M.H.C. plans. These are houses for the old folks, and this program is placing them in a position where they can obtain accommodation at reasonable rates and conditions which they have never had before. Then there is another situation. The leader of the New Democratic party was also discussing the question of technical and vocational training a few days ago. Mr. Chairman, have you ever seen greater advances made by any country in this free world of ours than those made by this government to promote and advance technical and vocational training? I can tell the committee that there is not in any country of the free world a program to equal the present program of this government in the field of technical and vocational training, regardless of the size of the country. I will give the committee some figures on this so hon. members may appreciate the tremendous effort that is being made in this regard. The figures as at November 14 indicate that approvals of capital projects in the technical and vocational training program amount to $442,326,268, of which the federal share, a 75 per cent contribution, is no less than $284,680,549-$284 million spent in building technical and vocational training schools in this country.


Edward Nasserden: And that isn't peanuts.


Henry Frank Jones: And that isn't peanuts, as my hon. friend from Rosthern says. We only have to look at the use that is made of some of these tremendous projects. Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn to the record in Ontario to see what use Ontario is making of this great scheme. What use did Ontario make of this great scheme? I noticed that one of the hon. members who spoke earlier was jeering at the Ontario government. He asked what use the Ontario government is making TMr. Jones.]
of this federal government scheme. May I say that, as of November 14, they are taking no less than $186,654,000 worth of federal money to help construct technical and vocational training schools. This scheme is open to any province. Any province can put forward to the federal government a scheme for approval by the Minister of Labour. The size of the contribution of the federal government to any particular province does not depend on the federal government but rather on the province. If the province asks for these schools, they will get them. The federal government is contributing $186 million worth of technical training schools in Ontario alone. That is just the federal government's share. It represents a tremendous advancement in technical schools.
I should like to give some of the figures with regard to the situation just in the Toronto region alone. In Toronto the total estimated cost of the approved plan for the technical and vocational training capital projects is $30,239,806, of which the federal government's share is $21,161,417. In this technical training school program Toronto alone is getting more from the federal government than is any other individual province in Canada.
I think one of the arguments that has been put forward in the course of this debate and in past times is that this government plans its projects in some bits and pieces manner. What a false charge that is. One thinks of the situation in Toronto. One thinks of how we have been building in Toronto a great marshalling yard so that the manufacturers and labourers in Toronto can get their produce out of that area and into the world markets and into the markets of Canada and the United States. One thinks of that $143 million marshalling yard. They are getting a $40 million or $50 million airport in Malton at the edge of Toronto, and this $21 million technical and vocational training school project. All these things are working together to increase the productivity of that area.
It is a great and co-ordinated project, particularly when you consider the actions which have been taken in bringing down the value of the Canadian dollar in order to give our exporters an advantage in world markets so that exporters not only in Toronto but in all parts of the country, and particularly in the agricultural and primary producing areas, have a good chance to get their exports into the world markets on favourable terms. This is a great and co-ordinated plan, a great and co-ordinated project, and it deserves commendation.
Certainly it may be the fact that not too many Conservative members were elected

from Toronto, but that is not the fault of those three cabinet ministers and the other members who represented Toronto previously, as they certainly worked in the best interests of their area and of Canada in promoting these great schemes.
These technical and vocational training school projects which I just mentioned are ones that deserve the special commendation of all people in this country, no matter from what part of the house they may come. I would ask for special support for this project. If we can induce the people of this country to make the proper use of these schools in order to get the training they need, so as to upgrade Canadian skills and Canadian abilities to the end that Canadians can compete in the matter of skills with the other nations of the world, then we shall be doing a great service to the people of Canada. This is a matter which should be beyond partisan consideration. It is the greatest project for technical training that has ever been devised in the western world in recent times.
It would seem to me that we hardly need to refer to some of the remarks which have been made in this House of Commons during the course of this debate in order to substantiate further the charge I have made that the speeches in the house are getting so far from English usage that they become almost meaningless. I wish to refer to comment which appeared in an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of December 13, and in which the writer deals with this problem or one aspect of it. The editorial is entitled, "The Tyranny of Words", and it reads in parts as follows:
Somebody some years ago wrote a book on "The Tyranny of Words".
We think of it as we read a charge by the Toronto Star that Senator Wallace McCutcheon, recently appointed by the government to advise on implementation of the Glassco report, has become an "economic czar".
Now a czar, a term applied to Russian emperors, means a Caesar, somebody whose word is law, or who is above the law, responsible only to himself; all-powerful.
Has Senator McCutcheon become that?
The editorial goes on to answer that question, "Hardly"-as, of course, Senator McCutcheon is obliged to submit to the cabinet any proposals he makes. The editorial finishes up in this manner:
Actually, our political vocabularies have become shot through with words and phrases that are utterly meaningless, phrases and terms that represent nothing more than an alien hangover from Europe.
An example is an article in the current print of Maclean's on the Conservative party, telling how the party has a "right," or "left" and "centre". Which is complete nonsense. One might write of a "left" and "right" and "centre" in the politics
Interim Supply
of Italy or France or Germany; applied to the politics of Canada, or to a party in Canada, it is meaningless gibberish.
Then the editorial concludes as follows:
Finding one's way through the jungle of existing Canadian politics is hard enough at best; to further confuse it with a fog of alien terms and phrases sins against clarity-and sometimes against honesty.
That is my plea today, namely that we get back to discussing the affairs of this nation in terms of fact; that we do not characterize boom in this country as doom; that we do not characterize programs for progress as programs of regression; that we do not make such silly statements as the one which was made by the hon. member for Rosedale earlier, namely that the minister of economic affairs in Ontario had taken over the post of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the federal government. Silly and irresponsible remarks of this sort do not do anything to raise the dignity and level of debate in parliament. That is my plea today. During the course of the rest of the life of this parliament I hope that we can get back to discussing our nation's affairs in a manner of which we can be proud and in a way which will make the Canadian people proud of us.
(Translation):


Guy Marcoux: I thank the Liberals who cheered when I rose.
Mr. Chairman, when, a little while ago, I pointed out that the Social Credit members had not spoken since this morning, I did not mean that other hon. members had done so too lengthily. I simply wanted to say that we think ourselves justified in taking part in this discussion, and the speech of the hon. member for Winipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), incites me more and more to do so.
The hon. member held forth on the question of communist indoctrination in Canada. There may be different points of view in this matter, but I think that it is precisely because of the recognition of free speech for all Canadian citizens that he was able to make his statement.
Yet, I think that arguments like those he advanced today can only lead us to that very police state which he fears the present system might bring about in the more or less immediate future. I might, incidentally, bring to his notice that Russia does not have a communist but a socialist government. Russia is, indeed, called "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".
This morning again, I received, as most hon. members did, a letter from the Canadian

Interim Supply
communist party in which the Prime Minister is urged to take an open stand against nuclear weapons. Those people have a perfect right to do so. However I think that they cannot accuse us of suspecting communist infiltration when they themselves say, for instance, that some communist organizations are in favour of nuclear disarmament.
I do not believe anybody could deny those facts, because they are true. That is why, when we speak of communist infiltration, or of subversive ideas, it is most important for us to have an exact definition of the word, so that we may establish what is subversive and what is not.
I would not assert that what the communist party says is subversive, but I think that there is some reason for suspecting the communist party of being subversive. It is simply a question of principle which we think an essential one.
When we ask, for instance, that the national railway company reveal their method of operating their system, we think this is a question of principle. We say that the C.B.C. is a closed corporation, a corporation which does not allow every group to use its facilities in all fairness, and we also mention the national film board, as this board and the C.B.C. are means of information and education. To my mind, it is important to follow a definite policy in order to avoid what the hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned this morning, that is, communist infiltration, because the better we shall know the communists the more able we shall be to contend with them.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to refer to this matter in order to explain what the party of which I am the spokesman means when we demand freedom. As a matter of fact, we shall continue our efforts along this line even though we are called fascists or any other name. We know the names our opponents, particularly the socialists, have been calling us. But it does not deter us in any way.
We believe that it is only fair that all Canadian citizens may enjoy the right to investigate all the crown corporations and the activities of organizations such as the C.B.C. and the national film board, in order to insure freedom of expression for any idea.
As for the freedom that is cherished to such an extent in Russia, it is freedom for a single idea. Besides, as it was sometimes said about the people's democracies, liberty is only a matter of selecting one candidate from one party. Mr. Chairman, that is not the kind of freedom we are asking for, and it is in order to prevent our going in any such direction unknowingly or maybe unwillingly, that

we are requesting freedom of expression for any ideology. As a matter of fact, we do not want us to get into a situation such as exists in socialistic countries.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay longer the passage of this legislation. If I took part in this debate, it was because it somewhat extended beyond the customary scope. As a matter of fact, I decided to make a contribution only after the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. This being said, I now conclude my remarks for today.
(Text):


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I rise in this debate to renew a plea made by the Leader of the Opposition as recently as October 26 for a special committee of the house on defence policy, and reiterated by him on November 7. The background against which this plea is made is, I suggest, a sombre one. Time and again the opposition has sought from the government statements of defence policy. Such requests appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Time and again questions have been asked with respect to specific aspects of our defence efforts and answers have not been provided. The questions have been parried with, I regret, very great persistence. Attempts to secure a general defence debate in the house have likewise been unsuccessful. In such a situation how can the people of Canada find out what the defence policy of Canada is, in so far as the government is responsible for it?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether the hon. member would answer a question. I should like to ask him whether the confusion that exists has been a factor in leading his colleague and defence spokesman for his party to the decision he has made sort of unilaterally and on his own.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the question endeavours to impute motives and ascribe intentions to members of the Liberal party. I win let the statement of the hon. member for Trinity stand on its own feet.
How can the public ascertain what the defence policy of the Canadian government is? There have been scattered statements by high ranking officers who have retired, but unfortunately on a number of occasions these statements have tended to conflict. It is difficult to get a consensus from them. There has also been a series of attempts by ministers of the crown in a vague general way to deliver an assurance not to worry, that everything is all for the best. This, however, fails quite naturally to assuage the worries and perplexities that the present situation inflicts on the public.

The lack not only of a policy but perhaps even of an intention to enunciate a policy is evident from the last white paper issued by the present Minister of National Defence which is dated May 1, 1961, about 18 months ago. Previous white papers on defence had started off as an introductory theme, with a number of paragraphs under the heading "Defence Policy," in which some attempt was made to enunciate a coherent whole and into which the armed forces programs would fit. The present Minister of National Defence has, however, studiously avoided even using the word "policy" in his white paper and has plunged from the first page into an outline of the activities, rather than the ideas, of the various armed forces and the defence research board. I suggest that if the government either is unable or unwilling, but in any event declines to provide leadership to the people of Canada in this important field, it then remains for those of us elsewhere and those other Canadians who can, to ascertain as best they may what the facts are and to attempt to discuss them in an intelligent way. I would suggest to the hon. member who just asked the question, that is precisely what the hon. member for Trinity was endeavouring to do. In the circumstances, he appears to have been better informed than the Minister of National Defence has been willing to admit himself to have been informed, and to have drawn what one can only conclude were logical and serious conclusions from his information.
In a broader field it is agreed, I think, by all in Canada that in defence matters it is impossible for Canada to go it alone. There is universal agreement on the necessity, in our circumstances, to form part of a system of collective security. I do not think there is any dispute, at least I have never heard it seriously argued, that adherence to a system of collective security is anything but necessary for Canada. One of the advantages to be derived from forming part of such a system is that it does provide for each of the members thereof an opportunity to choose and play a role which is appropriate to the circumstances of that member. It would be hoped that in any such system, each of the members would play its fair and appropriate part. Perhaps the only practical way of measuring what should be an appropriate scale of effort is to examine defence budgets expressed in terms of currency, to examine the size of the defence budget.
Our defence budget has remained substantially constant over the past ten years and, for the year 1961, accounted for 5.7 per cent of our national income. Amongst our NATO allies this occupies roughly the middle range
Interim Supply
of scales of effort. It does represent a standing of fourth in the list in respect of the size and scale of our defence effort over the years and appears to have represented a fair share. But it must be recognized that any substantial change in our defence budget, either up or down but more particularly any decrease of significance, would be interpreted by our allies as a significant change in our military and political relationships to them. The defence budget, and in particular its size is significant in our relationship with our allies and a sudden change, except in the event of substantial change in the international climate, would give rise to some further serious questions.
I might try to look briefly at what the threat is to Canada in the present circumstances. This would appear to reside largely in the Soviet union and its satellite countries. The military threat posed by the Soviet union to North America is in the form of both nuclear and conventional forces. The conventional forces would be, for attacking this continent, so unecomomical and so expensive to put into operation and sustain, that it is unlikely to enter the mind of a strategist that this would be an appropriate choice to make. There does, however, remain the possibility of the employment of nuclear weapons.
The Soviet union is known to possess a number-not very large-of submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons, a number of intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, and a very large number of high speed, long range, high altitude aircraft. I think military experts are in general agreement that the Soviet union now possesses a sufficient volume of these nuclear weapons that, used in combination, it would be possible in spite of any efforts we may make on this continent, to visit on North America a weight of attack which would cause organized society, as we know it, to cease to exist. For technological and financial reasons combined, I suggest that North America cannot provide a scale of defence which can effectively prevent the Soviet union from landing on this country sufficient nuclear weapons to cause virtual annihilation.
Fortunately for us, perhaps, there is in the hands of the United States an arsenal which is capable of doing precisely the same thing to the Soviet union in spite of any effort now or in contemplation by the Soviet union to prevent this. This, then, is described as the nuclear stalemate. However, we in North America have expressed as an article of faith, the conviction that under no circumstances will the western forces, and in particular those in North America, initiate one of these annihilating attacks. In order, then, for us

Interim Supply
to be effective militarily against the Soviet union, it must clearly be possible for us to survive in North America the launching of a massive attack on this country and still be able to reply so as to visit annihilation on the Soviet union.


Mr. Pugh:: From Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I said North America.


Mr. Valade:: I want to know if the hon. member includes Canada.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would hope the hon. member who spoke from his seat would try to be patient for a little while, come out of his parish and look a little farther afield.


Georges-J. Valade: May I ask the hon. member a question for clarification? When he talked about a "parish" does he consider Canada is similar to a parish?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say
that.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Before this outbreak, I suggested we had undertaken and firmly persuaded ourselves that we would never make the first attack. We would, therefore, have to have the capacity, in the event of a massive attack being launched on North America, to reply. This, in current terms, is described as the second strike capability. To do this we must have the means of ensuring that, should there be launched a massive attack on this country, the nuclear riposte of the United States would not be neutralized. If it is apparent to the Soviet union, and clearly apparent, that a massive attack launched on North America will invite a successful massive retaliation on them, it is then reasonable to assume that reasonable men in the Kremlin, not wishing a successful retaliation, will never in the first place launch a massive attack.
Canada does not form part of the retaliatory force. We do, however, have a role in trying to ensure that the retaliatory force, the second strike capability, in fact has a second strike capability; and to examine how we achieve this one has to look briefly at the nuclear forces of the United States. These are composed of Polaris missiles carried in nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles stored for operation in hardened or reinforced concrete covered bases, and a very large force of bomber aircraft under the control of strategic air command.
The nuclear submarines bearing nuclear missiles, by their very nature, by their ability to hide under the oceans, are in themselves their own protection and by themselves can remain invulnerable. The intercontinental ballistic missiles must rely for their invulnerability on the thickness and depth of the

concrete, and on the possible inaccuracies of an attack. They are safe from all except a direct hit. The bomber aircraft of strategic air command are extremely vulnerable to attack when they are on the ground. If, however, they get up into the air they then become invulnerable, so the problem then is to organize ourselves so that in the event of attack warning can be given to these aircraft in sufficient time to allow them to take off, become airborne and consequently be invulnerable. This then in the role or function in which Canada can be of assistance.
Warning of an attack is now provided by means of very powerful, very large radar systems installed in Alaska, Greenland and the United Kingdom which have the ability to detect and record immediately ballistic missiles from the Soviet union very shortly after the moment of launching. If these can be detected at the time of departure an amount of warning can then be transmitted to continental United States which will enable the aircraft of strategic air command to become airborne before the arrival of these missiles, and if the strategic aircraft become airborne before the arrival of missiles, no useful purpose would be served in endeavouring to attack the airfields from which they have taken off.
In so far as attacks by enemy aircraft are concerned there is a system of warning lines of which everyone is well aware, the distant early warning line, the mid-Canada line and the Pine Tree line. These also provide sufficient warning of an attack to enable, in their present state of alert, strategic aircraft to get off the ground before they can be destroyed.
This then is the function that we can and do perform in safeguarding the second strike capability, in making the retaliatory forces of the United States invulnerable to an attack and consequently able to survive an announced massive attack and be able to retaliate after that. The theory is, and I think it is a sound one, that so long as we have second strike capability it would be disastrous and completely unprofitable for an aggressor to visit an attack on North America.
There is, however, one other possibility, and that is a sneak attack on the strategic air command bases. This could be attempted by placing in North American air space a sufficient number of nuclear carrying vehicles to be able simultaneously, and without any warning, to drop their nuclear bombs on the airfields before SAC aircraft could take off. To do this it would be necessary to introduce unbeknownst to us, an estimated 200 aircraft, or perhaps less than 200.

To prevent this is I suggest one of the principal day to day functions of NORAD, and it is achieved in this fashion. The perimeter of North America is divided into a series of sectors or zones called air defence zones. Any aircraft flying into, through or from these zones is required to file a flight plan. The flight plan is fed into a computer in Colorado Springs, and immediately on taking off in flight each of these aircraft is tracked by radar. The report on this tracking is then fed into the computer and when the report and the flight plan match, the aircraft can be assumed to be identified. When they do not match there is a demand on the local authorities to identify the tracked aircraft.
This is done by radio-telephone, by wireless means, or if all else fails by sending up one of the NORAD aircraft to establish contact and make a visual identification. Because this is done 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, it is quite apparent that it is impossible-and I stress impossible-for a number of hostile, clandestine aircraft secretly to get into North American air space within range of these SAC airfields without North American air defence having knowledge of them. So, if it is apparent to a possible aggressor that they cannot proceed to do their jobs in secret, that they must of necessity be discovered before they can achieve their purposes, then there is no sense whatever in attempting an attack in that manner, and the fact of our being able to identify every aircraft flying through the perimeter of North America makes a sneak attack impossible to achieve on a secret basis and consequently not worthwhile attempting.
If such an attempt were made it would of necessity fail, not by reason of the incoming aircraft being destroyed before delivering their bombs, but because of discovery, the target they were seeking on the ground, the SAC aircraft, would have left by the time they arrived.
There is one further aspect of this warning system and that is the possibility of the positioning in North American waters, on the east and west coasts, of nuclear propelled or even conventional submarines with nuclear missiles therein. For warning against this and the detection of such operations we rely mostly on naval craft, sea-going waterborne craft, with very limited means of detection indeed. There is not nearly, in this area, the assurance there is against the possibility of clandestine operations that we have in respect of clandestine operations in the air. This problem of the detection of possibly hostile undersea craft is a serious one and a problem to which we should probably give the highest priority in terms of military and intellectual effort.
Interim Supply
If, then, in respect of the North American defence we have an adequate system of warning and we have the ability to guarantee a retaliatory force with a second strike capability, then there will be little likelihood that short of virtual insanity there will ever be either an attack by surprise or a deliberate attack launched on North America. Essentially the elements in this are a retaliatory force capable of dealing a knockout blow to the Soviet union regardless of any defensive measures which might be taken and the means to render this retaliatory force invulnerable to an attempt to destroy it before it could become operative. This, I suggest, we now have. In this Canada has a role to play and is playing that role.
In Europe the situation is somewhat different. In the fifties the NATO concept was that if one could place along the perimeter of the Soviet a screen sufficient to cause an aggressor to concentrate substantial numbers of forces in order to penetrate it there would be no possibility of a lightning stroke as a result of which the Soviets might overrun western Europe without resistance and, once installed, be difficult to remove. This temptation would be removed by a sufficient depth of screen to compel any break-through to be made on a fairly large scale. With this screen in position it was the declared intention of the United States that serious endeavours to penetrate it would be regarded as deliberate aggression on all the NATO countries and would be replied to immediately by the launching upon the Soviet union of the retaliatory force from the United States.
Latterly, however, it has come to be recognized that this all or nothing philosophy does give rise to serious dangers. There is the ever present danger that the Soviet union might conclude that the United States would be unwilling in the face of a light provocation to launch the one and only reply of a total nuclear attack. This has led to efforts by the United States recently to have established under NATO a force which in itself would be sufficient to accept and deal with serious and heavier forms of aggression. This is the reason for the initiative currently being taken in Paris.


Rémi Paul: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman who has the floor, but it is my duty to inform him that his time has expired.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps the hon. member could be allowed to finish giving the house this useful information. He could do it in

Interim Supply
two speeches, so he might as well do it all at once and preserve the continuity of his ideas.


Rémi Paul: Is it the unanimous wish of the committee that the hon. member be allowed to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am grateful to the committee and particularly to the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam.
I was saying that these considerations led the United States to attempt to increase the size, scope and potential of the military forces in Europe. The new concept provides not only the NATO countries in Europe but the free world in general with a wider range of choice as to responses to be made in the event of aggression in Europe, which may start more likely as a consequence of error or by miscalculation than as a consequence of deliberate intention. In this system of collective security which I have endeavoured to outline, Canada, as I have suggested, can have a choice of roles to play. With the strengthening of NATO forces in Europe there is manifestly required a vast array of military weapons systems and of military roles. We, as a member of this collective security organization, have not only the freedom but we also have the duty to contribute a role or function, or series of functions, appropriate to our situation.
If I have anything useful to say today it is to try to give the committee some suggestions as to what might be the considerations which would affect our choice of role.
First, we should seek military functions which call for highly trained military personnel and require a relatively high degree of technical skill. This is appropriate for the long service, volunteer military personnel we have. It is also appropriate to the product of our defence industry in North America and it is appropriate to the standard of living we enjoy and the standard of the products we make. It is more useful to us and to our allies if advantage is taken of the fact that we in Canada can produce highly trained personnel in both a technical and a military sense who are equipped by reason of a voluntary long term engagement to serve continuously over a period of time. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen now enjoy a reputation of being, if not the best equipped, at least the best trained in the world. I think it is highly desirable that we should see this kind of reputation continued. Second, we should seek a military function which corresponds to an essential-and I emphasize

the word "essential"-military purpose within the alliance. In so far as can be foreseen this military function should be likely to continue to be essential.
There is the danger, as we see it here today, of adopting a function or a role which is non-essential in the general scheme of things and will possibly fall by the wayside. We must adopt a role or a function which is essential for the moment and which also is not going to fade out in a short time. We, for financial and other reasons, cannot afford the luxury of plunging into expensive military training, expensive military organization and hardware for a very short period of time. We have to try and take a long look at the problem and engage in the kind of function which, as I say, is not only essential for the moment but is likely to continue to be essential for some time to come. This does not mean that the weaponry, the hardware which this role or function will require will not change. It must, of necessity. But we want to try and ensure that the role or function of itself is not likely to disappear.
Third, we should seek military functions which are geared more closely to our industrial economy and which, certainly in large part, lend themselves to research activities within our industrial complex. Then perhaps, more than has been the case in the past, this would serve to provide in respect of our scientific community, a counter attraction to the vast attractions of the United States. The number of highly educated scientists we have lost over the past few years has been, to say the least, distressing. It has been very serious indeed for Canada. A military function which is geared to our industrial economy would also serve in some measure to alleviate the serious balance of payments problem we are now facing and which in my view are likely to continue to face for some time to come. No means should be overlooked which would be useful in tackling this major economic problem which we face.
Fourth, we should seek a military function which does not impede or run counter to the possibility of useful diplomatic initiatives which Canada can, and if it can, should, undertake in the world. We have, or had in the past at least, a reputation and an influence in this area which far outweighed the size of our population and the size of our economic efforts. We should under no circumstances allow ourselves to be put in a position where our military functions and roles are such that we are estopped from putting forward in the diplomatic field a constructive, productive effort on behalf of peace.
Fifth-and I think this will be understood and almost goes without saying for all Canadians-such functions and roles should be

adopted not unilaterally by ourselves but in the light of the fullest discussion and agreement with our partners. We must not become isolationist in this field, even in approach; we should not become unilateral. We are members of a coalition; we are members of a partnership and we should behave like partners. We ask for consultation from our other partners. We must and should be equally prepared to provide consultation to them on what we intend to do.
I would suggest that perhaps consideration of the criteria I have suggested, when applied to our apparent dilemma in North America, might shed some light on this problem.
In respect of NORAD we perform two functions. One of them corresponds to all the tests I have outlined and the other does not. The military task of identification and warning which is NORAD's main task does correspond to the criteria I have just outlined. The function of aircraft interception and destruction-more particularly aircraft destruction- with nuclear weapons, does not correspond, and it is because this particular function into which we appear in the past three years to have rather drifted does not correspond, that we are faced with the spectacle-


Mr. Bigg:: That is better than bird watching.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I will address myself to the hon. gentleman in a moment. Because of that we are confronted with the spectacle of two senior cabinet ministers apparently locked in an unresolved dispute, talking with different voices. We see, as a consequence of this, a government which avoids at all costs and on all occasions any discussion of defence issues, other than certain of its backbenchers being bright with slogans such as "bird watchers".


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That is your slogan, not ours.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if this kind of tactic is the government's defence policy we should get rid of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I say that in view of all the evidence that is available-I am prepared to admit that we Canadians outside the government are not in possession of all the facts; indeed, we clearly cannot be, in the light of refusal to give them-Canada is now in the apparent position of dishonouring her international obligations.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, this is a serious condition for any country to find itself in, particularly a country with our glorious past. Even if in the view of a number of critics some of our undertakings may have been inappropriate-and I am one of those who suggest they have been inappropriate-we must either forthwith and now honour these
Interim Supply
undertakings; or if we are not prepared to go through with these undertakings, we must immediately, in the fullest consultation with our partners, initiate alternatives which are satisfactory not only to us but to them.
As the hon. member for Trinity expressed the matter elsewhere: For Canada this is the moment of truth. We must do the right thing and we are lucky that, in choosing the right thing, we still have two alternatives. We are currently doing the wrong thing and, I regret to say, we have been doing so for the past many months. Under these circumstances it is the primary responsibility of the government to take a decision and to stand by it. If they have not the courage to do that, then let them be prepared to tell the public of Canada what the facts of the situation are and to let the public take the decision for them.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Most certainly.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Is the hon. member prepared to say where he stands in respect of our relationship to NATO and NORAD, with respect to a firm committal?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the house has been very tolerant of me in running over my time and I think perhaps the hon. member will not regard me as being too discourteous if I suggest that, rather than asking me to repeat what I have said, he be patient and wait until Hansard comes out. I have been pushed into a little bit more than I would wish of what is jocularly called debate.
I am seriously making a plea for a special committee of the House of Commons on defence policy. I do not think that defence policy in Canada is a subject on which any reasonable man would wish to seek disagreement. I do not think that this is a topic on which any honest Canadian would wish to seek political advantage. By long tradition there is a desirable absence of partisanship in our external non-military policy matters. In recent years military affairs have come to be inextricably mixed up with foreign policy. I suggest that it is time that defence matters were taken out of the realm of partisan politics. It is for this reason that I make an earnest plea to the government to agree to the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition for the setting up of such a committee.
If such a committee is set up I for one- and I think I can speak quite sincerely for the members of the party to which I belong -will not employ such a committee for partisan purposes. We are seeking the truth. We are prepared to do the things which the truth

Interim Supply
requires in this field. If, however, the government will not take action to restore us to the position of honour in the international world to which we aspire and which we deserve, we in the opposition shall obviously be compelled to do what we can to get at the facts.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a question for the hon. member. As we have extended his period of time I am sure the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount will not mind if I ask him a question. In his speech the hon. member said he was in fact suggesting that the NATO forces should be equipped with atomic retaliation weapons. Canada being a member of the NATO countries, I wonder whether he is at the same time suggesting that Canada make an atomic warfare contribution to the NATO forces. Where does he stand as far as Canada's commitment to atomic warfare is concerned? This would require him to say yes or no. Where does he stand? Is he for it or against it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, may I say-


Georges-J. Valade: Answer yes or no.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I decline to answer yes or no. I suggest that it is a little bit unreasonable to expect an answer of yes or no. I listened to a series of questions; and without wishing to be disrespectful to the hon. member may I say to him that the question itself to which he asked for a yes or no answer is somewhat akin to the question "Would you rather be red or dead?" That is not the kind of question that I should like to answer yes or no. In so far as nuclear weapons for NATO are concerned, may I say this. If the NATO alliance adopts the view that nuclear weapons for the alliance are necessary, we as a member of that alliance should go along with that view. We as a member of that alliance should have and employ nuclear weapons under NATO control.
(Translation):


Mr. Beaule:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief for I only have a few remarks to make before we approve the interim supply for the current month.
Ten weeks have already gone by since the beginning of the session and we have had all sorts of discussions. We have heard talks on the speech from the throne and we have also seen the old line parties indulging in petty politics, which is just like them.


An hon. Member:: Which party are you talking about?


Jean Robert Beaulé: The one my hon. friend belongs to.
We have also seen the government propose the establishment of some economic boards,

as well as the setting up of an economic development board for the Atlantic area, etc.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we should have first carried out the recommendations of the boards which have been already set up by the Conservative government. These boards are established, they conduct an investigation and then their recommendations are put in some bottom drawer to gather dust. Later on, we are asked in this house to set up more advisory boards which, I believe, shall meet the same fate.
We expected the government to put forward legislative measures likely to solve the serious economic problems of today.
We expected the government to come forward with a great program of public works so as to cope with the present unemployment.
We also expected that the government would bring forward an amendment to the Income Tax Act, and that it would have, above all, increased the basic exemption for Canadians, especially for workers who have been claiming, these last years, an increase in the basic exemption from income tax, that is already too heavy for them to carry. We also thought that the government would amend the Family Allowances Act by bringing under its scope the students from 16 to 20 years and by increasing these allowances to keep up with the increase in the cost of living.
We had thought also that the government would increase the old age security pensions to meet the cost of living and grant them to people 65 and over.
But we have found the government very slow in legislating in those fields.
We had also thought that we could resume the debate on the bill respecting the creation of an advisory council on manpower adjustment, but I doubt very much that we can do it before the Christmas recess. There again, we are dealing with a consultative service.
I am of the opinion that the first step the government should take to stem unemployment is to create new jobs.
Mr. Chairman, we are in favour of the establishment of consultative services, but we are of the opinion that, first and foremost, it is up to the government to create new jobs throughout the country in order to alleviate the present unemployment situation.
Mr. Chairman, all this seems to be impossible for some political parties at the present time. Indeed, some are inclined to believe that setting up a municipal development bank the purpose of which would be to

grant interest-free loans to municipalities wishing to carry out extensive public works programs, would be an illogical step.
It was also suggested to have the Bank of Canada finance the work undertaken by municipalities, and there again we are told that that is impossible.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, allow me to quote from Einstein's book. This scientist is considered as the greatest mathematician in the world and his teachings are accepted by all economists.
I quote excerpts from the book entitled "How I see the world" by Einstein, which was edited by "Les Editions Flammarion". Einstein said:
Production and purchasing power.
The gold standard has, in my opinion, one great shortcoming: when there is a tightening up of this metal supply, it automatically entails a contraction of credit and of legal tender in circulation. Price and salary cannot adjust quite fast enough to such contractions.
The natural means to overcome those drawbacks are in my opinion the following:
I am still quoting Einstein:
The legal and gradual decrease, along trade lines of working hours in order to suppress unemployment, together with the fixing of a minimum salary, to control the purchasing power of the masses, in accordance with the available production of goods:
Control of the money supply and the volume of credit in circulation while maintaining a constant average price of goods, together with the elimination of any legal cover.
And it continues:
The main virus of the system as I see it is the almost unlimited freedom on the labour market, together with the extraordinary means of production. To produce the current requirements one is far from making use of the full available labour force. Therefore, there is unemployment and unhealthy competition among workers and both cause a reduction of the purchasing power and an unacceptable strangulation of all the economic blood stream.
I am obviously aware that the economists partial to freedom claim that any reduction of the labour force is compensated by an increase of the requirements. But, first of all, I must say that I do not believe that, and that even if such an assertion were true, those factors would always point out to the fact that a great number of men would be abnormally restricted in their standard of living.
I also agree with you that we must be very careful to see to it that the youth are compelled to contribute to the production activity. I also believe that older workers should be excluded from certain occupations (that I would call unskilled occupations).
But as a compensation they should receive a pension since they previously contributed for quite a period a productive labour which is acknowledged by society.
I am also of the opinion that we must prevent fluctuations in the exchange rates of our currency and that we should accomplish this by replacing the gold standard by a standard based on determined quantities of goods-
Interim Supply


Rémi Paul: Order. I regret to point out to the hon. member that he may criticize the present government but that unfortunately this is not the time to extoll a political philosophy. I have not the least doubt that the hon. member might be trying to put forward his political philosophy, but he should always do it in the light of the criticisms that he intends to level against the present administration without expressing in a purely theoretical way his political ideas.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, I was just coming to that. I only wanted to state certain facts for the benefit of those who say that the Social Credit philosophy is a utopia. I wanted to refer you to Einstein. Einstein was not a utopian. He wrote this book himself and I suggest that those who are anxious to get information on the subject should buy this book and peruse it.


An hon. Member:: You are advertising.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Einstein's reputation does not need advertising.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have to face serious economic problems. As I said a little while ago the government has been too slow in trying to solve the unemployment problem, this crucial problem which is hanging over us today.
I would have expected the Minister of Labour, with the support of the government, to bring forward a program that could alleviate the hardship of our people.
As the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) said yesterday, we will therefore almost have to deliver an ultimatum to the government. So, if the government does not come forward next month with concrete measures, with a positive policy, a policy for the distribution of our production in Canada, we shall have to refuse passing the budget estimates and to take our responsibilities. Then, the Canadian people will know that we have no longer confidence in the government which they elected on June 18, and they will be able to make a decision.
Make no mistake about it, if the next budget does not bring forward the measures we are asking, we shall have to refuse voting the estimates.


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Chairman, after three months of session and as we are getting near the Christmas adjournment, I thought I would take a few minutes to set out the policy which the Conservative government has followed since it came into power and to try and assess what it is doing at present.

Interim Supply
It is impossible for me to deal with all subjects and examine them fully. But I shall try to express the views of the people in general about the Conservative team and its administrative incompetence.
It is common knowledge, Mr. Chairman, that judgment was passed a long time ago, that is on June 18 last, and that since then, the Conservatives have been enjoying a suspended sentence which will be passed at the next election, the one that will be induced by my colleague.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is quite aware of it, and that is why he is putting off going to the country, preferring instead to act in complicity, now with the Social Credit party mostly, now with the New Democratic party.
It is shameful all the same, Mr. Chairman, to act in collusion with a political party which merely wants to lead our country to ruin, without having the courage to enlighten the people adequately on its funny money policy, its system of dividends for everyone, as long as the money printing machine can go on working. The stories about the monkey in the banana tree, the worm in the apple and the rabbit running in the hollow tree trunk raised a good laugh. It was funny to hear about the stomach of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), whose head should roll for the sake of better planning as far as the leader of the New Democratic party, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is concerned.
Believe me, I would not object to that head rolling, especially because of the inconsiderate statements made occasionally by the hon. member for Port Arthur about French Canadians.
Do you think those people are serious? Is the Prime Minister himself serious? The Canadian people are surely not being fooled. The Social Crediters must hide their real selves under the cloak of nationalism in order to secure the acceptance of a small group of people, who soon realized the mistake they had made on June 18, while the government seems to be living behind a smoke screen, that colossal hoax which is the preamble to the coming disappearance of the Conservative party, which will never succeed in administering our country properly with its day-to-day policy and its lack of foresight.
I would never pretend that this government has done nothing for the past five years. It has established its own records and when I say records I mean record deficits, record
[Mr. Laniel.l
unemployment, record policy reversals, record devaluation, record tax surcharges, record tight money, etc.


An hon. Member:: Of what government are you talking, please?


Rémi Paul: Order. I should like to point out that the hon. member who has the floor should not be subject to interjections and that he is entitled to make known his views about the present administration.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I thought that the hon. member was referring to the provincial administration of Mr. Lesage.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I declare this question irrelevant to the debate.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, I could say by the way to the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) that Mr. Lesage has proven himself at the last provincial election.
However it must be admitted that the Conservative government has nevertheless succeeded in doing certain things; it has improved certain pieces of legislation, especially social security legislation and legislation relating to short term projects. It had much trouble in solving major problems; its economic policy was never clear. Today it betrays its action in the Coyne affair, which was for the Conservatives a personality conflict and a stubbornness in not admitting their bad administration. The government has always tried to avoid its responsibilities; it laughs at the Liberals' economic planning, when the only alternative it has to offer is the appointment of commissions-another of its records.
Mr. Chairman, it seems they are afraid of keeping up with the times; they fear evolution and change; in fact they are more and more conservative. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) went to London; he lamented and his general attitude was not cheering for the Canadian people, and less so for the English people. Has he thought of the consequences that would result from a rejection of Great Britain's entry into the common market? What benefits would we gain from a weakened Great Britain, isolated from the west European bloc?
What about the statement by the secretary of state for commonwealth relations, published in the Toronto Telegram of September 17, 1962, which reads as follows:
While Australia and New Zealand were practical and helpful in looking for means of improving common market conditions to the commonwealth, Canada was uncompromising.

Great Britain's purpose is quite clear. If she succeeds in associating with Europe, that will only strengthen the free world and help to offset the communist empire.
Why did the government not consider seriously the observations of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who, on February 28, 1961, urged the Prime Minister to face the problem and suggested closer economic ties with the United States and other free nations to provide for negotiations in order to possibly participate in or even take advantage of the experience of the common market.
Mr. Chairman, what do the people think of the austerity program enforced immediately after the last election and which brought about credit restriction and custom surcharges? Obviously, the government said nothing to the Canadian people about the foreign exchange situation during the election campaign. The then minister of finance pretended it was only during the third week of June that the situation took a turn for the worse, while the Prime Minister stated that it is only on June 15, 16 and 17 that losses became larger. Well, according to figures supplied by the government on October 26, losses amounted to $50 million on May 31, June 1 and June 2; a loss of $17.4 million on June 13; a loss of $35.2 million on June 12 and another loss of $17 million on June 14, for a total of $70 million for the three days preceding the T.V. broadcast where the Prime Minister stated that everything was rosy in the country and that the Canadian economy was booming. And to think that later on, it was said that the Liberal party was responsible for that situation and our party was blamed for certain statements made during the election campaign which were said to have been disastrous for the Canadian economy. What a joke.
That is not all, Mr. Chairman. Is it not unthinkable that those surcharges were imposed by order in council without approval by parliament and that they have kept on levying them for almost six months while denying parliament the right to decide whether those additional taxes were justified or not?
It was the Prime Minister's duty to convene parliament as soon as possible, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, in order to inform the house of all the facts instead of playing hide-and-seek even in the speech from the throne.
Not only has the government thus levied taxes by means of import surcharges, but it
Interim Supply
has collected taxes in the most unfair way of all, by means of tariff increases. Such taxes, more than any other, affect the average man, the housekeeper that is, those who are least able to bear the load. This has raised the cost of living to an all-time high. We can but rejoice at the latest alleviations recently announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) and I am convinced that all members of this house await the day when all surcharges will be removed and credit restrictions reduced to a minimum.
I do not want to overlook the recent salary "un-freeze" concerning 60,000 federal civil servants and I express the hope that the government will also consider the situation in which the other government employees, who have not benefited from those increases, find themselves. There again, the government has treated the civil servants unfairly by making them pay a larger share of the austerity program than the other Canadians, through a decision which was certainly not in keeping with the procedure established under the Civil Service Act. We have a government which always does too little too late, a fact that is borne out even by the measures it has introduced in the house since the beginning of this session.
A farm credit bill was put before us. But what will the eastern farmers get out of it? Nothing new, except an increase in the number of loans. Why did the government not think of bringing back up to $3 the subsidy on hogs, which had been reduced to $2 following the restrictive measures imposed by the Conservative government? During the debate on that bill, it was suggested that grain elevators be built along the St. Lawrence river to enable western farmers to sell their feed grain directly to eastern farmers. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not overlook these suggestions.
It is a good thing that the Quebec government is most interested in farm problems because we are too often forgotten when federal legislation is passed. Agriculture is a basic element of our economy and things must be set straight. Our farmers have to be helped and directed by legislation which will deal with the whole agricultural problem. A.R.D.A. has been passed but surprisingly enough no agreement has been made with the provinces even though $50 million have been voted for that purpose. And why this enormous increase in the sale of margarine under a Conservative government, an increase which

Interim Supply
is the cause of a sharp decline in the sale of butter, which works against eastern farmers.


Mr. Vincent:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Gérald Laniel: At the end of my remarks.
Are the farmers happy with the department's latest regulations concerning losses due to animals suffering from brucellosis and tuberculosis? Ask them. This matter, it seems to me, is just as important as crop failures in other parts of the country. New impetus should be given to the measures taken to improve farming and to provide farmers with new sources of income. Support prices for agricultural products should be more effective and farmers should be helped to set up more efficient co-operatives and marketing boards.
Mr. Chairman, the house has passed legislation concerning exports credit insurance but is that sufficient to cope with the problems of our industries, to restore our balance of payments and to eliminate unemployment?
Three years ago, a pharmaceutical firm had to close down its plant in my riding, after having invested thousands of dollars in it. A new plant was established in Japan because our laws did not provide enough protection and left them no other alternative.
Like many other places in the province of Quebec, we have a textile industry whose problems are so serious that recently it had to reduce the hours of work of its employees. The textile industry has been the industrial backbone of many Quebec municipalities but what is being done to protect it against dumping and foreign competition?
The Canadian Garment Manufacturers' Association issued a statement this year to the effect that the importation of Japanese textiles would rob 10,000 Canadians of their jobs. I am not necessarily against Japanese exports to Canada, but I believe there should be a more equitable spread between the various imported products, thus avoiding the ruin of an industry, which, in my opinion, has done a great deal by itself in order to solve its problems and increase its production potential.
Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to suggest to the government an alternative way of fighting unemployment which has plagued the nation since 1958; this would also promote education. I refer to the winter works program which I consider as a short term solution, but of which we must take as

much advantage as we can until we see an improvement in the economic conditions. I consider that the terms of the bill should be widened in order to include school boards thereby endowing this measure with a greater degree of efficiency. However, I wish to point out, since I am dealing with the winter works program, and the Conservative government is happy with this program, that in the province of Quebec, under the leadership of Hon. Jean Lesage our government has placed this act within reach of our municipalities by contributing 40 per cent of the labour costs, thereby increasing the government's share to 90 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to request the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to speed up the action for the choice of a national flag and other national symbols if he does not want this matter on which a great deal has been said in the past few years, to be settled by a Liberal government.
I consider that those symbols are most important for Canadian unity, not only because they will stand as symbols of our national pride but mainly because they are the gateway to a serious study of other more vital problems for the improvement of federalism based on co-operation, and respect for the rights of all.
When our two ethnic groups raise proudly a distinctive emblem and sing heartily the same officially recognized national anthem, I sincerely believe that a closer relationship will broaden the minds of all Canadians in regard to bilingualism, understanding and good relations between the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada.
The Gordon affair is an unfortunate happening, not because of the loud demonstrations or public statements it has brought about, because, personally, I am in favour of them and I think that the claims of the French Canadians are justified, but it is unfortunate because all English Canadians, even Mr. Gordon, do not understand us as they would like us to understand them. It may be due to a small number of people who are disappearing, but they are vocal in too many quarters. We, the representatives of the people, must try to promote in our own riding and our own province the great understanding that should exist A mari usque ad mare.


Mr. Vinceni:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct a question to the hon. member for Beauhar-nois-Salaberry.

He said a while ago that no agreement had been reached by the provinces under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. Can he tell me if the authorities of the province of Quebec signed an agreement with the federal government under that act? If so, why? If not, for what reason?


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, the agreement may have been reached effectively, but a board has not been set up to apply the provisions of the act.


Clément Vincent: What does the hon. member think of the statement made by Mr. Lesage on October 19, 1962?


Rémi Paul: Order. I had recognized the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I only wanted to ask the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry a question.


Mr. Gregoire:: 
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Who?


Gilles Grégoire: -and who can now obtain loans from that very Canada council.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Name them.


Gilles Grégoire: Needless to name them. Let them go to the companies and see for themselves. I do not want to make personal remarks but there are former ministers who established that council and who are now using that money; they have given $100 million to the Canada council from which they borrow at 3.5 per cent interest and lend me money at 32 per cent interest because they are directors of the Industrial Acceptance Corporation.
That is a shame, Mr. Chairman, a shocking state of affairs which requires that the government investigate without delay and find out where the public money is invested.
And at the same time, Mr. Chairman, the present government is borrowing money on the commercial market and issuing bonds at 5.5 or 5 per cent interest whereas its money is being loaned to finance companies at 3.5 per cent.
I shall name other companies, Mr. Chairman. The Industrial Acceptance Corporation has in fact seven different loans for more than $1.5 million. Let us not forget that they lend us that same money at 32 per cent.


An hon. Member:: In what year?


Gilles Grégoire: Miron Limited is another company that got a loan. A director of Miron Limited was formerly a member of the Liberal government and the same man is a director of the Industrial Acceptance Corporation.

Interim Supply
I could point out several other companies whose president or director is the same man and also one of those who established the Canada council.
(Text):


Mr. Scolt:: The hon. member has said that members of the late Liberal cabinet are directors of these companies. So far he has not shown us he is able to give us the names of these people. Can he do so?


Gilles Grégoire: 
Rémi Paul: Order. In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 8 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise and report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. C-23, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act -Mr. Howard.
William Arnold Peters: Stand.


Mr. Churchill:: Stand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Other hon. members have bills, and is there any reason why a public bill should keep its priority when the hon. member is not here to proceed with it?


Mr. Speaker:: At the government's request the bill may stand; that has been the accepted practice. We will call the next item.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-24, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill. It would put into the Senate and House of Commons Act as a new subsection the following words:
No person who is a director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act or under any other public general act of Canada, or incorporated by a local or private act of Canada, shall be eligible to be a member of the Queen's privy council for Canada and a minister of the crown.
When I had the privilege of introducing this bill on October 1 I said by way of explanation that the effect of the bill is to establish by law what is now recognized in practice. As hon. members know, it has long been a subject of concern that two things
Senate and House of Commons Act be maintained, (1) the independence of parliament and (2) the avoidance of conflict of interest. There are a number of provisions in the Senate and House of Commons Act and in other pieces of legislation which aim to secure the independence of parliament and the independence of members of parliament from undue influences. But we also recognize that it is important that so far as cabinet ministers are concerned there be no conflict of interest between their public responsibilities and any private duties or obligations.
During the regimes of the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent there was considerable interest in this subject. It is well known that both of these former prime ministers requested members who joined their cabinets to relinquish directorships of companies in so far as it was possible, but he did not require them to do so. It is a matter of record-this can be found by consulting various sessional papers that were brought down a number of times in response to motions of mine-that most members of the cabinet of the last two prime ministers who had directorships resigned them on becoming members of those cabinets. However, this was not in those days a universal practice. During the last few years of the late Liberal government there was an outstanding case of a minister of that cabinet holding the directorship of a company, and many of us on the floor of the house felt there was a conflict of interest. We endeavoured to persuade the government of that day that that minister should either resign from the cabinet or resign his directorship. We did not win the point at that time, but at any rate the public did come to realize that the point we were making was valid.
I have to say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) seems to have accepted this contention. Naturally, we outside the cabinet do not know all the secrets of what goes on inside the cabinet; we do not even know the secrets involved in getting appointments to the cabinet. But it is our general and public understanding that the present Prime Minister requires of anyone who would become a member of his cabinet that he resign any directorships he has. I understand, for example, that one of the most recent appointees to the cabinet-who does not happen to have a seat in this House of Commons-resigned a long list of such directorships and did so before he became a member of the cabinet. I placed on the order paper not long ago a series of questions similar to questions I put on the order paper in previous years, to which answers were given that make it
2692	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons Act clear that no member of the present cabinet is, or has been since becoming a member of the cabinet, a director of any company as defined in the new subclause which I think should be written into the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to argue for the acceptance of the principle contained in this bill, as I had to do when the Liberal government was in power and had in the cabinet at least one minister who was a director of a company. But it seems to me that now that this has been accepted as a recognized principle of practice we should write it into the law. I suggest that this is in the same category as the requirement that members of parliament shall not hold any office of emolument under the crown, or that members of parliament, whether they are private members or cabinet ministers, shall not be involved in any business relations with the government. As I say, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other requirements of that nature protecting the independence of parliament. I think this same procedure should now be followed with regard to the position of cabinet ministers. As I have already said, I do not have to argue with this present government that cabinet ministers should not be directors; the present Prime Minister has accepted that. But it seems to me we should write into the law what is now practice, and we should make it clear that any future government, no matter what party it might be, will have to continue the practice that is now being followed.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) in the remarks he made just before five o'clock in another debate was seeking to set the stage for the discussion of my bill. At any rate, some of the remarks he made at that time were certainly relevant to my suggestion that it would be a good idea now to make this kind of protection for the future. I am free to admit that, so far as I am concerned this bill of mine does not go far enough. Men can resign from directorships in companies and corporations and still have a fairly strong personal interest in those companies. However, I do not yet know of any way, so long as we have the present kind of economic system, by which we can compel these men to divest themselves completely of their connections, although it is a fact that in the United States the law goes much further than is the case with respect to this bill.
In that connection may I say this. We feel that the affairs of our country should be run by people with the interests of the country at heart, and that this situation will come about only when we have a government made up of people drawn from all walks of


life, particularly with representatives of the working people, the farmers, the consumers and those engaged at the ordinary level in the life of our country. I may say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is why some of us have tried to organize in this country the kind of party of which we in this corner are members and for whose progress we are working for all we are worth. However, under conditions as they are it seems to me that this is perhaps as far as we can ask this house to go. However, we certainly feel that the house should go at least this far.
I therefore have pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this bill the effect of which would be to provide that no directors of Canadian companies shall be eligible as ministers of the crown. In view of the fact that this is the practice now being followed by the government I dare to hope that the government might accept and support this bill.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that anyone in the house would quarrel with the principle which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has sought to clothe with legal words in order to make it effective. However, the point on which I find myself in most agreement with him is when he says he had to admit he had experienced the utmost difficulty in attempting, if I might paraphrase his words, to find a legal bill or a legal vehicle which would carry forward into actual practice the thought which he has expressed. I wish to deal with the bill on a technical basis. I am going to deal with it on broader principle later on.
On the technical wording of the amendment which is proposed by this bill I think prima facie there are certain obvious defects which must appear to those who examine it. It reads as follows:
No person who is a director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act or under any other public general act of Canada, or incorporated by a local or private act of Canada, shall be eligible to be a member of the Queen's privy council for Canada and a minister of the crown.
I refer particularly to these last lines, "to be a member of the Queen's privy council for Canada and a minister of the crown". I am assuming that, in order to be a minister of the crown, you must be a member of the Queen's privy council and that these are interchangeable words. If that is so, while the word "and"-and I hope the hon. member is following me-is usually conjunctive, I wonder if it would have that interpretation here. I suggest that the words "a member of the Queen's privy council" must be regarded as surplusage

unless the word "and" is interpreted to mean "or". I can take no other meaning from it. If this be the case you would then have this situation, and this is the sort of thing which arises when legislation of this kind is drafted to serve a purpose and is subjected to the attacks which most legislation at one time or another is at least considered to be eligible for. You would have a situation where there are, I think, according to the last returns, approximately 86 or 87 members of the Queen's privy council, including those who are ministers of the crown. If this amendment has the meaning I take it to have, or could very easily have, you would then have a situation where those who were at one time ministers of the crown and have ceased to be such, or those who have been appointed for other reasons- and there are some very distinguished names which appear on this list-would come under the sanctions of this particular amendment. For example, I notice the name of a former prime minister, namely Mr. St. Laurent and Hon. Robert Winters who obviously, or at least apparently, are not now interested in the public life of this country. I use the word "apparently" with deliberation.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: Surely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not a fact that each of the gentlemen to whom the hon. member has referred is a member of the Queen's privy council and will be one for the rest of his life, but that he is not both a member of the Queen's privy council and a minister of the crown?


Gerald William Baldwin: As I say, this is begging the question. You go back to what would be considered to be a reasonable interpretation. I submit that it is quite reasonable for the word "and" to be construed as "or" in this particular case. If I am correct in this suggestion, then a member of the Queen's privy council but not a minister of the crown would be subject to the provisions of this bill.
Then there is a restriction, of course, as there necessarily must be, to a company incorporated under the local or private acts of Canada or public general acts of Canada. I do not know whether there could be an evasion. I am considering the matter. Quite possibly there could be an evasion of the spirit of the principle which the hon. member has in mind by being a director of a provincial company, a situation which might still bring up this question of conflict of interest just as frequently and just as substantially as if the minister of the crown were a director of a company incorporated under an act of Canada.
Senate and House of Commons Act This would rule out those who might hold directorships in companies incorporated under an act of Canada and of a charitable or community nature. I am not in a position to indicate whether there are or might be any. However, I think it is quite conceivable that the board wording which the hon. member has seen fit to use here could prevent people of that description from being a minister of the crown.
Before I go on to deal with the larger aspects of the proposition and to give my views as to why I do not think this particular amendment will serve the purpose which the hon. member has in mind, I think I should put on the record the position which has been taken by this government. The hon. member was good enough to refer to it. I think we can go back prior to 1959. In the debates of 1956, as recorded at page 5539, I find there was at that time a debate which took place in connection with the review of the estimates of the Department of Defence Production. The point at issue there was whether or not Mr. Howe, because of his position as an executor of the estate of Sir James Dunn, was in a position where the conflict of interest principle applied. I notice these comments by the Prime Minister on June 29, 1956, as found on page 5539 of Hansard:
I began by a reference that I believe summarizes the general attitude of parliaments in the British tradition to the need for ministers of the crown at all times to act in such a way that their conduct is in keeping with the proprieties of parliamentary traditions, and also in their conduct at all times to appear to keep within the limitations that the traditions of the past have imposed upon all who hold the high and honourable position of minister of the crown.
There then follows a quotation from a statement made by Sir Winston Churchill who at the time he made the statement was prime minister of the United Kingdom.
It is a principle of public life that ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties.
After the government changed in 1957 the principle which had been enunciated was repeated on at least two occasions by the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister. I refer first to Hansard for 1960-61, page 6599, where the Prime Minister said in response to a question:
Mr. Speaker, the first act of the present government when it came into power was to ensure that no minister in the cabinet would hold a portfolio while at the same time having a position as a director of any company, whether public or private. That was to prevent the possibility of there being any connection between the award of contracts and the relationship of a minister to a company which might be in receipt of a contract.
I can only say in answer to the hon. member what I said the other day, that at no time did I ever hear directly or indirectly of anything which

Senate and House of Commons Act would have supported the suggestions that were made the other day during the course of the royal commission hearing. I can only say that we took measures we had advocated through the years, that ministers should not be connected in any way with corporations. That was a course we felt was necessary in order to preserve and maintain the integrity not only of ministers but also of the administration.
As found on page 7037 of Hansard for the same session the Prime Minister again answered a question in these words:
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman answered his own question when he quoted what I said, namely that the ministers were asked to remove themselves as directors of companies. The hon. gentleman realizes that, as an eleemosynary or philanthropic organization, a hospital organization does not come within the category of companies. I am surprised that he is so shocked that the Parliamentary Guide so records the fact after the experience we had through the years of ministers of the crown being directors of companies that were dealing with the previous government.
That was the position being taken before this party formed the government and it was the consistent position adopted afterwards, a position which is not the same, as was mentioned by the Prime Minister, as that taken by the previous government. There is a noticeable distinction, and I find that nowhere is that better expressed than in two statements made by Mr. St. Laurent when as prime minister he was participating in a debate on May 12, 1955, and said, as found at page 3690 of Hansard, in response to a question asked by the present Prime Minister:
That is a matter about which I inquired before I became a member of the government, and I was told there was no rule of law or even traditional practice that required anyone who accepted such responsibilities to sever any previous connections he might have had. I was told that was something for each individual to consider in respect of his own position, and he might feel that it was desirable to sever all connections. In fact I felt that it was desirable to sever all such connections to avoid occasions for the kind of criticism-which I feel is not justified-
He referred to the criticism then being directed against one of the ministers. He later repeated this same comment and went on to say that this was a suggestion which had been made to him by Mr. Mackenzie King. I think there is a plain distinction there. The present Prime Minister has laid it down in the position he takes, which is consistent with that he took before 1957, that ministers of the crown should divest themselves of directorships. The position of the official opposition, as expressed in 1955 when they formed the government, was that this was something for each individual minister to consider according to his own views and the dictates of his own conscience.
There is another great error which I think has crept into the reasoning of the hon. member in his attempt to obtain adherence

to this principle by means of legislation. I have been engaged for a great many years in the study and practice of law, in fact since I began as a student at the age of 17. While it is essential and necessary from time to time to amend the law in order to try to obtain needed and necessary reforms and changes in legislation to meet the exigencies of the day, where there is, as in this country, an adherence to the common law system, a tradition of constitutional practice and an opportunity to build up a body of good, sound practice, I have come to the conclusion after all these years it is better to let this matter be dealt with in that way and to let it be molded and changed according to the changes in day to day and year to year requirements rather than embodying it in legislation which, as the hon. member has admitted, simply cannot meet the varying situations it must meet in order for his requirements to be completely served. I think this is a good illustration of this particular viewpoint.
There is a legal principle known to members of my profession that the mention of the one is the exclusion of the other. It seems to me that when the hon. member is attempting to incorporate this principle imperfectly in the form of legislation he is in effect saying that this matter will now be in statutory form, that within the statute will be contained the four corners of what he considers to be necessary to meet the problem of conflict of interest and that from now on nothing else goes. This is a very reasonable interpretation which could be made if this amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act should become law. I think we would be left in that position.
It seems to me it is better to leave things as they are in view of the fact that the government has now adopted this principle. While I cannot offer any hope to hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to when they may cross the floor and occupy the positions of the government, I suppose that some day Liberals yet unborn will come here and form a Liberal government. But when this does happen I think they will then find enshrined and embodied in the constitutional practice of this country the system advocated and put into practice by the Prime Minister, and a principle which cannot then be altered. Having in mind the fact that you may have to envisage a situation where you would be dealing with more than just a directorship in which there might be a conflict of interest, I feel that this situation should be covered by our body of constitutional jurisprudence.
For example, in conducting a little research on this subject I find that in 1918, I believe it

was, there was an attempt to cover this situation. At that time a great many members of parliament were directors of companies which had engaged in contractual relationships with the government and some members felt something should be done to remedy the situation. A resolution was offered for the purpose of dealing with it. While there is, of course, a difference between an attempt to prevent a member of parliament from being a director and preventing a minister of the crown from being a director, nevertheless I read this to indicate to hon. members the type of language which was considered essential at that time to meet the situation.
The resolution was to disqualify any member during the time he is a director of or holds, either directly or indirectly, a controlling interest in any incorporated company from having a contract or agreement with the government, express or implied. Now, legislation framed in those words might come closer to meeting the situation, but it seems to me there could still be other combinations of facts which might give rise to a conflict of interests. It is my submission we have now made substantial progress towards covering the situation and I think the sensible thing to do would be to leave the matter open to become just as much a matter of constitutional practice as is responsible government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member, then, apply the same principle to the sections of the Senate and House of Commons Act that relate to the independence of the house? Would he take those sections out of the act and leave that matter open? In other words, I am asking, why not treat cabinet ministers the same way members are treated by writing the appropriate requirements into the law?


Gerald William Baldwin: I am afraid I would not want to answer that without reading the particular sections. I think the hon. member and I might have a very interesting philosophic dissertation about it, and I shall be glad to meet him and discuss it with him.


Hubert Badanai: In
rising to support this bill, I might point out that it is based on a well founded tradition of this house. The parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin) referred to an occurrence in 1918. I submit that one of the earliest and certainly one of the clearest opinions of the principle involved in this bill was once given by a prime minister of Great Britain nearly 50 years ago. The Right Hon. Herbert Asquith, speaking in the British House of Commons during a debate said, and I quote:
Ministers ought not to enter into any transaction whereby their private pecuniary interest might.
Senate and House of Commons Act
even conceivably, come into conflict with their public duty. . .Again, no minister is justified under any circumstances in using official information, information that has come to him as a minister, for his own private profit or for that of his friends .. . Again, no minister ought to accept from persons who are in negotiation with or seeking to enter into contractual or proprietary or pecuniary relations with the state any kind of favour.
Now, what the bill is attempting to achieve is to incorporate into the law a principle which is usually recognized in practice. I realize that there have been times when this practice, unfortunately, has been ignored. However, I think the principle of the bill is sound and I do not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily because this would prevent the passage of timely legislation about which there should be no objection from any quarter of the house.
With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, I may say that his chief objection to the bill is the reference to members of the privy council who are no longer members of parliament, and who may be affected. As a matter of fact, this bill does not envisage any such restrictions at all. I should like also to bring to the attention of this house a possible further application of this principle, one that has particular importance today because of the widespread personal financial interest in corporations with wide ramifications in almost every phase of industry and business.
All governments today are connected in one way or another with big business. The actions and decisions of the federal government have a continuing impact on all sectors of the economy. This is one factor that was not present when the rule pertaining to ministers having conflicting interest was originally drafted. At this point I should like to suggest a further development of this principle by providing that for a period of one year an ex-minister may not hold a directorship in a publicly owned corporation.
Any day now the Prime Minister may stumble across his February, 1958, dissolution speech and rediscover his conclusion that Canada cannot be governed very well by a minority government. If this happens, then presumably he will call an election. One result of that election conceivably might be that the 22 present cabinet ministers would find themselves without their ministerial responsibilities. No doubt they would find other work, and more lucrative work. Some of them might be asked to serve on the boards of corporations. By virtue of the fact they held positions as ministers of the crown they would naturally have gained knowledge that would be invaluable to the operation of industries of various types. These ex-ministers could use their acquired knowledge to the
2696	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Senate and House of Commons Act great advantage of the private corporations. It is with the possibility of this development in mind that I make the suggestion that the rule of obligation, as we now understand it and as it is embodied in this bill, be extended beyond the actual date when a minister ceases to hold a cabinet position and that he be barred from holding a directorship for a period of one year.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I do not wish to imply present ministers would take advantage in any way of such a situation. Indeed, I do not wish to cast any reflection on any members of the present cabinet. Sir Winston Churchill, on February 25, 1952 as recorded on page 702 of the British Hansard, had this to say:
It is a principle of public life that ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises or appears to arise between their private interests and their public duties.
What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that this principle should apply for a reasonable period of time after a cabinet minister leaves office in order to avoid the appearance that his private interests are in conflict with his past public duties. This need not take legislative form but could become, rather, a part of the code of ethics which, although unwritten, governs the role of the executive under our parliamentary system.
This bill contains no controversial objectives. It is simply a confirmation of a practice which ministers generally have adhered to, and if approval of the bill will do away once and for all with possible situations embarrassing to this and future governments then I urge unanimous approval for it, and in so doing wish to commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for introducing it.
(Translation):


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I will only say a few words because I am in favour of this bill.
However, I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that he should have included in his bill the bank directors.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are included. (Translation):


Lucien Plourde: To me, this point is very important.
So as not to waste time, we should pass this bill immediately. It would be appropriate to support it and pass it, so as to eliminate all those who could creep into these agencies or find, as substitutes, somebody who would only be concerned with their private interests. It is therefore only fair and reasonable that we pass this bill without delay.
[Mr. Badanai.l
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I observe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre attempting to try to close the debate, and I must say I sympathize with his effort, but we cannot proceed with this measure without giving it more careful examination. I feel that while in principle it is a very good bill there are a great many deficiencies in it. To begin with, the parliamentary secretary pointed out one of the difficulties, and that is in making an act of parliament or in defining a situation we sometimes lose the spirit of what is intended.
As the sponsor of the bill has said, the present government and members of the cabinet have resigned directorships and have carried out in effect the spirit of the bill; but it is open to question whether the bill as worded is broad enough to cover many of the situations that exist even now. I would like to mention some of these loopholes, so that the bill might be altered before it is passed.
The first and major problem I see is the lack of inclusion of provincially incorporated companies. The bill itself is quite clear that it can only apply to acts of the parliament of Canada; but most of the corporations operating within provinces are incorporated by provincial charter. Therefore the exclusion of directors of provincial corporations is a basic exclusion and to that extent the bill should be amended. It has a wide open clause which could easily be avoided by a person who is a director of a provincial company.
There are several other difficulties. As has already been pointed out, non-profit making corporations are also governed by directors, and they should also be covered. I do not think that directors of fraternal organizations and other such philanthropic corporations should be required to resign their directorships, and to that extent the term "director of a company" is too broad.
In addition to these generalities there are a good many ways by which an individual who wanted to get around the spirit of the bill could do so. There is no mention in it of the wives of directors, and the possibility of directorships being carried on in effect by the party involved but actually being in the name of his wife or a member of his family.
Another comparison should be made in connection with shareholders, and if we consider what happens in other countries we find that shareholders in large corporations which deal with governments are required to divest themselves of their shares before taking cabinet posts. This is particularly true

in the United States where many cabinet ministers have been shareholders in large motor corporations and have had to divest themselves completely of their shares, at very great personal loss, in order to take up duties as cabinet ministers. Whether or not the bill should be extended that far I am not prepared to say at the moment, but it is something that should be carefully considered.
Then there is always the possibility of a person holding stock in a company in trust, in the name of some other person, and there is also the situation of a director or shareholder in a controlling company which exercises control over a subsidiary. I am not suggesting that any ministers of the crown would adopt these methods I have mentioned in order to get around the provisions of the bill. It would be most unworthy of them and I would not expect it to happen; but my point is that in defining in very narrow terms what a cabinet minister shall do before assuming his cabinet post, we leave open a large number of things that probably should be included. I agree with the parliamentary secretary, that to legislate is not always in the best interests of securing results.


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


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the hon. member would. Since he seems to favour the principle of the bill but would like to see it improved, how would he like to agree to second reading being passed and the bill being referred to the committee on banking and commerce, of which he is the chairman, where he could play a very distinguished role in helping to improve it?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I will answer this by saying that I believe the bill is so basically deficient that it should be withdrawn and redrafted before we send it to the banking and commerce committee, or any other committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a reflection on the distinguished lawyer who drew it up.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not know who drew it up but I suspect that whoever drafted the bill did so in accordance with principles which were set forward. I am pointing out that the principles are not broad enough. The bill is open to misinterpretation and there are loopholes. The hon. member himself is an authority on the question of amendments. It seems to me the bill is so basically deficient that if we tried to amend the clauses we would find ourselves out of order. The bill includes only directorships in companies incorporated by act of Canada. If we are going to deal with this matter the bill should be redrafted before we even try to amend it.
27507-3-171
Senate and House of Commons Act
The parliamentary secretary mentioned the wording of lines 11 and 12. He called attention to the inclusions of the word "and" in the phrase "a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and a minister of the crown". I would agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this is the type of change which might well be made in committee. If the words "who is" were substituted for the word "and" so that the phrase would read "a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who is a minister of the crown" the matter would be more clear. If that were the only difficulty about this bill I would agree it might be worth sending to a committee where it could be further considered.
Another point I wish to raise concerns the fact that the words "directly or indirectly" are not used. I realize that many people who are not lawyers say lawyers are quibbling with words when they use such expressions as "directly or indirectly", but in this case I think it is important. A person can control a company without actually being a director. The words of some of the earlier statutes were probably more apt.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member suggesting that some of the members of the present cabinet who have resigned directorships are indirectly still controlling the companies with which they were connected?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am not suggesting that. A moment ago I said I did not believe that any cabinet minister either in the past or in the future would be likely to resort to underhand methods of controlling a company where direct methods are prohibited. I am positive he would not do so. None the less, if we are asked to legislate we must legislate carefully. If certain words are used, those are the words which apply, and everything else is excluded. At present this is a question of trust. It is a question of the policy which has been laid down. If there is legislation, you have only the words to follow, not the spirit of the institution. For that reason I feel that the principle of the bill is deficient. It is deficient in its spirit and it is deficient in relation to the provincially incorporated companies.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: I was not sure that my hon. friend was going to give me an opportunity to speak, though I am anxious to take part in this debate. I agree 100 per cent with the thought behind this bill, but I would question whether it is necessary at the present time to set this principle in statutory form. I do, however, want to say that in my opinion the hon. member for Winnipeg
2698	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons Act North Centre deserves credit for continuing his efforts to bring this type of thing before parliament and the people.
I also believe we are fortunate in Canada that we have at the present time, as well as in the past, little difficulty about conflicts of interest such as have prevailed to some extent in the United Kingdom and in the United States. The parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister has expressed in an able way the legal disabilities which exist with regard to this bill. One of the thoughts he put on record was whether the bill in its reference to privy councillors would include all privy councillors or just those who are members of the cabinet.
When I look quickly through the record, one case which strikes me is the McCann controversy which arose in 1955. Information about this is to be found on page 6040 of volume 6 of Hansard for the 1955 session. I draw no conclusions from that brief controversy which concerned the then minister of national revenue, and I only mention it because of its interest in the light of the issue which has been raised by the parliamentary secretary this afternoon.
The present Prime Minister and the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, were questioning the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, as to whether Dr. McCann, who was the minister of national revenue, had obtained certain tax information in his capacity as minister of national revenue or in his capacity as a director of the Guaranty Trust Company. Mr. St. Laurent refused to answer, saying that this was a matter of cabinet privilege. However, he invited Mr. Drew, who was a privy councillor, to come to him confidentially when the information would be made available to him. Mr. Drew declined, but I suggest that here is an instance where information of a cabinet nature might be available to other privy councillors who are not members of the cabinet, which would strengthen the argument of the parliamentary secretary that this bill should include all privy councillors if it were to be enacted.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock. I merely add that I feel there is no need for this thought to be expressed in statutory form at the present time. I think we in Canada are very fortunate that our public men have never had any serious conflict, certainly since this government has been in office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, since the house will be adjourned on Thursday next will the house leader give the business not only for Monday but for the rest of the week until the adjournment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is very difficult to outline the business for four days when we are not certain how much can be accomplished in any one day. We will of course have to finish interim supply in order that money will be available to carry on the normal duties. It would be followed by the national economic development board bill. Our hope, expressed some time ago, was that we could complete before the Christmas recess the national productivity council bill as well. Then there are three or four smaller matters which perhaps the house at the appropriate time would consider fairly rapidly. But we will wait until Monday evening to see what progress we make.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the house leader care to mention those small bills that he has in mind?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The ones I had in mind are these. There is the one under the heading of dominion-provincial tax rental agreements, which affects the universities and another small one dealing with sewage disposal projects. We might be able to bring before the house something with regard to the world's fair at Montreal. Then there is a railway bill dealing with the extension of a railway line in New Brunswick, which perhaps might be considered. These are smaller items which perhaps could be passed rather rapidly through the house. I would also like to bring before the house another subject that was mentioned earlier; that is the proposal to adjust the method of dealing with divorce bills in parliament. On Monday I will ask unanimous consent of the house to raise that particular bill to top place at five o'clock when private members' hour is reached.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The house leader means Tuesday, does he not?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, five o'clock on Tuesday.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 17, 1962