1963-12-20

[Stage Direction]
"LA presse"
Mr, Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
On page 25 of yesterday's La Presse, under an eye-catching headline, it is written:
Caouette said to have ordered all members of his group to hand over to him $3,000 out of their pay.
The article is signed by Marcel Gingras and reads as follows:
The leader of the Ralliement Creditistes, Mr. Real Caouette, is reported to have given 24 hours to the members of his group to hand him over a sum of $3,000 that each had promised to pay him.
And a little further on, one may read:
Each had been so happy about his raise in sessional indemnity that all the Caouette followers accepted the deal. Yesterday was the day of reckoning, but two of them are said to have refused to cough up, and it was then that the leader of the Ralliement is supposed to have issued his ultimatum.
Mr. Speaker, those are false insinuations and rumours bordering on stupidity. I do hope that the correspondent, Mr. Gingras, will show some professional integrity and give my denial as much space as he gave to those foolish statements which are quite typical of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer).
Mr. Speaker, since, unfortunately, I have to leave Ottawa today to keep an engagement in my riding tomorrow morning, with your permission and the unanimous consent of the house, I wish to take this opportunity to say how happy I am to be able to thank you for the courtesy and fairness you have shown us during the session that is drawing to a close.
May I offer you also my best wishes for Christmas, as well as to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), to the cabinet members, to the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), to all the leaders of the other parties as well as to all the members of the house and to the staff.
I am looking forward to seeing you again in 1964.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, like the hon. member, I think that anyone who would accept to hand $3,000 to the hon. member for Villeneuve would really do a foolish thing.


Mr. Pigeon:: It would be a bad investment.



MR. VALADE    REFERENCE TO REMARK IN DEBATE BY MEMBER FOR DANFORTH

Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish also to rise on a question of privilege under citation 140 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.
As reported on page 6077 of the English version of Hansard for December 18, 1963 the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) stated:
I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for St. Mary, much of which I thought was needlessly self-congratulatory of the previous government, and some of it quite hypocritical.
Mr. Speaker, I take exception to those remarks by the hon. member and I hope he will have the honesty to withdraw them or give an explanation that will dispel any doubt about me or any other member.
I am no more of a hypocrite than the hon. member for Danforth and I hope he will, in all fairness, withdraw his remarks.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Mary telephoned me yesterday, and I regret having been unable to return the call. I thought he was inviting me to a duel or something. I am still at a loss to know what is troubling the hon. gentleman, but if there was anything in my remarks to which he took exception in a personal way certainly I have no objection at all to withdrawing them.


Georges-J. Valade: On a question of privilege, I did not hear the hon. member retracting his words "in a hypocritical manner". I think those words should be withdrawn so they are not left on Hansard. There are some people in the house who have been conducting themselves in a hypocritical manner, such as those who have refused to vote on certain occasions in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that we have had enough discussion. Words must be given their ordinary meaning, and it seems

Committees of the House to me that the hon. member for Danforth on agriculture and colonization, and asked for did withdraw any implication he may have unanimous consent to move that the report be made.	concurred in.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, as far as the words "hypocritical manner" are concerned, if the hon. member withdraws the words I put them back on the record again.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for St. Mary does not feel aggrieved at this time. He has had considerable time of the house. The hon. member for Danforth made a withdrawal even if he did not use the words in question complained of. I do not think the hon. member will improve the situation by making further remarks at this time. I think we should get on with the business of the house.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, surely I am not to be denied my right to raise a question of privilege, which is a right assured to each and every member of the house. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) I hope did not have too much of a party yesterday, but he has just reiterated the words. He said that if the hon. member for Danforth was withdrawing the words he would put them back on Hansard. I think he should back them up on his own behalf, because he has been an expert in this field.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could suggest that as the matter occurred two or three days ago, it is more usual to raise the question of privilege at the time. Perhaps we could go on with the next item of business.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of special committee on defence-Mr. Sauve.
Fourth report of sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping-Mr. Richard.
Fourth, fifth and sixth reports of standing committee on privileges and elections-Mr. Pennell.
Sixth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. McNulty.
Third report of standing committee on debates-Mr. Batten.
Third report of standing committee on mines, forests and waters-Mr. Cyr.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham) presented the second report of the standing committee
Mr. Speaker:: 1 am advised that this is a very long report, and that there is no particular reason why the house needs to concur in it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. member will not press the suggestion that he will move concurrence later today.



REDISTRIBUTION


John Whitney Pickersgill: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-131, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



JUDGES ACT AND EXCHEQUER COURT ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act to authorize the appointment of, and the provision of salary for, one additional judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether, in accordance with what I suggested last night at the end of the day's business, we could advance the government notice of motion which appears in the name of the Minister of Justice on page 2 of Votes and Proceedings of today so that it would be available for consideration after we have dealt with the bill respecting the world fair today. If there should be any considerable objection from any quarter of the house the government would not proceed at all, as I indicated clearly last night, but I believe there has been the usual consultation and my impression is that there was agreement to proceed with this matter.


Mr. Churchill:: I am sorry. What was the reference which the hon. gentleman gave us?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the matter could be left until a little later. Maybe I could reserve the right to ask to return to government notices of motion later in the day, and have an additional word with hon. members about this.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DATE OP OPENING OF NEXT SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister in a position yet to indicate to the house the expected date of opening of the next session of parliament?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope it would be acceptable to the house if, subject of course to any emergency developing which might make another decision necessary, the house could reassemble for the next session in the second week of February. I regret I am not able to suggest to the house the exact day during that week, but it would be in the second week of February. That is our present intention.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think there will be general agreement with that, particularly when it is subject to the qualification the Prime Minister has mentioned, that should anything occur during the intervening weeks that would require the earlier convening of parliament it would be done.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice was going to make a statement today on the Wasylen-chuk case. I wonder whether he is prepared to do so now.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. I do so in answer to a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition and also one raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, but it has to do chiefly with a question put by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to whether or not my parliamentary secretary had any communications with others in connection with this matter.
The statement is as follows. After the extradition warrant had been sent out a telephone call was received by my parliamentary secretary from Mr. Ray Perrault, speaking for himself and on behalf of what he described as a legal committee, asking for further consideration of the point that Wasy-lenchuk ought not to be surrendered for extradition because he was on parole, and for consideration of the point that the habeas corpus judge had not actually issued an order dismissing the application.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Perrault indicated that the execution of the warrant was imminent and suggested to Mr. Macdonald that he should telephone the warden of Oakalla prison with a view to delaying execution of the warrant while these points were being considered. Mr. Macdonald complied with the request, and when he reached the warden he was informed that Wasylenchuk was already in the custody of United States officers and on his way to the United States.
With reference to the question raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam with regard to my looking into the point having to do with section 24 of the Extradition Act and section 11 of the Parole Act, I have this to say. I do not wish to be drawn into a legal argument, and I do not believe it would be in accordance with the practice for me to engage in one. Therefore I shall restrict myself simply to saying that I have been advised by the legal officers of my department that neither by force of section 24 of the Extradition Act nor section 11 of the Parole Act, nor both, is a person who is at large on parole to be considered as a person who is, to use their words, "undergoing sentence" within the meaning of the Extradition Act.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the confusion surrounding the extradition I wonder if the minister would not see fit to table the so-called opinion?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it is not a socalled opinion. It is an opinion, a verbal opinion that was given to me by the officers when the matter was under discussion prior to the statement I made the other day and again today.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Will the minister table the opinion?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no written opinion; therefore I cannot table it.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not think that a reading of the sections indicates that the opinion he received is a nonsensical opinion?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have read the sections. I do not think it is a nonsensical opinion. As I said the other day, I must be guided, as every minister of justice must be guided, by the advice I receive from the officers and not by advice received from members of parliament. That is what I was guided by when I made the statement yesterday and when I, in effect, repeated it today.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister one supplementary question. Did he receive this opinion before he signed the surrender order or afterwards?


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to answer that question. The point raised by my hon. friend was not raised until afterward, and that is why my parliamentary assistant, in deference to Mr. Perrault, who raised the point particularly in his telephone conversation with him, made representations to the warden of Oakalla prison. It was after that that the point was considered; in fact two points were raised, and I might as well give them to the house.
The first point was that the proceedings had not been properly signed by the judge in question. This was gone into, and it was seen immediately that was not the case. The next question was whether a person who is on parole is subject to extradition. The opinion was given by our officers, and they have communicated it to me on several occasions, that according to their interpretation of these two sections a person who is on parole under these circumstances can be extradited.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Do I take it from what the minister now tells the house that he signed the surrender order for this man prior to receiving the legal opinion on this particular point; that his parliamentary assistant, in his absence, was so perturbed about this point that he tried to stop the extradition, and not having been successful in stopping the extradition the legal opinion has now been concocted to fit the situation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the Minister of Justice would have been quick to answer the suggestion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Mr. Knowles:: He cannot.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to get into an argument about this. Does the minister say that his opinion was received before he signed the order permitting extradition?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I did not say that, because the point was not raised specifically at the time. When the warrant was placed before me with a memorandum from my officers there were two judgments. There was the judgment of Mr. Justice Hutcheson, who had conducted a preliminary hearing and had committed the man under the circumstances. Then there was the decision of Mr. Justice Ruttan having to do with the habeas corpus proceedings. Those were the two things I had before me; and it is customary under those circumstances for the officers to come
before me and advise that this is the kind of warrant that should be signed. Having those circumstances before me I signed the warrant of commital, as I believe every minister of justice would have.


John George Diefenbaker: That latter statement I challenge immediately; I do not think it can be justified in law or in justice, regardless of whether this man is good or evil.
The minister did not mention whether the parliamentary assistant communicated with the border officers to see if he could stop the F.B.I. from taking this man over to the United States. This was part of the question yesterday, and I am sure that with the amount of consultation that has taken place since the minister will be able to tell us.


Lionel Chevrier: No, the parliamentary assistant did not communicate with those officers.


John George Diefenbaker: With reference to the statement made yesterday by the minister, has attention been drawn to a Canadian Press dispatch on this case and an interview with Mr. Perrault, the leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia?
It states as follows:
Mr. Perrault said yesterday in Vancouver that he categorically denies a statement made by justice minister Chevrier.
Mr. Perrault termed untrue a statement by Mr. Chevrier.. .that he advised Mr. Perrault all points in the affair had been investigated and that he (Mr. Chevrier) had no alternative but to sign a warrant permitting release of the murder suspect to U.S. authorities.
.. .Mr. Perrault said: "At no time have I received from Mr. Chevrier any telegram or letter on this subject".
What has the minister to say in that regard?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the right hon. Leader of the Opposition raised that question. The statement was brought to my attention. Since the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has put something on the record, I would like to put on the record the telegram which I received from Mr. Perrault last night, which reads as follows. It is dated Vancouver, December 19:
Received your letter regarding Wasylenchuk dated December 12th and postmarked Ottawa December 16th today at 2.20 p.m. Pacific standard time. I appreciate your assurance that following my letter to you of December 5th, you took every step in accordance with my request to review the matter and that following our telephone conversation of December 16th, you felt compelled to follow the advice of your officials that the point raised by me specifically the effect of section 11 of the Parole Act and section 24 of the Extradition Act did not relieve you of your duty to execute the warrant. I trust that everything will be done to assure an adequate defence for Wasylenchuk and I welcome your reported announcement in the house today to this effect. It is unfortunate that a breakdown in communications-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: -has led to misunderstanding. Best regards.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that letter?


John George Diefenbaker: Was that telegram received after the discussions yesterday in the House of Commons?


Mr. MacEwan:: Of course it was.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think perhaps I should tell the right hon. gentleman that I received a letter from the-


Mr. Nielsen:: Special delivery.


Lionel Chevrier: -leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia on December 5, 1963, concerning this matter. I replied on December 12, but unfortunately the letter went to the legislative buildings in Victoria and was not received by the leader of the British Columbia Liberal party until after the 16th-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Look, if you want to listen to the facts, all right. If you want to listen to the hon. members from the other side of the chamber, it is all right with me. If you do not want to listen to the truth, that is fine. I am trying to say, in answering the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, that when Mr. Perrault made the statement which has been referred to, he had not received my letter; and when he received my letter he sent me this telegram. Now, that is all there is to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Table the document.


John George Diefenbaker: I would simply point out that the Canadian Press dispatch is dated yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I point out that the Canadian Press dispatch is dated yesterday, which-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think all hon. members will agree that by now we have had quite a complete discussion on this matter-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -and it is developing into a debate. In view of the seriousness of the principles involved I have tried to be as generous as possible, but we have been discussing that matter, even though it is a very serious one, for many, many minutes, and I do hope it does not develop into a debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the time taken is concerned, when there is injustice to any individual, regardless of
28902-5-394
Inquiries of the Ministry whether he has a good reputation or an evil one, the time of parliament is well taken up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Justice whether he was aware, when he signed the surrender order, that Wasylenchuk was on parole.


Lionel Chevrier: I have already answered that question, I believe.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has not answered that question, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been extremely lenient with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I agree with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that when matters affecting the liberty of an individual, good or bad, are concerned, it is an extremely important matter and therefore justifies taking up considerable time of parliament. But the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, it seems to me, is merely arguing the case at the moment. May I suggest to him that if he has anything more to contribute he should do so, but let us not get into a long argument over the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order which you have raised, Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking to argue the matter. I asked the minister a very simple question, as to whether he was aware, at the time he signed the surrender order, that Wasylenchuk was on parole. If he knew he was on parole, why was the legal opinion, which he later sought, not secured at that time; or if he knew Wasylenchuk was on parole and did not seek a legal opinion, why did he not seek a legal opinion? I ask these questions because it certainly seems that an injustice has been done. These are two very simple questions that the minister should answer. Did he know, at the time he signed the surrender order, that the man was on parole? If he did, why did he not seek a legal opinion at that time?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into a discussion of the legal aspect of this matter. I have been informed that these two sections, considered together, do not in the slightest degree affect the extra-ditability, if I may use that word, of the individual.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am simply asking the minister why that opinion was not sought before he signed the surrender order.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister tell Mr. Perrault in a telephone conversation that

Inquiries of the Ministry when he signed the extradition order he did not know this man was on parole? Did he tell Mr. Perrault that?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not recollect that I did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot remember that part of the conversation, although I have a note of it in my office. In fact I am sure that I did not make that statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the simple question that I asked him. Did he know, when he signed the surrender order, that Wasylenchuk was on parole?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not desire to add anything more to what I have said and what is now on the record.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister would not be adding anything to something he has already said, because I have not had an answer.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister at any time lead Mr. Perrault to believe that we would intervene in extradition proceedings?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether, in view of the disclosures made earlier this morning, he does not think the time is now ripe to dispense with the services of the Minister of Justice or clean out the justice department.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a most insulting question and I do not propose to dignify it by attempting to reply.


An hon. Member:: You should be ashamed of that answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know how desirous the minister is to be sure that justice is blind, but in view of the serious nature of what took place in the Wasylenchuk case would he ask the Supreme Court of Canada its opinion on this subject, as to whether what was done was legal? The wording of the two statutes, being as they are, challenges the government to act in this regard to assure that injustice will not be done in the future and that the injustice already done will be rectified.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the statement made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that an injustice has been done under these circumstances. This is not

the first such warrant of committal that has been signed by the Minister of Justice since he has been in office, and it was signed under the same circumstances as it is usually, when the decision of the court is rendered. The courts of the province of British Columbia dealt with this case on two occasions-


John George Diefenbaker: Not on this question.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, they did, indirectly. The question comes up on habeas corpus and on appeal from the lower court, so it would seem to me that the whole question was determined by the courts. However, the problem which my hon. friend raises is one which it seems to me should not be considered under the circumstances. I do not see why the matter should be referred to the supreme court in this case any more than in the half dozen or more other cases where extradition proceedings have been decided upon and a warrant has been signed by the minister. To refer this particular point to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to any other court, under the circumstances does not appeal to me at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will ask just one question. In any one of the six cases to which the minister made reference, when he states he signed extradition orders, were any of those extradition orders made in respect of a man while out on parole?


Lionel Chevrier: I would have to look that up. I could not answer that offhand but I am convinced in my mind, after a reading of the two sections, that the treaty does apply under these circumstances for the reason I gave once before, namely that if that were not the case then a person on parole could leave the Canadian jurisdiction, go into the United States, commit a crime there, come back into Canada and, because he is on parole, would not be subject to extradition, and of course vice-versa, and I am sure that was not the intention of the two countries when they entered into the extradition treaty.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, on what basis, unless the parliamentary secretary thought an injustice was done, or what authority did he have to get in touch with the warden?


Lionel Chevrier: I have already replied to that question-


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lionel Chevrier: -and the parliamentary secretary did exactly what the minister would have done under the circumstances if a request had been made by a person in authority, by a person such as the leader of the Liberal party in B.C. or anybody else in authority,
61.99

asking that this matter be considered. This was all done in about 10 or 15 minutes when it was not possible to get an opinion, and I think I would have done just as the parliamentary secretary has done, and would have taken the action which he took, and after it was taken-my right hon. friend laughs. He is serious one moment, then he laughs the next.


John George Diefenbaker: I am laughing at the ridiculous answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Anything to make a little political capital.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the right hon. Leader of the Opposition for having said that and for his very complimentary remarks, but I repeat that the advice I have received from the officers who considered this very carefully was that under the circumstances the person in question was subject to extradition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, do I take it the minister is now telling us that the legal opinion he has is based on what the statute ought to say rather than on what it says?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, in view of the reference made by the minister to the telegrams and letters which he was holding in his hand, would he be prepared to table them?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I think I will have to obtain permission from the person who sent them.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister is required under the rules to table the documents to which he has made reference, and I refer Your Honour to citation 159 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.


Lionel Chevrier: If you will allow me, I received this telegram from Mr. Perrault- well, it is already on the record so I do not think it necessary to table it.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We would like them all on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that if they are public documents that is one thing, and if the minister is reading from the documents he should table them.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to tabling it, and here it is. I wish to deal with one point, if I may, that the Leader of the Opposition raised.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I raised-


Lionel Chevrier: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker.
28902-5-394i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We must proceed in an orderly manner, and surely the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will keep his seat while the Minister of Justice is trying to reply to the various questions asked.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question-


John George Diefenbaker: Nobody wants to add to the difficulties of Mr. Speaker, but when a point of order has been made and a request is made for a ruling, I think the hon. member for Yukon was entitled to say what he said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the Minister of Justice is entitled to speak on the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought that in my remarks made about four and a half minutes ago I had in effect given a ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Yukon, and I thought also that by virtue of that ruling the Minister of Justice was proceeding to carry out certain suggestions. So I do not see any difficulties at the moment.


Erik Nielsen: I had not understood Your Honour had made a ruling on the point of order I raised dealing specifically with citation 159 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which it seems to me requires the minister to table all documents to which he has had reference. In any event he read fully from the telegram, and I think also read dates from two letters. I heard him read them when answering a recent question. I think the rule clearly requires the minister to table all documents to which he has referred or from which he has read, and he did read from the two letters in question, even if he only read the dates.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the telegram in question which came after the Perrault statement-


Erik Nielsen: What about the two letters?


Lionel Chevrier: -which was referred to by the Leader of Opposition. The telegram is dated the 19th of December 1963, 5.26 p.m., Vancouver, and I received it around 10 p.m. In the telegram reference is made to the letters.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, surely that is not enough, because the minister has read from the letters. Now that this telegram has been tabled it makes reference itself to the letters. The minister having read from the letters, he should table them.


Lionel Chevrier: The statement made by the hon. member for Yukon is totally inaccurate.
I did not read from letters; I read from the telegram.


Erik Nielsen: You read the dates.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: The dates are in the telegram.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I have a ruling on the point of order? Is the minister going to be required to table the letters or not?


Mr. Speaker:: Subsection 3 of the citation referred to says:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. As a non-lawyer but as one sharing everyone's concern that justice be done in this case, may I ask whether the government would consider asking the United States authorities to return this man to Canada until these points have been cleared up?


Lionel Chevrier: Let me say this. The existence of the extradition treaty rests on mutual respect for each other's judicial systems. It has never been the practice for Canadians or Americans to doubt that a fair trial would be given to a Canadian citizen in a United States court, or vice-versa. Under the circumstances it would seem to me that the matter should rest there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. I want to follow up the question I asked yesterday. While it is true that the alleged crime was committed in the United States, Wasylenchuk is depending for his defence solely on an alibi in which he claims that he was in Burnaby, British Columbia at the time the offence was committed. This will require, if he is to have any defence at all, that Canadian witnesses be conveyed to the United States. This man has been in jail and on parole. He is not likely to have very much money with which to provide for either counsel or witnesses. Would the Department of Justice consider whether assistance could be given by the Canadian government to see that he has proper representation and a fair trial?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think I can add a great deal to what I said yesterday other than to put it in this way, that should it appear that there is anything the Canadian government can do or should properly do in this

matter, the hon. member can rest assured that steps will be taken accordingly.


Erik Nielsen: May I take this opportunity to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the doubt the house now feels over the Wasylenchuk case, does he intend to allow the Banks trial to proceed without interference?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not hear the last part of the question.


Erik Nielsen: Can the minister give the house an assurance that he will be allowing the Banks case to proceed without interference?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think that question is worthy of an answer.



COFFIN CASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the Coffin case I promised that before the house rose I would make a short statement and I have it here. On Tuesday of this week I said I was studying, in co-operation with the officers of the department, what happened prior to the refusal to commute the sentence of Coffin and that I hoped to be able to make a statement in that regard before the adjournment of the house.
Since making that statement I have spent a very considerable amount of time reviewing the file with the officers of the department, and to avoid any misunderstanding I should say that what I have seen so far indicates that representations regarding the significant matters raised in the book, except the incident of the Indian, Thompson, were before the department and considered by it before the decision was taken not to commute the sentence. Nothing I have seen so far has pointed to the desirability of any different kind of inquiry from what I have been making.
The incident concerning the Indian, Thompson, arose, of course, subsequent to the carrying out of the sentence. Nevertheless I cannot say that in the time at my disposal I have been able to go into the matter sufficiently, at first hand, to state a final conclusion. I shall therefore have to defer my definitive statement to a later date. I would hope to have it ready in the not too distant future. I am sorry for this delay, but as I indicated on a previous occasion I believe that the seriousness of the issue requires care rather than haste.

Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the urgent concern of the producers of primary products in Canada I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government can now state its position on Bill No. C-5, an act to protect the primary producers of this nation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government has considered the report of the committee on this bill and is prepared to consider appropriate amendments to the Bankruptcy Act to deal with this matter at the next session of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the request sent to him relating to increased aid for medical research. I have a copy of the letter which was sent to the Prime Minister on December 5 by a number of very eminent professors. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has now seen it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I regret that yesterday I said to my hon. friend that to my knowledge I had not received it. When I went to my office I found it had come in; that I had received the letter, acknowledged it on December 12, and wrote Dr. Barr, chairman of the institute, that the matter was being given consideration by the cabinet.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. On October 18 the minister's office received a brief from the Vancouver branch of the association of television and radio artists complaining of the inadequate C.B.C. facilities in Vancouver, and requesting the construction of a combined C.B.C. radio and television centre. Will the minister arrange
for the C.B.C. to conduct a cost and feasibility study on acquiring and converting part of R.C.A.F. station Vancouver, Kitsilano site, into a combined C.B.C. television-radio centre to allow the corporation economically to get out of the five or six inadequate and inefficient locations they now have?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the president of the C.B.C. wrote a letter to me after he had heard the announcement made some little time ago by the Minister of National Defence on his estimates, which indicated that this property might be available, to inquire whether the C.B.C. would be given an opportunity to examine the property to see if it would be suitable for their purposes. I communicated with the Associate Minister of National Defence and I believe he, or the officials of the department, have since been in touch with the C.B.C., or are in the process of getting in touch with them, with a view to seeing what would be feasible in this connection.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works.
Could he tell the house whether the officials of the world exhibition are in Ottawa at the moment, and, if so, for what purpose?


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The operating and capital budgets, together with the master plan, will be submitted to the government during the day; these documents will also be presented today to the Quebec government and to the municipal authorities of Montreal.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, could the Minister of Public Works tell the house whether Canadians will be allowed to see that master plan?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No, Mr. Speaker, at any rate not before it is approved by the government; as I said a moment ago, the plan is being submitted today to the Quebec authorities and, according to the tripartite agreement, it is not to be presented to the city of Montreal before it has been approved by the Quebec government and the federal government.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the

Inquiries of the Ministry minister, since today is the day the report is to be tabled in the house, whether he does intend to table it today.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No, Mr. Speaker. I think what the hon. member is saying is not accurate, because there is nothing in the provisions of the statute or in the tripartite agreement which obliges this document to be tabled today. It has to be submitted to the government of Quebec and the government here in Ottawa today. After it has been approved by both governments then it will be made public. Of course if the house should be sitting at that time it would be submitted to hon. members before being made public.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration but I do not see him in the house at the moment. He was here a moment ago. However, perhaps I can address the question-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I can help the hon. gentleman. The minister's estimates will be coming up a little later in the day and he could ask his question then.


John Alfred Irvine: Perhaps I could address the question to the Minister of Justice, who may be able to assist. Would the minister inform the house when a judge is to be appointed to preside over the citizenship court in the city of London, Ontario?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as acting minister I will draw that to the minister's attention and ask him whether he could answer the question on his estimates.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Defence. In Time magazine of December 20 there is the statement that the CF-104's were expensively converted by the Tories into exclusively nuclear missile carriers. Would the Minister of National Defence confirm or deny that statement? Would he state whether the CF-104's were ever anything but exclusively nuclear missile carriers?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the CF-104's have not been. I think what is referred to there is the basic aircraft itself, which has been used in many configurations.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. This statement in Time magazine is false, is it, according to the minister's interpretation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will not comment further. When my estimates are up for discussion, if the hon. member would like a little fuller information about the hardware of the CF-104 I would be glad to give it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he would agree that the CF-104's were built to be nuclear missile carriers and were not expensively converted for that purpose.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A question was asked on that subject a minute or two ago. I wonder whether the hon. member would be good enough to leave this matter until my estimates are called later in the day, and then I could make a fuller explanation of what was done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I ask the minister to answer this question with a simple yes or no.



INTRODUCTION OF TWO PRICE SYSTEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture would the Prime Minister indicate whether legislation will be brought forward next session to implement the Liberal pledge of a two price system for wheat?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Edward Nasserden: I have a question supplementary to the one directed to the Prime Minister a few minutes ago in reference to his decision regarding the two price system. Can the right hon. gentleman tell us whether that decision was reached in consultation with the committee of five set up by the Liberal party in the province of Saskatchewan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That question is not appropriate for the orders of the day, but I am sure the hon. member will join me in the great satisfaction we must all feel that the farmers in the province are getting an income which is at an unparalleled height as the result of sales of agricultural products.


Edward Nasserden: In reply to my supplementary question, the Prime Minister made certain remarks regarding the income position in Saskatchewan at the present time. This is not the occasion for me to take issue with the right hon. gentleman concerning those remarks, but I should like to remind him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure there will be an opportunity to expand on those remarks at another time.



INQUIRY AS TO REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S. PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has been in communication with President Johnson with reference to the legislation which will shortly come before him for signature requiring that Canadian lumber be marked with a country of origin label. At the same time would the Prime Minister say what representation has been made in this connection to the United States administration, and particularly whether the United States has been informed that if this legislation is approved such approval would be a dark symbol for the opening of world tariff bargaining, beginning in May, because it is evidence of a protectionist stance?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, representations have been made to the United States government on this matter. They were made some days ago by our ambassador to the secretary of state. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is in Washington today, and he is also making oral representations there.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the Prime Minister communicated on the "hot line" with the President?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the report in this morning's Globe and Mail that a 16 per cent reduction this year in the number of persons seeking work has given Brantford the best employment picture in five years, does the minister still think that Brantford is a depressed area which has need of all the proinquiries of the Ministry posed lush tax advantages over the neighbouring cities of Guelph, Kitchener, Woodstock and Waterloo?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: do not think either the government or myself have ever classed Brantford as a depressed area. Brantford is part of the national employment service designated area. It was so designated because of high and chronic unemployment, and the statement just quoted from the newspaper would indicate that the policy designed to relieve high and chronic unemployment in Brantford is being moderately successful.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. Would the minister be good enough to tell us just when these tax changes went into effect, if they have done so much good?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: With the adoption of the budget.


William Heward Grafftey: Can the minister now guarantee to the house that in future, areas will be so designated only after consultation with the province concerned?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I gave such an assurance to the provincial ministers of trade and industry at the recent dominion-provincial conference.



REQUEST FOR GRANT FOR 1966 QUEBEC FESTIVAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusie Choquetle (Lotbiniere):: I am
as concerned about the "comite des jeux d'hiver" in Quebec as the hon. member for Kootenay West is concerned about the Columbia river in British Columbia. I wish to address a question to my good friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the hon. lady tell the house when, in accordance with a recommendation by the advisory council on amateur sport and fitness, the committee of the "jeux d'hiver" in Quebec will be told the exact amount of the grant it will receive?


Mr. Speaker:: That is certainly a question for the order paper. I think the matter was raised yesterday.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: I have a question to ask the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that today's daily bulletin issued by the dominion bureau of statistics shows a rate of growth in the gross national product of 1.3 per cent for

Inquiries of the Ministry this year, which is less than the rate of increase in the cost of living in the same period, would the minister state what measures the government intends to take to correct this alarming situation?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I must disagree with the adjective used by the hon. member. I am sure that when he hears the speech from the throne at the beginning of the next session all his anxiety will be relieved.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The minister may disagree with the adjective, but does he disagree with the fact that the cost of living is now increasing at a greater rate than the increase in the gross national product?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is like trying to compare oranges with bananas. It is not the sort of question or comment I can deal with on orders of the day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday which indicated that he approached Sud Aviation on his visit to France in order to discuss with that company the fact that T.C.A. did not choose the Caravelle. My question is based on the assumption that this was on the advice of the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the secretary of state was advised to contact Sir George Edwards, the head of the British Aircraft Corporation, in order to explain why T.C.A. did not take the BAC-111.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is in the same field as the one which was asked by my hon. friend from Port Arthur. It is based on two press reports. One is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs tendered an apology to Sud Aviation in connection with this matter. The other is a report that the government of France is alleged to have interfered in T.C.A.'s problem here in this country. Can the Prime Minister confirm or deny these two reports and, with respect to the latter, if the government of France did interfere how was this done? Was it done through the French embassy in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was nothing in the minister's telephone conversation with the

gentleman in question in Paris which, it seems to me, could be described as an apology. As far as the second question is concerned, the minister can deal with that. His estimates will be coming up later in the day and he will be able to explain what action, if any, he took.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the department considering recommending changes in the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with picketing and secondary boycotting following the decision by Mr. Justice Aylesworth of the Ontario court of appeal which sharply restricts the traditional right of informational picketing?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I indicated some time ago the attitude of the department toward changes in industrial relations legislation, and nothing has happened since except it is likely that a matter of this kind would be considered in the course of such a review.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Dorchester requested that an inquiry be made to determine whether all customs duties were being paid in a specific industry. The details are found on page 5988 of Hansard. I can tell him that we have complied with the request and I am pleased to report to him that all duties payable are being collected.



CONSIDERATION OF PAY INCREASE FOR CLEANING STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West on December 13 regarding the pay of the cleaning staff of the house, may I say this matter has been investigated and I find that these ladies are employed by the Sergeant-at-Arms and do not come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. However, I have been informed that an increase for

them from $1.16 to $1.20 an hour, dated back to May 1, has been approved, and it is hoped they will receive their back pay before Christmas day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it Santa Claus or Scrooge who brought that in?



REPORTED OVERCROWDING OF PRESS GALLERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at this time of brotherly love and good feeling I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to certain evidence given by Mr. Arthur Blakely regarding overcrowding in the press gallery, with regard to which I am advised he said that the overcrowding is of such a nature that it contravenes the factories act. Is the government giving any consideration to providing further facilities in this connection so that the gentlemen and ladies of the press will not find themselves under such stringent restrictions as the lack of space today imposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for bringing this matter to my attention. I recall that when we were in opposition we were asked to intervene in this matter month after month for five or six years, and immediately we took office we decided something should be done about it. We are trying to decide now exactly what can be done.


John George Diefenbaker: So that in these days of decision the matter is receiving consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it will not take five years.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Use the Senate.


John George Diefenbaker: You will not be here by that time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has twice promised to make a statement with reference to the complaint I brought to his attention from the international woodworkers regarding the alleged use of the R.C.M.P. in strikebreaking activities at Grande Prairie, Alberta.


Lionel Chevrier: That is true, Mr. Speaker, and I have the statement now. The question posed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on December 17 relates to the strike which took place at Northern Canadian Forest Industries 28902-5-395
World, Exhibition Corporation Act Limited, Grande Prairie, Alberta. Strike action was taken on August 7 by the union, the I.W.A., after conciliation processes failed to reach an agreement.
The strike ended approximately November 6. During the time the strike was in effect there were two incidents as a result of which court action was taken. On October 18 a group of strikers stopped a truck driven by a private sawmill operator who was moving wood to the plant, and they threw off half his load. The owner of the truck recognized four of the strikers and he preferred charges against them for mischief. These eases are still before the courts. On November 6 the owners of Northern Canadian Forest Industries Limited saw two men breaking windows in the plant, and the owners laid charges against the two men under the provincial petty trespass act. At no time were the R.C.M.P. involved in any alleged strikebreaking activities.
I should point out that in the province of Alberta the R.C.M.P. police the province under contract and are responsible to the attorney general of the province. Similarly, the town of Grande Prairie is policed under contract by the R.C.M.P. who are responsible to the municipal council.


Mr. Baldwin:: The city of Grande Prairie.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister leaves the Grande Prairie case, may I ask him whether the R.C.M.P. were used at any time to conduct strikebreakers through the picket lines?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer I have from the commissioner is in the negative.



CANADIAN WORLD EXHIBITION CORPORATION ACT


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act to increase the number of directors of the corporation by two and to provide for the expenses of the said two directors; to authorize the corporation to pay to the commissioner general and to the deputy commissioner general such allowances as are fixed by the governor in council; to establish an executive committee of the board consisting of three directors in addition to the commissioner general and the deputy commissioner general and to authorize the payment of remuneration by the corporation to the said three directors; and to make further changes in connection with the administration of the act.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is not debatable.

World Exhibition Corporation Act [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I have two or three minutes to say a few words on this resolution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is not debatable until the chairman is in the chair. It is not debatable at this stage.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this the resolution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether hon. members would not agree to pass the resolution stage so the bill can be distributed. Then we will be able to discuss all the particulars of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think there are questions that require to be answered-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Louder.


John George Diefenbaker: -and if we proceeded to the second reading of the bill some hon. members might not be allowed to ask the questions they wish to ask. I am agreeable to trying to restrict the time taken on the resolution stage, but I believe there are a number of questions some hon. members want to ask. If we can get them cleared away we will be able to pass the resolution and proceed to second reading of the bill. [Translation]


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the study of the bill and while we are still at the resolution stage, it seems to me it would be appropriate for the Minister of Public Works to make a statement concerning some problems which are being raised in relation with this measure to amend the world exhibition legislation.
I should like to put a few questions to the Minister of Public Works, and I hope he will be able to answer them so as to enlighten the people on the many problems that have come up in these last four months, or more, with regard to the world fair.
First, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works what are the reasons which prompted him to defer the official decision pertaining to the choice of the present site.
I also asked sometime ago whether the minister was aware of the technical problems involved in the filling of Notre Dame island. It seems to me that it would be in order for him to tell us how it is that instead of removing daily about 20,000 cubic yards of filling material from the bed of the river, only 3,000

cubic yards are taken out, which does not seem to be consistent with the reports given to us these last weeks about the possibility of handing the land over to the corporation by June 1964, as provided by the act.
I should also like to ask the minister whether the bill is now before us merely in order to increase the salary of the members of that crown corporation, or if the amendment is intended to extend its administrative framework?
I think that it would be in order also for the Minister of Public Works to assure us that this amendment to the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act is not another excuse to open the door to patronage, for it has been noticed for some time that several appointments have been made in favour of persons who are very close to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) and, moreover, those persons have been seen with him during the official proceedings to receive the new commissioner general.
Moreover, I should like to get an answer from the minister to the following question. We have been trying for four months already to know what salaries will be paid to the commissioner general and to his deputy.
Mr. Chairman, those are all questions that must be answered.
I wonder what prevented the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) from telling us until now what will be the salary of the commissioner general.
The minister has assured us on several occasions that we were going to receive this information within a few days. This question goes back to July of this year. Nearly five months have elapsed since, and we have not received the expected answers.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The hon. member for St. Mary has raised five questions which I will try to answer as briefly as possible, while trying at the same time to give him satisfaction.
As far as the allegations that there has been a delay in the selection of the site are concerned, I must state that there has been no delay. The former prime minister, in a wire which he sent in March 1963, admitted in principle the selection of the present site.
Likewise, we have confirmed the same choice in May. We said that we reserved the right to acknowledge formally the selection of this site as soon as the engineers' report would have assured us of the feasibility of holding the exhibition on that site. In July, we received a report from the Lasalle laboratories and, two or three days later, we came to an agreement with the province and the city of Montreal.

I must point out to the hon. member for St. Mary that the municipal engineers of Montreal, who are paid by the city, imposed two conditions concerning the present site, that is the building of a breakwater upstream from the Champlain bridge and of a sill downstream.
Consequently, we discussed the matter with the engineers and, as I said a moment ago, we signed an agreement only two or three days after we received the report. So there was no delay in making the decision.
As for the difficulties which the city of Montreal is encountering in connection with the filling operations which are being carried out on St. Helen's and Notre Dame islands, I must say to my hon. friend that I am aware of that fact just as well as he is or anybody else because there has been mention of it in the press. However, this matter is covered by a tripartite agreement among the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal and the federal government. Under the agreement, the city is to deliver the present site by June 1964. It was to be expected that there would be difficulties.
The hon. member must know that, only two days ago, the mayor of Montreal again confirmed that the site would be ready on time. Let us leave it to the Montreal authorities to provide the site and to respect the commitments made.
With regard to the bill now before us, it does not provide for any fundamental amendments, though it involves amendments of some importance. The purpose of this bill is to amend the title of the act and the reference to the site of the exhibition, so as to specify that it will not necessarily be located on the island of Montreal. Third, it provides for the establishment of an executive committee, for an increase from 12 to 14 in the number of directors, and for the allowances payable to the directors, the commissioner general and the deputy commissioner general.
There is also a clause dealing with the retirement of employees. Another clause is meant to protect the symbols referring to the exhibition, which must remain its property in order that they may not be used for general business purposes. When my hon. friend referred to the increase of directors from 12 to 14 he said a word about the possibility of patronage. I can reassure him because when I met the former commissioner general, Mr. Paul Bienvenu, as well as his successor, Mr. Dupuy, I clearly explained to them that we expected that the heads of the exhibition would organize an exhibition worthy of Canada and that we were leaving them the entire responsibility of the administration.
28902-5-395i
World Exhibition Corporation Act
I can say that all appointments were made by the directors of the fair and we did not make any suggestions. The only intervention by the government is about the appointments to be made only by the governor in council.
With regard to the salary of the commissioner general, there is nothing unusual about that. If I was unable to give the hon. member an answer until now, the same holds true today. The commissioner general of the fair is still on the establishment of the external affairs department, he is still our ambassador to Paris, but I can tell my hon. friend that the matter will be settled in January.
On the other hand, I can give an answer immediately to the hon. members about the salary of the deputy commissioner; I speak from memory and if my reply is not accurate, I will correct myself in a while after consulting my officials.
The deputy commissioner general will receive a salary of $35,000 a year.
I think that takes care of the questions of the hon. member.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of Public Works.
Can the minister explain why the appointment of Mr. Pierre de Bellefeuille as assistant to the director of public relations, Mr. Beaudry, was announced through the newspapers?
It seems that Mr. Beaudry's office was completely unaware of that appointment and learned about it in the newspapers.
I have nothing against Mr. de Bellefeuille. I am merely wondering why his nomination was announced by the newspapers before the exhibition corporation knew about it and only a short while after it was officially confirmed by the government.
The minister said that the amendments to the act are to increase the number of directors from 12 to 14.1 should like him to tell us why, instead of changing the structure of the board of directors, it could not be possible, if additional staff is required, to simply hire in the usual way the staff required for the administration.
I would also have liked the minister to deal a little longer with the reasons which led to the resignation of Messrs. Paul Bienvenu and Carsley. I come back on that point because the minister is aware of the fact that Mr. Paul Bienvenu had sent his resignation to the Prime Minister of Canada during the month of July and when I asked a question on July 18, asking whether it was true that Mr. Bienvenu was about to resign, the Prime Minister replied that there was nothing true in those allegations and that everything was fine and dandy; yet, he had in his hands a letter dated

World Exhibition Corporation Act July 8 to the effect that Mr. Paul Bienvenu had informed him of his intention to resign.
Therefore, the Prime Minister's answer was inconsistent with the facts, and I think the Minister of Public Works has the responsibility to set things straight.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Messrs. Paul Bienvenu and Carsley for their tremendous and admirable effort while they were in office. Besides, statements of appreciation were published in every newspaper.
I should like to point out to the house that Messrs. Paul Bienvenu and Carsley accepted to work without pay or indemnity while the deputy commissioner will receive a $35,000 salary, and we do not yet know what the chief commissioner's salary will be.
I think it is quite illogical for a crown corporation to hire someone without even knowing if a salary will be paid to him and to make him work without knowing whether he will be paid or not.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that both the house and the public should know the amount of that salary and the terms of employment.
I am of course very happy about the appointment of Mr. Dupuy and of his deputy, for they are both very able men; however, I would like to get more precise explanations as to the reasons which prompted Messrs. Bienvenu and Carsley to resign; I am also curious to learn why the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Public Works have given us such evasive, and even inaccurate answers?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) has asked five questions, which I am quite happy to answer.
As to the appointment of Mr. de Belle-feuille, I understand that he will have nothing to do with public relations. I believe his official title is something like "director of the exhibitors". As for his appointment, I must say that before it was made, I got a letter from the world exhibition authorities, recommending that Mr. de Bellefeuille be given the position of director of the exhibitors.
Having looked into the bylaws, we pointed out to the fair directors that they were under no obligation to consult the government as to that appointment, which fell under their jurisdiction, and that the governor in council appoints only the commissioner general and his deputy.
It was after that exchange that Mr. de Bellefeuille was appointed, and the federal government had nothing to do with that appointment. I am happy to say that we are delighted with Mr. de Bellefeuille's appointment; he is a very able man, and we feel that he will do an excellent job.

Concerning the appointment of two additional directors, I think this is very important. It was pointed out that under the former organization, various regions of the country were not represented, so as to give that organization a national character. Now, as this will not be a Montreal or a Quebec exhibition but indeed an exhibition which must be an accomplishment of the whole of Canada, the government thought it appropriate to appoint two more directors, in order to give the organization a more adequate national representation.
As to the actual reasons for the resignations of Messrs. Bienvenu and Carsley, I must tell the house that I have nothing to add to the letters of resignation which were handed in to the Prime Minister some months ago. Furthermore, I believe Messrs. Bienvenu and Carsley gave information to the press in addition to that contained in their letters.
I agree with my hon. friend that these were resignations that caused much regret in all circles, and I should also state that I wrote a personal letter to Messrs. Bienvenu and Carsley, with whom I was well acquainted, not only to express my regrets but also to tell them how much the government appreciated the work they had accomplished since the laborious beginnings of the exhibition.
Mr. Chairman, I do not speak this way because the previous government was implied or because the former prime minister was responsible for the establishment of that organization. It is normal that the beginnings of an undertaking such as the world exhibition should be complicated and difficult; but once the organization has taken shape, so to speak, the task becomes much easier.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for St. Mary stated that the former commissioner general and his deputy had offered their services free. That statement is true, and I believe that this has not been sufficiently known in the public. I am glad the hon. member has brought this up, so that the public at large will know that Messrs. Bienvenu and Carsley had no other ambition than to help their country by placing their wide experience at the service of the Canadian people free of charge.
But today, the situation is different. The commissioner general and his deputy have to face a tremendously difficult job and we thought it fair, in the circumstances, that both of them be paid. Actually I think that neither the hon. member for St. Mary nor any other member will want to question the fact that a reasonable salary should be paid to people who now have to work from 15 to 17 hours a day.

Mr. Chairman, I think that 1 have dealt with all the questions of the hon. member for St. Mary. If I have overlooked certain points, I am sure that he will raise them again.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not
desire to ask any particular questions of the minister, but rather to make some comments and express my view that this resolution and such a bill-because we have now seen the bill and therefore have more knowledge of what is in the government's mind than would ordinarily be the case-should be opposed. I for one want to indicate that I have grave doubts and reservations about proceeding any further along this line that we have been following in the last few months since the passage of the original act.
Because of the progress that the resolution, and the bill which will follow, have had in the house so far, it seems to me there is some reluctance on the part of the government itself about this measure; because in the first instance the bill was introduced improperly, as Mr. Speaker ruled, and surely the extreme knowledge which the members of the cabinet, especially the Secretary of State, have about the rules should have warned them that the bill was going to be out of order on the grounds that is was not preceded by a resolution. Following upon that, the various delays that have taken place in calling this resolution indicate even more strongly to me that the government is not that anxious to participate in the particular project which will take place.
It was originally conceived that this would be a Canadian project, expressive to an extent of the Canadian viewpoint, and to coincide with our one hundredth birthday in 1967. In fact the speeches made in the house on the occasion of the passage of the original act reflected this desire for Canadianism, Canadian participation, and that a national concept be shown in the world fair itself, but unfortunately it has degenerated from something of a national scope to something not only provincial in nature but almost restricted to a city.
Even the Hansard index, which all hon. members have, indicates this; because in the index, if you look under the heading "Canadian World Exhibition Corporation" you will find a subheading which says "Montreal", and under the heading "Montreal" there are listed the references to the world fair. That is where you find all the references, not under "Canadian World Exhibition Corporation" but under "Montreal world fair".
While the goal may initially have been Canadian, I submit primarily that the force
World Exhibition Corporation Act behind this concept is that of Quebec and the pressure is that of Mayor Jean Drapeau of the city of Montreal, who incidentally, I understand, is a gentleman who absolutely detests those of English background and those who speak the English language, and this is regrettable and unfortunate.
I have reservations about supporting this measure because if all the indications we have had in the past are carried out, then this to me is not a national project or something which would reflect the concept of Canadian expression, or full Canadian participation in the fair. Primarily it is to be a sort of monument to the mayor of Montreal himself, and the minister has said that the expansion of the directors from 12 to 14 was designed to deal with this problem and make the fair more national in scope and application. But even though the number of directors is to be increased from 12 to 14, half of them are going to be chosen specifically and directed by the lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec and the other seven are to be chosen by the governor in council, presumably to give a more national application to this particular organization.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would my hon. friend permit me one remark at this point. On reading the measure, it is true that seven directors will be chosen by the lieutenant governor of Quebec and seven by the federal government, but there was an understanding that the province of Quebec will choose one director from among the present directors, so this will leave to the federal government two directors to be appointed, and then it will be possible for us to have certain regions of the country represented on the board of directors.


Frank Howard: That information is revealing, not only for what the minister said but for what he did not say. If that is the intention, why does the bill not say so? I do not think the rest of Canada wants the lieutenant governor of Quebec to appoint someone to represent it. I am sure the premier of British Columbia would not want the lieutenant governor of Quebec to appoint a director to represent the region of the west coast. That is the implication behind what the minister said.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I think it is worth while that we be very clear about this. Under the existing regulations there are six directors appointed by the lieutenant governor of Quebec and six directors appointed by the governor in council, which is the federal government. Now, with this amendment it would be possible for the governor in council to appoint two additional directors. The present directors will stay on, but there will be two

World Exhibition Corporation Act additions to the board of directors, and it is the responsibility of the governor in council to appoint them. The lieutenant governor of Quebec will have nothing to do with these two additional directors.


Frank Howard: The minister says the lieutenant governor of Quebec will have nothing to do with these two additional directors, but the bill says, if I may be permitted to refer to it:
(2) Of the fourteen other directors referred to in subsection (1), seven shall be appointed on the recommendation of the lieutenant governor in council.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This is true.


Frank Howard: And there are seven left to be appointed by the governor in council.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Not seven. If the hon. member will permit me, there are today 12 directors. Six have been appointed by Quebec and six have already been appointed by the federal government. The purpose of this bill is to permit two additions to the board of directors. I agree that this information does not appear in the bill, but there was an understanding with the province of Quebec that they are going to take their additional director from among those now sitting on the board of directors, so that we will have two to be appointed by the governor in council.


Mr. Marcoux:: Would it be possible to pass the resolution first so we can be supplied with the text of the bill? We are discussing the bill and we do not have the text.


Frank Howard: If the hon. member looks at Bill No. C-120 he will find that is the bill that is already before us because, by a special ruling of the house, it was maintained on the order paper. Now, the minister says this does not appear in the legislation, but if that is the intention why does it not say so? I do not like these arrangements with Premier Lesage or anybody else in Quebec, or in any other province, that such things are understood. If this is the intention the bill should say so, without leaving it to agreements reached between the minister and somebody else.
Whether these two additional directors are appointed by the governor in council or not, does not change the attitude that this is a Montreal-Quebec affair and not a national affair, no matter how many words are used to dress it up.
Another objection I have to the world fair, so-called, is that there have been a great many illegal activities taking place with respect to this bill and the world fair site. The original act stated clearly and unequivocally:
-there shall be held in Canada, on the island of Montreal for a period of six months in the year 1967-

And it goes on to say what shall be held there, but I point out that it says:
-there shall be held... on the island of Montreal
a certain event, a world fair.
It is not going to be held on the island of Montreal.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Partly.


Frank Howard: Partly. You can drive a car out to the approach to a bridge, perhaps, to get to some other place, but the world fair will not be held on the island of Montreal. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the matter knows that. In fact the city of Montreal, through Mayor Jean Drapeau, arranged for a special advertising supplement in the New York Times earlier this year in which throughout there was reference to He Ste Helene as being the site of the world fair. The island of Montreal was completely disregarded. The law was disregarded. As far as I am concerned the law was broken.
To draw additional attention to the matter I have here a publication which, while it is not a government publication, none the less gives an indication of what is happening. This is the Alcan News of October, 1963, and it refers to the birth of a world fair. It says:
Although the publicity drums are beating loudly these days for a "world fair" to be held in New York next year, Canadians are well aware that the next officially-recognized international exposition of this type will be held in their country during 1967. It will be located on a group of islands in the St. Lawrence river opposite the city of Montreal.
Then there is reference to a contract having already been let to Royalmount Construction Limited, which has 90 days to complete the job of creating a man-made island. There is the indication there that it is not the island of Montreal which is to be used, that the statute has been violated and that illegal activities have been taking place there.
I also have before me something which I am sure other members have received, owing no doubt to the season. It is a Christmas greeting, I suppose, although it does not say it is. It is from Mayor Jean Drapeau, mayor of Montreal, and Mrs. Drapeau and a Mr. Lucien Saulnier, who is chairman of the executive committee. I presume that is the executive committee which we are about to establish.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No, it is not.


Frank Howard: Well, it is the chairman of the executive committee; and these people and Mr. Saulnier send their best wishes. I am merely indicating who this is from.


Georges-J. Valade: It is the city of Montreal.


Frank Howard: Very well. It also says:
On August 12, 1963-

That was when the statute was in effect which said that this world fair would be on the island of Montreal-
-were officially inaugurated the works to enlarge St. Helen's island and create lie Notre Dame, site of the 1967 universal and international exhibition to be held in Montreal on the St. Lawrence.
Included in these Christmas greetings is a beautiful coloured picture of St. Helen's island.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am glad my hon. friend says it is beautiful.


Frank Howard: Oh, yes. I have a great liking for photographs which depict things correctly. If I can go further into it, as the minister is interested in beautiful pictures, in the Alcan News there is another beautiful picture of a dike which has been built around the upper end of St. Helen's island, and a pit where fill will go to create this artificial or man-made island. But throughout the mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, has made a fool of the federal government. Indeed, the federal government is asking parliament to participate in this foolery, to participate in making a fool of itself by creating a monument to the mayor of Montreal, when we should be talking of creating Canadian activity for the operation of the world fair generally. I am not disposed to give passage to this sort of activity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of references I want to make to this matter. I begin by saying to the minister that I like the way in which he answers questions. Whatever question is asked him he shows the disposition to answer, which is at all times commendable and the more so when it is so unique among hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. Rinfrei:: The member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) has undoubtedly heard that-


Georges-J. Valade: He is the only one.


John George Diefenbaker: However, there are always exceptions, as the hon. member for St. Mary has pointed out, and it is to the exceptions that I intend to direct my attention. In the first place I am going to refer to the bill, if I may, because it has already been spoken of by the minister. He stated a moment ago that the two directors to be appointed would be appointed by the governor in council. But the bill does not say that; the bill says the very reverse. Clause 3 (2) says:
Of the fourteen other directors referred to in subsection (1), seven shall be appointed on the recommendation of the lieutenant governor in council.
World Exhibition Corporation Act
I think a change will have to be made in this regard. An amendment will have to be made so as to bring this section into line with the arrangements which have been made by the minister with the government of Quebec.
We are facing a very difficult problem. I think there has been gross delay on the part of the government in connection with launching the world fair. Canadians as a whole have a great stake in national prestige to assure the success of this project. No one yet knows what the total expenditure will be. There has been an estimate of $585 million as the total cost, an estimate I think made by Mr. Bienvenu some months ago. I feel we should receive very full information on this matter before passing the bill which will be before us following passage of this resolution.
This fair is to be representative of Canada. It is not a sectional fair, and that has been so recognized both by the province of Quebec and by the mayor and council of the city of Montreal. There is no question in my mind about the desire of the government of Quebec and the capacity of that province, with the rest of Canada, to make this fair a monument to confederation, a monument to better understanding between the races. That monument is to mark a new era of progress in national unity. But those objectives will not be attained by the haphazard, zigzag courses which are being taken since this government assumed office.
Mention has been made of the statute; that it provided for this fair to be sited on the island of Montreal. I recall very well discussions taking place in this connection when I was prime minister. I agree quite frankly, on the basis of the representations and views of the government of the province of Quebec and of the corporation of the city of Montreal, that a change in this regard would be desirable. But I pointed out that any action in this respect must result and stem from a statute passed by parliament. I can understand the delays which have taken place to provide for the amendment required to establish as the site of the fair St. Helen's island rather than some other location on the island of Montreal.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question. Would the right hon. gentleman not admit that his government passed an act unanimously approved by parliament on December 20, 1962? This was seven months, or many months, before approval was given to the site. Does not this contradict what the right hon. gentleman has already said?

World Exhibition Corporation Act


John George Diefenbaker: Very definitely not.
There were discussions which took place then on the passage of the legislation. In the month of March representations were made that on the basis of full consideration of all the elements, the appropriate place would be St. Helen's island. I made it clear that because of the suggestion made by the secretary general, the assistants and the directors, with the concurrence of the government of the province of Quebec and of the city council of the city of Montreal, legislative amendments would be brought before parliament so as to give parliament the opportunity to make that alteration. But what has happened is this. The present government has been in office since April 22, and parliament has been sitting fairly steadily since May 20. During all this time work has been proceeding which is totally illegal, unlawful and beyond the rights of those carrying it out. I found it passing strange that the Prime Minister of Canada should be attending the opening ceremonies on an island which, as yet, has received no designation from parliament.
I agree as to the necessity of the change, but as to the action so far taken, which has been to proceed without proper authorization, I would point out that the executive has no authority to act contrary to the statute, that parliament is supreme in these matters. We are in favour of the amendment, but I am pointing out that every action taken to date has been legally improper and totally beyond the authority given by parliament.
To say this in no way detracts from the fact that every support will be given by the opposition to changing the location on the basis of the verbal arrangements made and the subsequent confirmation of the site by the present government. Nevertheless, the action taken to date by the government and its representatives has been altogether beyond the rights of those concerned. I know that the Minister of Public Works, who is an excellent lawyer, will be the first to agree that what has been done has been illegal. He affirms that. Parliament is now being asked-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On a question of privilege. Because I am an excellent lawyer I would like to raise a question of privilege. I have never admitted that anything that has been done so far has been done illegally. Now I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman a question. Is he able to cite me one case or any undertaking since last April which is not permitted or authorized either by the act which was passed during the time of his administration or by the tripartite agreement? I would like him to give me one example.


John George Diefenbaker: In the first place may I say that when the hon. gentleman bowed his head in a vertical position, I took it as a sign of approval. Apparently the hon. gentleman follows the custom in Nepal, I think it is, where the elevation of the head in a vertical position expresses a negative.


Mr. Nicholson:: I think the right hon. gentleman mistook the nod which was given in recognition of the statement that my hon. colleague is an excellent lawyer.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no one with the innate modesty of the minister would have gone as far as to indicate approval of that, much as he may have felt it within his soul.
May I call it one o'clock?
It being eight minutes after one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, lest there be any misunderstanding, I assure you and all members of the house that the evidence just displayed of there being unity between the Secretary of State and myself was purely coincidental.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will second that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment I was dealing with the problem created by the delays, and had mentioned the very lengthy delays and the fact that whatever work has been done on this location, ratified as I know it will be by parliament, is none the less illegal and improper. The government should have brought in this legislation immediately the session was under way, and if it had done so what has taken place subsequently would not have occurred.
There are one or two other observations I want to make. We want to get information. Today we received information as to the salary that the associate director is going to receive, but we have had no information as to what the director is going to receive. Naturally we are all very anxious to bring this session to a conclusion, and the easiest way to do that is to furnish information. The government is in a position to furnish that information, and must have available to it knowledge of the amount that will be paid the director general.
In that connection I want to mention Mr. Bienvenu and Mr. Carsley. These men accepted their positions because of their belief that by doing so they could do something worth while on behalf of their country. They

asked no fee; they asked no salary. When asked to serve they simply agreed to do so. We should have the information I have mentioned.
We should also have information as to the total expected expenditure to be made on this fair. I do not want to reiterate what I have already said, but this fair cannot fail. To allow this fair, representative of this nation, even to enter the spectrum of failure would give to Canada a black eye internationally. In that connection I want the minister to let us know how many nations have agreed to participate. Months have gone by. Is it a fact that so far only two nations have agreed to send exhibits?
The next question I ask is this. Is there any foundation for the widely spread rumour that the government has in mind the possibility of postponing the date of the fair from the year of the hundredth anniversary of this nation to a later year? I hope there is no foundation for that. To do so would be to follow a course of defeatism and despair, and would give our country a reputation that would be far from favourable.
I would also point out that a few weeks ago information was sought in the house by the hon. member for St. Mary. He has been asking for information, as has the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. None has been forthcoming. There has always been the suggestion that if you just wait in hope and expectation you will ultimately be given information. Certainly there has been no application of the principle, ask and ye shall receive, when it comes to information in connection with this fair.
I ask this question. Will Mr. Pierre Dupuy give up his position as ambassador? There was a suggestion that this matter might be resolved in the month of January. I have a great regard for Mr. Pierre Dupuy. As a matter of fact I made the recommendation that he be ambassador to France following my experience with him in Rome in 1954 when he was ambassador there. I found there was nothing he would not do to make Canadian visitors to Italy welcome, and would personally do everything possible to make their stay convenient. I found him a very wise counsellor and I was greatly impressed by him. But he cannot do two jobs.
When listening today to the Minister of Justice speaking of when we might get information in regard to a case in British Columbia that received consideration in the house this morning, I saw in his eyes that glow that indicates that an ambassadorship may well be the resting place of the Minister of Justice. If that be so, I would say that Canada would be better represented there by him than it is
World Exhibition Corporation Act in his occupancy of the position of Minister of Justice. I do not know whether that vacancy is going to take place, but I am just trying to find out. I am not seeking information as to identity at the moment, but no one can deny me the speculative right to contemplate the possibilities of a final resting place being found.
I should also like to secure some information that has been asked for and promised over and over again. What are the expected fair costs? I refer to an article that appeared in the press on October 10, in which it was stated that Mr. Shaw, the deputy commissioner general, was bubbling with appreciation of the site and disclosed certain things in an interview. The article points out that Mr. Shaw is a good humoured man and tries to answer all questions put to him. He did not appear to know definitely, but he did say that within a matter of six weeks the costs of the fair and the estimates would be available. The Minister of Public Works himself, having been asked a similar question in the house, also stated that full information would be available by December 20. I would ask the minister to place before the house, first in general and then in particular, the developments that the fair directors have in mind, the cost of each of the several items, and the extent to which any advances towards the building of these fair devices have been attained.
These are some of the matters upon which information has been requested. We have not been able to get anything but generalities, and the time has now come when the house and the country should be assured, finally and absolutely, that this fair is going to be a success; that it is going to achieve the objectives and purposes that the government in which I had the honour to be prime minister had in mind when it made the application on behalf of Canada to secure this fair.
It is well for the record to go back and review, very shortly, something of the course taken. It was in 1958 that the late Senator Mark Drouin suggested, when he was at the Brussels exhibition, that Canada might hold a fair in 1967 to coincide with the centennial celebrations. In 1959 the Montreal chamber of commerce prepared a brief. In 1960, on February 10, I announced that Canada would apply to I.B.E. for the fair; that Ottawa would guarantee $20 million, Quebec $15 million and the city of Montreal $5 million. On March 7, 1960 Canada was informed officially that Russia would apply for the 1967 fair to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the communist revolution. We tried very hard to secure the fair at that time. On May 5, 1960 the U.S.S.R. on the fifth ballot received a

World Exhibition Corporation Act majority of the votes in the meeting of the I.B.E. In 1961 the U.S.S.R. decided it would not go ahead.
Once more a movement began for a new application. In June, 1962 Premier Lesage confirmed the provincial promise of $15 million. On September 7 the then government announced it would apply for the fair. On November 13, 1962 the 1967 exhibition was awarded to Canada by the international bureau of expositions. There have been many articles on the subject pointing out the delays that have taken place since April 21. There was an exhaustive article by Mr. Bernard Dufresne of the gallery, which appeared in the Globe and Mail on August 30. It reads as follows:
When things go wrong in French Canada they say, "Ca ne tourne pas rond." A rough translation could be "The wheels are turning off centre," but the best idiomatic equivalent is: "Things are in a mess."
I hope there is no foundation for the fears expressed in that article and that the minister will set out in detail what the plans are, how far progress has been made, and what will be the total amount of expenditure for Canada. What is the consensus as to the buildings that are to be erected? We should like to know, before we leave here, if this legislation is amended as requested, what advances will be made toward the attainment of that objective which must be dear to the hearts of all of us, namely the success of the fair. I have seen a fine spirit of cooperation between the provincial government and the mayor and corporation of the city of Montreal. I hope the same co-operation will be available to the federal government. However, there has been nothing yet to indicate a recognition that time is of the essence and that action must be taken.
As for regularizing what has been done illegally in starting the work on St. Helen's island without amending the act of parliament, that is passed now. I do not like to see legislation after the event. It is the kind of retroactive legislation that has inherent in it dangerous possibilities. However, the work has been done. We intended, when we were in office, to introduce legislation, but the exigencies of elections brought about a change which denied that legislation. This government followed the views we had expressed in the months of February and March and made a decision that the St. Helen's island site would be the one. However, they did not bring legislation before parliament. I ask, what was the reason for the delay? I cannot understand it. There has been legislation brought before us of little or no consequence, while this is of the utmost importance to Canada. Canada will suffer an


international degradation, a national loss of prestige that this parliament and the Canadian people cannot possibly dissipate.
I want to say again that I hope the minister will give us the facts and answer these questions. Let us know how much is going to be paid for holding this fair. Let us know what is going to be expended. What are the plans? He could have gained the co-operation of all members and brought on the activity that has been lacking if he had introduced this amendment rather than sitting back and holding this important legislation to the last minute of the last hour of the last two days of this session.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I think I can count on the house's permission at this time to answer the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and then the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I listened with some dismay to the comments of the hon. member for Skeena.
Surely, the hon. member for Skeena is aware that we shall soon be celebrating Christmas and the new year and wishing for peace on earth and good will to men, and I do not exclude the hon. member from the group of men of good will. However, when he comes back for the next session, if he reads over and meditates on what he said this morning, I do not think he will care to repeat it. I am sure of that and I do not wish to reply in detail to everything he said.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. He recognized that such co-operation existed and was essential to the success of such a gigantic undertaking as the world exhibition, where the prestige of Canada is at stake.

I would like to refer immediately to a few points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. As far as the allegation of delays is concerned, I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is in a position to state clearly what he has in mind. I have followed this undertaking since the month of April, and last May we confirmed approval in principle of the site of the fair. If the Leader of the Opposition had been the head of the government from April to July, I am sure he would not have come to an effective agreement with the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal to begin the work without there having been proper surveys and studies carried out by engineers. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the city of Montreal knew only in July that the site was a feasible one. They did not know this until they received the report of the Laboratoire Lasalle

after innumerable studies had been made, and then the three governments were in a position to examine this report and take proper steps.
I repeat what I said this morning. In the same week that the final report of the Labo-ratoire Lasalle reached my office, an agreement was made with the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. I again say that I reject any allegation of delays as far as we are concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the date of the agreement, please?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I will supply that information before the end of this debate, Mr. Chairman. The right hon. gentleman referred to the increase in the number of directors. May I say that this act was passed while he was head of the previous government. The reason the province of Quebec has the same number of directors as the federal government is that under the tripartite agreement-


John George Diefenbaker: I did not at any time question the fact that they should have the same number of directors. I pointed out that the bill says the other two appointments to be made will consist of one appointee by the governor in council and one by the lieutenant governor in council.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I was coming to that, Mr. Chairman. I would be ready to admit that technically the right hon. gentleman is right. The reason we are increasing the number of directors from 12 to 14 is that we would like to improve the image of the organization; we would like more regions of this country to be represented. The right hon. gentleman will find in the bill before us that the same number of directors, namely seven, is provided for Quebec and for the federal government, though we are going to appoint two additional directors. The reason is that because the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal will bear half the total expenditures, we thought that at least in the statute they should provide the same number of directors as the federal government. This number is seven. But I wish to state, Mr. Chairman, and I do not hesitate for a moment to commit myself by saying, that the two additional directors will be appointed by the governor in council. A gentlemen's agreement was reached between the federal government and the government of Quebec. I hope hon. members will be satisfied with my statement.
The right hon. gentleman also claimed that we should have presented to the house before now an amendment to the act in order to legalize the description of the site. I wish to state that we were planning to present this
World Exhibition Corporation Act amendment immediately after the house resumed in September, but because we thought we would be making additional amendments it was considered preferable to wait and present all the amendments at the same time. Because the leader of the official opposition may think he has a prima facie case of illegality, may I state first of all that the government of the province of Quebec last summer passed an act in which it is stated very clearly that Notre Dame island belongs to the city of Montreal.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the federal government has not yet spent one nickel in relation to the site. I repeat, not one nickel has been spent by the federal government in relation to the site. I repeat also that the site is the sole responsibility of the city of Montreal, and they have the obligation to deliver this site before the end of June, 1964. A budget was prepared for the year 1963, and it has to do with salaries and details of the organization. There was no mention of any other undertaking or construction project.
I now come to the question of salary of the chief commissioner. I repeat that this question has not been settled as yet but will be settled sometime in January. Until then the chief commissioner will continue to enjoy the salary and indemnities as ambassador, which post he is still occupying.


John George Diefenbaker: Is he paid as commissioner or just as ambassador?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Just as ambassador. The right hon. gentleman has asked for the total expenditure, the plan, and so forth, and I believe I answered that question this morning on orders of the day. This afternoon the operating and capital budgets, as well as the master plan, will be presented to the federal government and the Quebec government, and to the city of Montreal. The right hon. gentleman is experienced enough to know that in such a case it is not possible for us to make this information available to members of parliament or the public before it has been approved.
In order to make my point very clear I would like to read clause 8 of the tripartite agreement among the government of Canada, the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, signed on January 18, 1963:
The corporation shall submit, annually, to the minister and the minister of industry and commerce of Quebec...an operating budget and a capital budget, with deductions for any anticipated income in each case, for the next following financial year of the corporation, which shall be the calendar year, for their approval, and approval by the Minister of Finance of Canada and the minister of finance of Quebec, and shall forward copies of the approved budgets to the city.

World Exhibition Corporation Act
We are going to examine these documents sometime tomorrow or next week. The government of Quebec will do the same, and it is only by courtesy that these documents have been made available to the city of Montreal, because under the agreement it is mentioned that we could have waited for approval before giving them to the city of Montreal.


John George Diefenbaker: When we undertook to have the fair we fixed the total liability of the federal government at $20 million. That was the basis upon which the fair was proceeded with, but subsequently the present Prime Minister added to that amount. I would now like to know how much the federal parliament will be called upon to pay for this fair, and what was the basis upon which the $20 million-which was of the essence to agreement that we would join in the fair-has been increased? Is there any further increase over and above that which was promised by the Prime Minister in August?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I do not think the right hon. gentleman's statement is quite accurate. It is true that the government of Canada has agreed to pay a grant of $20 million.


John George Diefenbaker: And no more.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This is where the right hon. gentleman makes a mistake, because clause 7, concerning the borrowing powers of the corporation, is very clear.


John George Diefenbaker: Read it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I will read clause 7:
If further funds-
That is in addition to the $20 million, the $15 million from Quebec and the $5 million from Montreal.
-are required by the corporation for the purposes of the exhibition, other than those obtained by way of temporary loans from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, Canada and the province agree that the corporation shall, subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance of Canada and the minister of finance of Quebec, borrow such funds and may issue securities therefor and that such securities shall be jointly guaranteed by Canada and the province. The securities and the joint guarantees shall be in such form and subject to such terms and conditions, including rates of interest as approved by Canada and the province.
In answer to the right hon. gentleman's question may I say there was no increase, and that the situation is the same as the one set under the previous administration. There is no increase whatever in the grants to the corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: I read from the Montreal Star of August 13:
Prime Minister Pearson said yesterday the federal government is prepared to spend-


Not to loan-
-$50 million over and above the $20 million already allocated as its share.
That is not a loan under clause 7 of the agreement.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am just wondering whether the statement read by the right hon. gentleman has to do with the Canadian pavilion. In addition to the grants, the federal government has undertaken to build a Canadian pavilion. I do not know exactly how much this will cost, and I would refer that question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is in charge of this sector.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words and to express to the Minister of Public Works my best wishes for the success of the world exhibition in 1967.
On the other hand, I want to state that I am sorry about the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I think that all members of this house, with the exception of the hon. member for Skeena, feel that His Honour Mayor Drapeau, of Montreal, is anxious to co-operate with everyone, at all levels, so that the world exhibition might be a success.
The mayor of Montreal must be commended for giving of his time, his energy and his talent in order that the city of Montreal may contribute, directly or indirectly, to the success of that exhibition. Actually, the world exhibition is not the responsibility of Mayor Drapeau only, but also of the Quebec government and of the federal government, with, of course, the co-operation of the foreign countries which will have a pavilion at the fair. This is an undertaking on a national scale and not on a municipal scale, as suggested by the hon. member for Skeena.
I would like to ask the minister why we must wait so long to have Mr. Dupuy's status determined? Mr. Dupuy is in charge of the fair, but he is still the Canadian ambassador in Paris. I wonder why he has not yet been asked to devote himself exclusively to the fair since, as the minister said, it is a tremendous venture which certainly requires, to my mind, the undivided attention of Mr. Dupuy.
I have a suggestion for the minister: at the very first opportunity, he should replace Mr. Dupuy by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Chevrier. I think that would provide a speedy settlement of the problem.
As far as developing of the exhibition site is concerned, that is the development of the islands, it seemed to be understood that the filling material would cost some $12 million. I should like to ask the minister whether it is true that it will cost $60 million because the

required material cannot be taken from the bottom of the St. Lawrence river since there are several feet of sheet of rock.
I think the authorities concerned will have to see to it that the filling is well done, because taking the New York world exhibition statistics in 1939-1940, public services involved 10 miles of sewers, 20 miles of drains, 15 miles of water pipes and 16 miles of gas lines. This means that the authorities concerned will have to see to it that the ground is well settled in order to avoid pipe breakage for instance.
Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition quite properly asked what would be the total cost of that gigantic undertaking. I have some information from an authority very close to the world exhibition concerning the approximate costs for the various administrative levels to carry out that project. For instance, the total investment is estimated at $580,540,000, of which $82,300,000 are chargeable to the exhibition corporation, $83,740,000 to the city of Montreal, $141,500,000 to the province, $70,500,000 to the federal government, $104 million to foreign countries and $98.5 million to Canadian private enterprise. So the total investment will come close to $1 billion.
The management anticipates expenditures of over $80 million, without taking into account administrative expenditures which will certainly add up to several millions. To meet that tremendous responsibility, I understand the exhibition corporation only has the $40 million put at its disposal by the three governments. Since the total revenue is estimated as some $40 million, based on the estimates already prepared for the New York exhibition, a large operation deficit is already anticipated.
Then we would appreciate, if the minister without entering into details would at least tell the house, whether it is true that, as I have been told by someone who is very close to world exhibition, the total cost would reach a billion?
The minister has also spoken about the Canadian pavilion. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether it is true, even if this matter comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce, that the cost of the Canadian pavilion will reach $21 million. We, on this side of the house, would appreciate receiving this information.
Mr. Chairman, those were the remarks which I wanted to make. However, as for the approximate cost of this venture, I would be pleased if the minister would give us further explanations.
World Exhibition Corporation Act


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the house this afternoon.
First of all, as member for a constituency where all races live together in a genuine spirit of national unity, I simply want to say that I do not wish to waste the time of the house in replying to the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
With the harmonious co-operation of the entire population of my riding of Brome-Missisquoi, as well as of every province, I am convinced that we shall be holding in 1967 genuine and sincere celebrations for the centennial of our great and young country.
We are indeed fortunate in not having among our people persons with the same frame of mind as the hon. member for Skeena.
I have often asked the Minister of Public Works questions concerning the world fair. From time to time, I noticed that in his replies, he never referred to the important things which were happening in Montreal.
A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister stated that he intended to appoint a permanent liaison officer to keep the federal government constantly and fully informed of the events in Montreal. As I say, not so many weeks ago, the minister told me that, for the time being, he was acting in that capacity himself.
In view of the speech he delivered and the announcement which the Prime Minister made, I hope the government will soon appoint a permanent liaison officer so that, from now on, we may get appropriate information on what is happening in Montreal, when we ask questions in the house.
Speaking in all sincerity, I submit that what we need at the present time is an efficient system permitting co-operation between the federal government, the provincial authorities of Quebec and those of the city of Montreal.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, if I may say so I think the best compliment I can pay to the last two speakers is to direct my remarks through you to the minister and say to him that my initial comments on this resolution were not made out of rancour or bitterness or anger; they were placed on the record because that was the way I felt about the situation after watching the progress, or lack of it, of the world fair in the months up to now. If hon. members want to get emotionally incensed about it and base their attitudes to this question on pure emotion rather than looking at it logically, that is their prerogative and I bear them no ill will whatsoever.

World Exhibition Corporation Act
With respect to the contention made earlier today and reiterated by the Leader of the Opposition that all the works done to date are illegal and without statutory sanction, I should like to tell the minister that I still hold this view. I believe the arguments which the hon. gentleman put forward in this regard do not hold water. He said, for instance, that the legislature of the province of Quebec brought Notre Dame island within the confines of the city of Montreal. That may well be, but that does not make Notre Dame island part of the island of Montreal, and the act specifically says that the world fair should be held on the island of Montreal.
The hon. gentleman indicated that not five cents has been spent by the federal government on the work which has been done up to the present moment. I do not think that argument has any validity with respect to whether what has been done has been done legally or not, because the relevant section of the act says quite clearly that there shall be held in Canada, on the island of Montreal, for six months, the exhibition referred to. The act does not talk about whether the federal government should spend money on the exhibition. That is immaterial.
The invitation cards which we received in August indicated that there was to be an official inauguration of the site. That is contrary to the law. The minister also said that the city of Montreal had until the end of 1964 to deliver the site; that is, to have it ready and available. This is immaterial too. We contend that the work which has been done up to this time has been illegal and contrary to the law of Canada, and we should all recognize this fact.
Even if this bill passes I do not think it will legalize what has been done up to now. However, I think there is a general disposition to agree that we should do something to regularize the illegal procedures which have been followed up to now. I still take the position that, so far, this has not been developed as an exhibition worthy of Canada in a national sense. So far, these activities have revolved primarily around the city of Montreal.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister did not answer a couple of the questions that I put to him. One of those questions concerned the rumour, passed from person to person, that the world fair was to be postponed. This rumour originated in an answer given by the Prime Minister on October 18 to the hon. member for St. Mary. The exchange is reported in Hansard on page 3742, as follows:


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does he have any comments to make on an article published in Maclean's and stating that


the Prime Minister's advisers recommended giving up the idea of a world fair in Montreal? The article appeared on page 17 of the October 5, 1963 issue of that magazine.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make.
The very fact that no comment was made accelerated the number of rumours in this regard, and I would ask the minister to direct his answer to this point.
The second question I asked him was this. How many countries to date have agreed to exhibit at the Canadian centennial exposition. My information may not be correct, but I have been informed that only two countries have expressed any direct interest in taking part in this exhibition. That is a very serious situation. The third question to which I did not receive an answer-it was brushed off-was what expenditure is to be made by the parliament of Canada? I am going to read from the remarks of the Prime Minister made in Montreal as reported on August 13.
In 1962, the federal government took the necessary action to establish the world fair corporation and to extend invitations to countries through our diplomatic channels abroad. It approved a contribution of up to $20 million to meet the direct costs of the exhibition.
Now the minister would have us believe that this $20 million was simply to be spent on a building or on a pavilion. Nothing of the sort. It represented the limit to which the former government would go in contributing to the direct costs of the exhibition, and that view was accepted by the present Prime Minister. Then the right hon. gentleman went on to say:
The federal government is also prepared to provide an exhibit which will be worthy of the country. It has undertaken to meet the very substantial additional costs that its engineers consider will be necessary to provide for the protection of this site against ice accumulation.
How much has been estimated as the cost which the federal government would accept in order to provide protection against ice accumulation? These various costs which I have mentioned will in themselves total something over $50 million. We want to know what the contribution is to be.
There is the building of the pavilion. Naturally there will be a national pavilion. But the undertaking of the government, when I was prime minister, was that our direct contribution would be no more than $20 million. Now the present government states there will be further costs in connection with the highway. I can recall the minister being asked a question as to the cost in this connection, and he said the highway would be built as part of the trans-Canada plan and the share paid by the federal government

would be the share normally paid by the federal government toward the cost of such highways.
I should like to get the outline of this expenditure. The direct contribution is $20 million. Then there is the pavilion. Over and above the pavilion, what further contribution is Canada to be asked to make? What is the estimated cost of providing protection against ice? What is the estimated cost of the road construction? What is the estimated cost of engaging additional engineers, and so on? We should know these things. There have been some grandiose plans suggested. As a matter of fact I notice someone has proposed that the parliament of Canada should provide free transportation for everyone who wants to go to the fair. I thought that was going a little far; indeed, I thought it was going much too far.
What I am trying to point out is that unless there is some degree of control there is no plan, however ephemeral or ridiculous, which might not ultimately be charged to the federal government. What degree of control do we have? What is the limit? I repeat that we said no more than $20 million was to be provided by way of direct assistance. That did not contemplate the cost of the pavilion. As soon as the minister gives us this information he will more or less have covered the picture.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: May I at the outset remind the Leader of the Opposition that there is no clause dealing with expenditure on the fair in the bill before us. I think he will be bound to agree with me when I point this out. I will go as far as I can in answering his questions, although I feel I am not supposed to do so because the subject is not covered.


John George Diefenbaker: We will regard it as covered.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am ready to meet the right hon. gentleman half way. I wish to be very clear about this. There has never been any question of postponing the date of the fair. I have never heard of it, and this is especially so on this day when we are going to be supplied with the master plan and the organization is now in the midst of developing its projects. I think this answers the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. It is true that three countries, I believe, have actually accepted participation.


John George Diefenbaker: Which are they? Britain, France and Belgium?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I think this is information we will have to supply later to the right
World Exhibition Corporation Act hon. gentleman. I believe he can easily understand that it is pretty early for the different countries to accept participation. We are in December, 1963 and the fair will take place in 1967. But I might say here that at least 25 countries have already indicated that they are going to participate. I think this should answer the point. The federal government is going to provide a pavilion, but I do not think it would be proper for me to give the amount because this is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce. But I might say today that the Canadian pavilion will surely be the pride of all Canadians-


John George Diefenbaker: How much is the pride going to cost?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -who will visit the fair. As far as the expenditures are concerned, we forecast an expenditure of $20 million, the federal government paying $17.5 million and the city of Montreal $2.5 million for a total of $20 million.
The right hon. gentleman mentioned the cost of highways and access roads to the site. As far as the access roads are concerned, it is one of the obligations of the city of Montreal to provide access roads to the site and also to provide for the services, the corporation being responsible only for the services within the site. I am the one who signed the agreement under the Trans-Canada Highway Act with the province of Quebec for the expressway from the west end to the east end of Montreal, and I wish to remind the house that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the world fair except, of course, to permit the construction of a very important link coming from the north end of the city to the site. We would have accepted this agreement whether or not there was going to be a fair in Montreal in 1967. I wish this to be well understood. This is the reason the expenditure under the Trans-Canada Highway Act should not be included in the cost of the world fair.


John George Diefenbaker: What will be the amount of that expenditure?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, we will have to pay approximately $30 million as our share for the construction of the Boucherville bridge, and we think starting at Metropolitan boulevard in the north end of Montreal up to Boucherville bridge and the tunnel we are going to spend approximately $45 million. The hon. gentleman must remember that the province of Quebec only entered into an agreement under the Trans-Canada Highway Act in 1960, and although the federal government is paying 50 per cent of the cost there is a provision in section 10 or section 11 of the act whereby we pay 90 per cent of one tenth of
6220	HOUSE OF
World Exhibition Corporation Act the mileage. When we dealt with other provinces in the past, of course, we were always called upon to pay 90 per cent on the most expensive section. However, this was one of the purposes of the act, and it is the reason we are paying 90 per cent in Montreal.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the 90 per cent covered mountain roads and the like.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or bridges.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I do not know if the right hon. gentleman is kidding about that.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I am being very serious.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am supplying the information-


John George Diefenbaker: And I thank the minister.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -under reserve of the point I have already made, that this is completely outside the scope of the bill, and I hope the right hon. gentleman will appreciate this.

Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon), I wish to say this. When an ambassador must leave his post, a period of three or four months is usually required on account of his duties and that is why the commissioner, Mr. Pierre Dupuy, necessarily needs that period of time.
I wish to say that this problem will be settled sometime in January and the hon. members will be informed.


Georges-J. Valade: After the cabinet shuffle.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I hope that the delay in the appointment of the Minister of Justice will not be that long.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: As far as Notre Dame island and St. Helen's island are concerned, I wish to repeat to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that that is the city of Montreal's responsibility and that not later than yesterday, Mr. Jean Drapeau announced through the press that those islands would be handed over in time, as provided in the by laws.
In my reply before the recess, I dealt with the point raised by the hon. member about services. The city of Montreal has to provide those services to the site, but within the limits of the site the corporation will have to set up those required by the fair.
I am sorry to say that I am not able to satisfy my hon. friends' curiosity as far as building costs are concerned. Again, the master plan will be presented only today; it will be considered tomorrow or Monday by


us, and also by the government of the province of Quebec which, this very day, is meeting the fair officials who will present the plans to them, as well as to the city of Montreal. Within a few weeks everybody will be informed of the decision.
I must say that the organization of the exhibition now enters the most important period of all, which is the carrying out the plan that will be accepted by the three governments.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would it be possible, at the beginning of next session, to have an idea of the approximate cost?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am happy to answer this question. When the plans have been approved, there is no reason why they should not be made public. This morning, I said it was unfortunate we should not sit at that time, for the hon. members would then have learned of these plans before the public.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get some information from the minister. He himself mentioned the east-west Montreal expressway which will be built to help speed up traffic on the occasion of the world fair.
As he mentioned the subject, I would like to have some information concerning the laying out of that road, especially where it branches off from Dorchester boulevard. I understand, according to the lay-out, that the expressway is to start at a point west on Dorchester boulevard to reach Delorimier street, go up that street and from there continue east on Ontario street, up to the Bou-cherville tunnel. If I am right in this-and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong-I do not understand why the expressway would pass on an elevated road, in the eastern part of Montreal, on a very busy artery.
I should also like the minister to tell us what will be the responsibility of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation concerning means of communication with and access to St. Helen's and Notre Dame islands, the site of the exhibition. At the official opening ceremony persided over by Mayor Drapeau, in spite of the roads now available, we certainly found ourselves in a serious traffic jam.
I wonder how we are going to have adequate means of access to the site, if the government, the city and the province do not decide immediately what are to be the roads of access and exit. I also wonder what comprehensive studies have been undertaken to prevent the exhibition from causing great big traffic jams which would jeopardize its success.

I wonder if the minister could get in touch with his colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) to see whether the toll could be removed on Champlain bridge.
A member from the city of Montreal and myself urged that tolls be abolished on the Champlain bridge, as soon as possible, since even now that situation slows down traffic considerably in the city of Montreal because the work now going on on St. Helen's island and truck traffic are already causing quite serious bottlenecks on the roads between the south and the north shores.
I make this suggestion because I feel that the most important thing to think about after giving a structure, so to speak, to the corporation, is to ensure that all means of communication will benefit the world's fair.
Since the minister offers to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Act, I wonder whether he could tell us what are the intentions of the corporation about the pavilions which will be left there, once the fair is over. Rumours circulate to the effect that these pavilions could be sold to individuals. If such were the case, I think that we would be making a mistake because such a decision would lead to speculations with regard to the disposal of those pavilions.
In my opinion, these pavilions could be used to serve many purposes. I could even suggest to the minister that the corporation give up or sell some of them to the University of Montreal, which could use them as research centres, medical laboratories or even as hospitals.
As I mentioned already, these buildings could be used for many purposes, but I am of the opinion that before venturing too far, the minister should look after all the details to make sure, at the outset, that no speculation will be possible when the fair is over.
Mr. Chairman, I wish also to comment on some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who, some time ago, seemed to blame the mayor of Montreal for the delays in the preparation of the world fair.
I feel the hon. member has been very badly informed, as in other circumstances, it may be added, because in the July 4, 1963 edition of La Presse, there was an article signed by Mr. Albert Tremblay to the effect that the city of Montreal was blaming Ottawa for the difficulties encountered in the preparation of the fair.
And the second paragraph of the article in question was as follows:
At a press conference called especially for that purpose, Messrs. Jean Drapeau and Lucien Saulnler defined once again the position of the administration-
World Exhibition Corporation Act
And the conclusion of the article was that the delay was due to a lack of decision on the part of the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that the Minister of Public Works should not be the only one blamed for that situation. I think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is also responsible to a great extent for those delays for which I suggest there is no excuse, because of the short period at the disposal of the authorities of the city of Montreal to have the grounds ready.
I have a letter which the Prime Minister sent me on September 24, 1963 concerning the site of the exhibition, when I asked him to investigate the internal problems of the world exhibition corporation, particularly in connection with the resignation of Messrs. Carsley and Bienvenu. In his reply, the Prime Minister said then that a bill would soon be introduced in the house to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act.
Mr. Chairman, I draw the attention of the house to the fact that this letter was dated September 24, 1963, and that it is only on December 20, that is nearly three months later, that the government finally introduced legislation to amend the said act.
I insist on calling this to the attention of the hon. member for Skeena and of the minister to stress the fact that the government is to be held responsible for the delays encountered in the decisions concerning the world fair.
Some time ago, I spoke of the reasons which motivated the resignation of Messrs. Carsley and Bienvenu. The minister did not reply. I would ask him to give those reasons to the house.
On August 22, 1963, La Presse published the letter which Mr. Bienvenu sent to the Prime Minister and copies of which he had given to the press. This is what he said in paragraph (b):
Important decisions were taken without the corporation being even invited to attend the discussions. There should not only be close coordination between the three levels of government but the commissioner should be provided with the means to ensure such co-ordination if senseless delays and duplication are to be avoided.
This letter is a clear indictment against the present government and the minister responsible for the world fair for their lack of co-ordination not to say co-operation. I wonder if the Liberal government should not assume part of the blame for those delays which nearly compromised the world fair, which, as we all hope, will be a success.
I hope, therefore, that the minister will not try to evade his share of responsibilities and will recognize that it is as late as eight months after the coming into power of his

World Exhibition Corporation Act party that entirely technical legislation is introduced in order to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act. Indeed, the minister must admit that the amendments proposed only involve a very small part of the administrative structure and that they mostly concern the payment of allowances to the directors.
I feel that the government could have introduced much more practical amendments than those now before us and which only tend to amend the act so as to appoint two other directors and increase their remuneration.
I would like the minister to give us some definite explanation because his hesitation in making known the allowance to be paid to the commissioner general is absolutely unacceptable. I am wondering why the minister cannot tell us today what salary will be paid to this director who will soon be working for the company?
In this connection, I will give as an example the civil service commission. When this commission advertises a competition, the salary paid to the successful candidate is usually indicated. I cannot therefore understand why the Minister of Public Works is not in a position to tell us now what will be the salary paid to the commissioner general.
I realize that it may be advisable to take this decision when the house will be in recess, because we could then ask other information and I find that this perhaps is a characteristic attitude of the Minister of Public Works with his usual courtesy, he does not want to start a controversy.
I do not want to start a discussion on the matter, but I think we should insist, as members responsible for the money spent by the government, that the minister tell us how much the commissioner general will get.
I think it should be easy for the minister to answer that question. If one of his friends were to meet him and ask: "My dear minister, what is your salary?", it would be easy for him to answer his friend and it would not take him two months to do it, because he knows how much he is being paid. Therefore, I think the minister is in a position to tell us if the salary in question will amount to $10,000, $15,000, $25,000, $35,000 or even more than $35,000 or $50,000 per year.
It is important that we should get that information because we are asked to pass a measure meant precisely to give consideration to the matter of salaries to be paid to the directors of the world's fair.
I hope that the minister will answer the questions we put to him and, in particular,


will assure the house that neither the provincial nor the federal government will intervene from now on in the administration of the world's fair.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to start a debate but I know that some contracts were granted directly without public tenders being called. There might not have been anything wrong in that since the authorities of the city of Montreal are responsible for the preparation of the site but I hope that the three governments will give the corporation the independence it should have if we really want the fair to be a success.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, possibly the minister now, in the spirit of Christmas, will let us have that information. He has been pretty generous in his information as to the salary the deputy commissioner general is to receive. When he has given this information he will have pretty well covered the questions that were asked. I summarize this matter at the moment by saying we have no apology to offer for the time taken in the examination of this very important matter. I am glad to have the assurance of the minister that the fair is going to be proceeded with. The uncertainty that was created stemmed directly from the indifference of an answer given by the Prime Minister, to which I alluded earlier.
There must be-and I think parliament takes this stand-strict regard to the expenditures that are being made. This is not to become a field day for expenditures. The undertaking was that $20 million would be the total amount that parliament would provide. That was the understanding, the very clear understanding; and I remember very well that Toronto was approached in this connection and said that an exhibition of the kind contemplated for a centennial of confederation exhibition could not be financed on the basis of the terms which were acceptable at the time we entered into the arrangements with the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal. When I hear the record of expenditures in connection with roads, tunnels-


An hon. Member:: Bridges.


John George Diefenbaker: dams, ditches, and one thing and another, to provide for this fair, I begin to wonder whether the sky is the limit, and the very suggestion of that would shock the sensibilities of Canadians generally.
I am pleased to hear that this fair is going ahead, and I simply end my remarks by saying that it must be a success. National

pride cannot suffer the ignominy of having the 1967 centennial of confederation exhibition turn out to be the world's fiasco. We want it to be a world exhibition that will concentrate attention on Canada. There has been nothing up to the present moment that has been indicative of a serious regard to the terrible consequences to our national prestige and pride that will follow if this fair does not succeed. If the minister would now give us the information, I will express in advance my appreciation of the way in which he has answered the questions, difficult as they have been and difficult as it has been for him to provide the fullest information in this connection.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, as far as the salary of the chief commissioner is concerned, may I say that it will be recommended by the Prime Minister. It will have to be approved by cabinet. Surely it should be proportionate to the salary of the deputy chief commissioner, which is actually $35,000.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a beautiful example of telling us nothing. Is the rumour correct that the recommendation is going to be $65,000 or more?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I hesitate to even comment on rumours such as the right hon. gentleman is reporting to the committee this afternoon. This has never been suggested or mentioned. I think the right hon. gentleman should be satisfied this afternoon when I say that the salary of the chief commissioner will be in proportion to the salary now enjoyed by the deputy commissioner.


John George Diefenbaker: In what proportion?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: He is now receiving $35,000. I think we should be satisfied with this. I have given a few of the reasons why this matter has not yet been settled. It will be settled during the month of January. I would like to come back to the last point raised by the right hon. gentleman. When he says the $20 million grant is the only expenditure-


John George Diefenbaker: No; the only grant.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -the only grant-


John George Diefenbaker: The rest are loans.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -I can assure the right hon. gentleman that today we do not envisage any increase in the grant. There is absolutely no increase and we do not envisage any increase. But the right hon. gentleman will remember, I hope, that in the tripartite agreement entered into he gave the corporation borrowing powers-


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.
World Exhibition Corporation Act


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -and these loans will have to be guaranteed by the Minister of Finance of the Canadian government as well as the minister of finance of Quebec. Nothing has been changed as far as this is concerned. I wish to reiterate-and this is important-that nothing has been changed; the $20 million grant remains at the same amount.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not told us what is the intention of the government regarding the disposal of the pavilions. Does the government consider giving instructions to the Canadian world exhibition corporation along that line?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: All these matters will be dealt with, of course, when the construction program has been accepted by the government. Up to now this program has been submitted to the federal government and also to the Quebec government, and when it is made public, all these questions will be answered.
The hon. member also talked about the surplus left when the fair is over. May I draw his attention to clause 19 which reads as follows:
The corporation shall wind up its affairs and dispose of its assets and liabilities within such time after the closing of the exhibition and in such manner and subject to such conditions as the governor in council, with concurrence of the lieutenant governor in council, may prescribe.
If the three governments were called upon to contribute respectively 50 per cent, 37J per cent and 12J per cent, they will share revenues in the same proporton at the end of the exhibition.

Resolution reported.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: that the said resolution be now read a second time and concurred in.


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


Frank Howard: Did I understand you to say that the bill should be read a second time?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: No, that the said resolution be now read a second time and concurred in.
Resolution read a second time and concurred in.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: that the said resolution stand referred to the committee of the whole on Bill C-120, an act to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
World Exhibition Corporation Act

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming consideration of the proposal of the Prime Minister for the second reading of Bill C-120, an act to amend the Canadian World Exhibi-bition Corporation Act.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on the motion for second reading of the bill I would like to draw something to your attention and ask for your ruling on whether the bill is in order now, and whether it has been preceded by a proper resolution.
Your Honour, when you were in the chair the other day, you ruled with respect to a previous question of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on December 10, and I want to quote briefly one of the paragraphs in your ruling as recorded at page 5666 of Hansard for December 10, where citation 355 of Beauchesne's fourth edition was quoted. Then you said:
It should be noted however that resolution is required not only when an amendment seeks to increase the amount previously approved by parliament, but also if it changes the modality and conditions of the grant authorized by the original legislation.
I submit that this bill seeks to change the modality and the conditions of the grant authorized by the original resolution with respect to the site of the fair itself, and no reference is in the resolution which the committee just considered to the site but only to increasing the number of directors of the corporation, to payments to the commissioner and the deputy commissioner, to establishing an executive committee of the board, to authorizing payment of remuneration by the corporation to directors, and to making further changes in connection with the administration of the act. The act at present states, and this has been mentioned quite a number of times:
In connection with the celebration of the centennial of confederaion in Canada in a manner in keeping with its national and historical significance, there shall be held in Canada, on the island of Montreal for a period of six months-
The bill now before us says:
There shall be held in Canada, on the island of Montreal.
Then these words are added:
-and on or in the vicinity of He Ste. Helene, lie Ronde, He Verte and He Notre Dame
-which I submit is an addition of four extra islands not referred to in the original legislation. I submit that the inclusion of

these four islands in fact changes what you referred to as the modality and conditions of the grant authorized by the original legislation. I also submit that we should proceed according to what the rules say, the rules which were applauded so heartily by the Secretary of State when Your Honour made that ruling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not intend to go into any detail, and I certainly do not intend to make the kind of flattering references to the hon. gentleman that he constantly makes to me. I may say the resolution was drafted, as is customary with resolutions presented to the house, by the law clerk of the house, who is very experienced in these matters and who had the benefit of the views both of Your Honour and those expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who raised the point of order originally, who is also very experienced in the interpretation of the rules and who has tripped up a good number of other members on various occasions. I should be surprised, sir, if the law clerk had made a mistake.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There are two points on which the Chair should comment. The first deals with the question of the regularity of the bill at this stage, and I may say this was covered by an order of the house as reported at page 651 of Votes and Proceedings for December 10:
And the honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) having raised the question as to whether the bill should stand on the order paper or be reintroduced after the house has passed the resolution referred to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am informed that there is a precedent dating back to the session of 191213 where the procedure which is now proposed by the honourable the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) was followed.
This is an order of the house. With respect to the question of whether the island of Ste. Helene is part of the island of Montreal, to' my mind that is a question of geography which the Chair should not be called upon to resolve. I would therefore rule that the bill is in order.
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson for the second reading of Bill No. C-120, to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, together with the resolution adopted earlier this day, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.

On clause 1-Short title.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the reason for the change of name, and what brain produced this schedule? It is a most interesting schedule. This is the motto of the fair and I just wonder what its purport is. What does it mean? I suppose one must have an artistic temperament to understand it, but I must say it is difficult to understand. It is a series of angles facing one another in a regular arrangement around a circle.
World Exhibition Corporation Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the readers of Hansard may wonder what we are talking about. I suggest that a cut of this design be put in Hansard-the queen's printer can do it-perhaps at this point. This could be done by unanimous consent.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The design referred to above appearing in the schedule to the bill, is reproduced below:]


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to answer the two points raised by the leader of the official opposition.
The title of the act is being amended in order to reflect more precisely the aims of the Canadian corporation set up by the government to organize the world exhibition. The former title read as follows: the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act, but the title we propose would be: the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition act. It seems to me that if one compares both titles, one is fully justified in proposing that amendment.
As far as the drawing at the end of the bill is concerned, I may say that this emblem
is based on the original emblem. It is a vertical line with diagonal arms, and it is said that this graphic symbol of man is the oldest there is.
This design was conceived by an artist, Mr. Hebert, who had the idea of joining two symbolic figures of man, to convey the idea of friendship and fraternity. By a clever grouping in the form of a circle of eight of these double figures, the artist suggested the form of the earth, that is the world of men, without resorting to the usual graphic interpretation which can be seen on any truck passing in the street.
In our opinion, this is a well-conceived and well-designed symbol and I think that when the public are used to it, they will surely
6226	HOUSE OF
World Exhibition Corporation Act understand the viewpoint of the artist when he designed it.
To conclude, I want to say that in this design, the artist gave priority to man over earth, contrary to what is usually done. [Text]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, we are trying to show something Canadian here. I am glad the hon. gentleman has the imaginative processes of appreciation for the artistic and decorative nature of this emblem. When I was a boy we used to draw men like that, just two or three lines; it was simple. It was the only artistry we could indulge in. To me this looks like an artistic monstrosity. I would have thought that this would be an ideal occasion to place the maple leaf in the centre to show it was Canadian. I hope this is not a precursor of the kind of flag the government is going to bring in as a distinctive Canadian flag.
I speak in all seriousness. I cannot understand it. You cannot make head nor tail of it, because no matter how you look at it, it is upside down. I cannot understand how this could represent a nation like Canada in the centennial of its confederation. I should have liked to see the maple leaf or something characteristic of Canada. I am not just being jocular, but to me that represents nothing characteristic of the confederation of Canada. [Translation]


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: May I reply to that? It is only an impression. The first time I for one saw this design, I must admit that I had the same reaction as the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
But one gets used to it. I must say-


John George Diefenbaker: We get used to looking at you over there on the treasury benches; nevertheless this hurts every time we look at it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I must say here, Mr. Chairman, that artists have examined that design. Of course, one must understand the synthesis made by the artist and the idea he wanted to represent by his design.
At the time the world fair opens, the design will be reproduced and distributed everywhere to show the site of the fair to the visitors. I imagine there would be a design like this, with an arrow to indicate in which direction the fair is.
This has the advantage that it cannot be given any other meaning. When people will see the design, they will know that it means the world fair.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, a word only to say that I am surprised that the minister


accepts this symbol, because it looks very much like the one adopted by a certain organization fighting nuclear arms. I wonder whether the minister could not have this design corrected because we do not know exactly what it represents. Does it represent in some way what the monument by the famous artist Vaillancourt tends to express? Will it be necessary to have protests or organized walks against it?
I entirely agree with the opinion expressed by the Leader of the Opposition that it would be preferable to have the maple leaf.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the remarks of the leader of the official opposition and concur in what he said. Is the minister seriously telling us that this weird looking thing will be plastered all over the world fair? Thank heavens it is in Montreal and not in Toronto.


Mr. Leboe:: I suggest this looks more like a combination of a tractor wheel and a bunch of power poles. I am not satisfied with it at all; I think it is crazy.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I do not know whether the whip is on in any discussion of a design. I hope it is not, because I think the design is rather imaginative. Perhaps the symbolism there might be likened to the seed of the maple leaf, this Y-shaped thing. That might cover the problem. I also agree with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm; it certainly has the symbolism of the Canadian campaign for nuclear disarmament, which is a rather significant feature in a world fair. I like it.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we should not simply throw out this symbol which, in my opinion has no meaning as far as bilingualism is concerned in Canada. I submit that we should be totally opposed to this project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I say that the argument we have had for the last few minutes illustrates why legislative bodies never legislate art.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to know which is the English version and which is the French version. I have never seen a monstrosity like it. It will bring ridicule to Canada. There is nothing to indicate Canada in it, either indirectly or otherwise. Is there going to be a glossary with the issue of every one of these so that people will understand it? Will the hon. gentleman read once more the description of the imaginative processes the

artist suffered as he produced this, because it was difficult to follow.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I will surely oblige the right hon. gentleman by reading it again.

But at this stage, I should like to say it is a matter of taste. In front of a painting we have various reactions. Some people do not like abstract paintings, but we must respect other people's opinion.
I must say that this design certainly has an originality which can be found in no other. I think it is precisely the purpose of this symbol. As soon as you see it, you will know you are on the road to the world fair. That was one of the objects of the artist.
In any case, I will repeat the description:
This symbolic design is based on the primitive emblem of man represented by a vertical line with diagonal arms. This graphic representation is the oldest one existing.
A few minutes ago, the Leader of the Opposition said that when he was a boy he used to draw like that. We all did. If you take a good look at this design, you find out it represents the age of the caveman, and it is somewhat that primitive design which is represented here.
I should like to add this, and it is important. There are two emblems of man in each one of these figures. That is to indicate, in the concept of the artist, friendship and brotherhood. But in the concept of other people, that design might represent love or even a little of everything. But nevertheless, it indicates that it is something pleasant.
Since it is about a world exhibition, it was absolutely necessary that the emblem take the form of a circle. I suppose we could have had a planisphere, but that is too common. You see all kinds of trucks with a map of the world on the panels.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why not include the maple leaf?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is a world exhibition and we must give it a universal character.
I will ask the Leader of the Opposition something. In these dying hours of a long session, surely he is a little tired; he should go and have a rest and when he comes back and takes a good look at that design, I am sure he will have a quite different attitude when he sees it.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, the reputation of the Minister of Public Works, as a lawyer, needs not be bolstered, and the proof is he very well defended a bad case today.
Canada has no distinctive flag. It is to be hoped we shall have one for the year 1967. However, I have no small fear the visitors to the world exhibition may find it strange
World Exhibition Corporation Act that we do not have a typical emblem and a more representative symbol of the world exhibition.
I am no heraldist, but I would like to hear from the minister whether he himself chose that design. Moreover, I would like him to tell me whether this design is in conformity with heraldry. Besides, can he tell the house whether that model was submitted to the criticism of some heraldists? Finally, I would like the minister to tell us whether the individual by the name of Hebert, the author of this design, as he mentioned, would be Mr. Jacques Hebert?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The person in question is Mr. Julien Hebert, industrial designer.
I should tell the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere that this design was accepted by the board of the world exhibition. It was referred to us after that and we also accepted it following explanations which may have been a little more satisfactory than those I am giving the house today.
At all events, I believe the hon. members should not discuss further that aspect of the bill. The work is an original emblem which satisfies the board of the world exhibition. It is already known and circulates in the public at large. In my opinion, we should proceed and pass the bill at this stage.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary question for the minister.


Mr. Lambert:: This may appear to be a debate along the lines described in one of the chapters of the book setting forth Parkinson's law; vast sums are discussed briefly and then there are hour long discussions about an $800 bicycle shed.

But enough of that. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the minister could tell us what the symbol means, because, if you examine it closely, you can find that, besides representing two primitive men, it is also made up of two letters, the letters M and W. Could he tell us if the letter M stands for Montreal and the letter W for World and also if there is a French translation that fits those two letters?
On the other hand, if the letter M is meant to stand for Montreal, whichever way you look at it, it must be realized that it ought not to represent the Montreal exhibition but rather the Canadian world exhibition.
Such being the case, I find it impossible to accept that symbol which, in my opinion, is a false one.
As to the character that such a symbol might give, be it primitive or modern, I submit that it falls into almost the same group as a certain mural which has just been

World Exhibition Corporation Act unveiled at the Edmonton airport and which, incidentally, looks as if someone had thrown a few dozens of eggs on the wall.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I shall answer briefly the hon. member for Edmonton West. The first time I was shown that symbol, I asked whether the letter M which appears on it referred to the city of Montreal. But I must tell him that it is quite by accident that we can see here the letter M which does not stand in any way for the city of Montreal.
In this case, it is two emblems, two figures linked together. It is just accidentally that this analogy happens, and I wish to tell the hon. member that.
Now, I also wish to say to the hon. members that this design was not submitted to them for approval. It was accepted as it is. The only reason why we are submitting to the house is to protect it because, if the hon. members will read section 9, they will find that, with regard to all the words as well as the design itself, a section of the act forbids them to be copied, and that is only to make sure that the design will remain the exclusive property of that crown corporation.


Mr. Winkler:: That answers one question. It cannot now be amended. The thought occurred to me that they had seen one of the colouring books of last April 8. Maybe it originated from that book. If it did-and it could have-I am wondering whether there could not be some pigeons going through the centre, flying away.


An hon. Member:: Good idea.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am not referring to my hon. friend. I was merely following a remark made by one of the hon. members in the New Democratic party who said "Now we are away". I thought that if the design does come from that pamphlet we should also include the pigeons.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, when venturing in such a field, where we have to approve or judge the true value of a design, we should abstain from rationalizing and stay within the artistic field.
I want to refer to the definition given to beauty appreciation by Saint Thomas, one of the greatest philosophers of all times. Here is how he defined it: Id quod visum aut auditum placet, which means "That which is seen and heard once is pleasing".
Then the appreciation comes from looking. The question is not to analyse, to rationalize, but merely to be aware that something seen or heard is agreeable.
If, like the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), we say: "Let


us look at it carefully and analyse it", we do an injustice, in my opinion, because I think such a work should not be judged.
Personally, I cannot say that at first sight the design pleased me and that I was under the impression that it was a work of art. On the other hand, other persons are under the impression, at first sight, that there is something beautiful in it, and this is why beauty in the field of such works is always comparative. One cannot judge this type of design in an absolute way, and that is why some will find it satisfactory, others will find it beautiful and others will say that there is nothing pleasant in all that.
If what we want is to get a design, a model or a crest such as this for the world fair, we should not start rationalizing and analysing all the details. People must be left with the idea of a thing which, seen once, may please. There is a symbol involved. It is somewhat like a piece of music which represents, now a river, then waterfalls. Others who are more realistically minded will say that it reminds them of a storm or of a falling branch.
In my opinion, that is not the way one should see and judge things like that; one should not look for realistic evocations in an emblem such as this one. One must look at the general aspect of the thing and not ask himself whether it means something or not. I feel that we should rely on artists for an appreciation of a symbol such as this one which represents the Montreal world fair. [Text]


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, this is not a symbol of a Canadian world fair at all. This is just a primitive design detracting from the Canadian theme of the world fair which is to be held in our centennial year. No one looking at it can tell that it is a symbol of the world fair to be held on the occasion of our centennial. The letters "MW" are so plain that anyone can see them. The hon. member for Edmonton West mentioned the same thing. It is something that is going to occur to everybody who sees it, and I think the minister and the corporation should take this into account and give some consideration to having something more symbolic of this fair in our centennial year.


Mr. Freneile:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the remarks made by several hon. members.
If I am allowed 30 seconds I shall express my views on the subject, since I have some experience in this field having been an industrial designer for 15 years.
In spite of everything that might be said, I think it must be recognized that the designer of this symbol, Mr. Hebert, readily achieved

his purpose, that is, to appeal to the imagination of the person looking at the design.
In my opinion, that is precisely what he achieved by leaving it to the imagination of the persons looking at the symbol to find out by themselves what it means.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief questions on this matter that I should like the minister to answer. I can agree with him that this is symbolic of primitive man because my youngsters bring designs like this home from kindergarten quite regularly. This places it on a very elementary level. But if this is symbolic of primitive man and the brotherhood of man, why is there not some interconnection between each of the units in the design? Does the fact that there is a break between each of the units have any symbolic significance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the element of free enterprise.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Second, I wonder whether the artist who prepared this design is the same artist who prepared the design for the mural in the Edmonton airport which was put forward as a memorial to the northern bush pilots. Hon. members will recall that there was a lack of public acceptance in regard to the symbolism in that design. Third, if we must have an expression of symbolism representing man, can we not introduce a note of Canadian realism by having a maple leaf superimposed in the centre of the design? The minister has indicated that we are not able to introduce any amendments but perhaps the designer and the members of the board of the world fair would be willing to accept a suggestion of that kind.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I am very much taken by the suggestion made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I think it would greatly improve the design. First of all, I look upon the minister as a pretty capable minister of public works but I never expected to hear him give a detailed explanation of primitive and exotic art. I congratulate him on his capacity, shall I say, to deal with imagery. Someone mentioned that this design was intended for persons to gaze upon and that the longer they gaze upon it the more ideas will come into their minds. Mr. Minister, if I were to tell you what is in my mind at the present time you would be shocked. However, I do think that the suggestion of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is an excellent one and it would give the design a Canadian touch. I am a very 28902-5-396
World Exhibition Corporation Act simple person and I am quite incapable of understanding that kind of art. I am not a post-impressionist or a cubist or anything of that sort. This is beyond all that. I should like the minister to say what he thinks of the suggestion of the member for Brandon-Souris, because it will give a touch of realism to something that is beyond this world.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, to all that has been said about this symbol, 1 should like to add that it must be filed with the International Bureau of Exhibitions in Paris and all the stationery has been consequently prepared. At all events, I think that I will convey to the directors of the exhibition the reaction of the hon. members to this symbol. I will be pleased to do so and I am convinced that they will take into serious consideration the remarks made by some hon. members, especially the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if, following the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, all hon. members would not run the risk of being imprisoned, on account of the implications of clause 9 of the said bill which provides that nobody is entitled to use the symbol or have it printed.
I am wondering if by having it printed in Hansard we could not be found guilty on summary conviction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have not got past clause 9 as yet, and that is the reason I made the proposal.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When the minister said he would bring to the directors the reaction of hon. members of this house, would he please put the adjective "unfavourable" in front of the word "reaction"?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Establishment and constitution.
Frank Howard: I think we should deal with subclause 2 of clause 3. The subject matter has been debated somewhat during the resolution stage, and involves one half of the 14 directors. It states categorically that they shall be appointed on the recommendation of the lieutenant governor in council, which means the lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec. Regardless of any understandings which the minister may have with

World Exhibition Corporation Act the province of Quebec, I think these understandings should be reflected in the statute so that parliament knows when it legislates something it is not left to agreement between somebody to put into effect what parliament wants.
Apart from that, I feel that subclause 2, in reality, amounts to abdication of the rights of Her Majesty's privy councillors, all of whom have taken the oath of allegiance to the country and have certain responsibilities resting on their shoulders. One of these is that it shall not be the right of the privy council to delegate its authority to the lieutenant governor of a province. This is precisely what we are doing here-giving away an inalienable right of the federal cabinet to a particular province by saying that the lieutenant governor of that province will recommend certain appointments and that there is no choice residing then in the governor in council, but that he must-it is mandatory-appoint whomever the lieutenant governor in council of Quebec recommends. I think this section is ultra vires of our legislative authority. I would not want to see someone challenge this section in the court at some subsequent time, because I believe it would be ruled ultra vires.
Then, there is another thing we should look at. Our discussions a moment ago about this symbolic design, and our discussion in the resolution stage, entirely revolved around whether or not Canada, as a national entity, was going to find some expression in the world fair. In order for that to happen, I think we must take into account the fact that there is more than one province in Canada, even although the world fair is to be held in the province of Quebec. If we want to have representation, as the minister said, on the board of directors from all regions of Canada, we should spell that out in this clause and state the areas from which we would like to have that representation. In so far as the territories are concerned, I do not think we need to mention them here, because they are under the jurisdiction of the governor in council.
However, there are provinces in Canada that I think are entitled to representation on the board of directors if they so desire. Following that of course-this is another matter with which I cannot deal at this stage-they should be entitled if they so desire to participate financially in the development of the world fair. Accordingly, I should like to move:
That clause 3 be amended by striking out lines 15, 16 and 17 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(2) Of the 14 other directors referred to m subsection (1), one shall be appointed after consultation with the lieutenant governor in council

of each of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and the remaining four on the recommendation of the minister.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that in moving this amendment the hon. member has a praiseworthy objective, but as far as we are concerned, we also want this section to be truly national in character.
That is why I promised earlier, when I said that the two directors added to the 12 now appointed will be appointed by the governor in council, to give to the corporation an adequate national representation.
Now, all the regions of Canada will be represented, but not necessarily all provinces. We have often discussed that matter and we feel that it would not be desirable to add a great number of directors to the 12 already appointed; but when the other two are appointed by us, we shall see to it that all regions are represented.
Under those circumstances, we cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member.

Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: yeas, 5; nays, 52.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9-Marks and symbols.
John George Diefenbaker: Now, sir, I have to put one more question on the symbol. I quite understand the need for having a symbol and the need for that symbol to be protected against illegal use. The minister stated that of course parliament has nothing to say as to what the symbol shall be. We are just handed the symbol and they say, "This is it. This is the one we have registered. The directors have decided upon it, and that is final". But such is not the case, because section 18A provides as follows. I shall read the section because of its importance:
(1) The words "Exhibition", "Fair", "Exposition", "Foire", and any abbreviations thereof, whether or not used in conjunction with any of the words "World", "Universelle", "Canadian", "Cana-dienne", "Canada", "Centennial", "Centenaire", "Montreal", "1967" or any abbreviations thereof or with any other words or abbreviations referring to the exhibition, are hereby declared to be the marks of the corporation-
I think that portion of the section has dangerous implications but I am not going to argue that part of it. It must have been considered. However, my recollection of the "ex" in Toronto is that it is called the

Canadian national exhibition. They cannot use that title any more if we pass this section in the present form. The material portion to which I make reference at the moment and to which I direct my entire attention is as follows:
-are hereby declared to be marks of the corporation-
That is the end of that portion. Then it says:
-and the symbol reproduced in the schedule is hereby declared to be the official symbol of the exhibition.
Now parliament is to have the opportunity to determine that. The minister thought otherwise. We had a jocular discussion on it and a very jovial one, but it is a very serious matter that a monstrosity like this is going to represent my country and your country, sir-Canada-on the occasion of its 100th birthday of confederation. We would have to have it interpreted to find out somehow or another what an industrial artist had in mind when he thought this would be representative of our country. This to me, aside altogether from its artistic properties which have been examined somewhat carefully by those artistically inclined, is a monstrosity and nothing else but.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This is to represent my country, the land of my forefathers. This is how Canada is to be represented in the exhibition that is to be part of her centennial celebrations. Canada is to be represented by that which denies all the principles of Canadian nationhood. We dealt with it in a general way, but I now deal with it particularly. I say we ought not to approve this symbol. It is not a measure upon which amendment means a lack of confidence in the government, and I am asking for support in all parts of the house for an amendment which will strike out the words:
-and the symbol reproduced in the schedule is hereby declared to be the official symbol of the exhibition.
Somebody may say, "Then anybody can use the symbol". Nothing of the kind. The board of directors can produce a symbol. They can send an amended symbol to the international exhibition board in Brussels. I go on and point out that if we strike out these words we do not allow anyone to use the official symbol, for we provide the following in subsection (2):
Except in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in any licence that may be issued by the corporation in that behalf, or except as permitted by any bylaw of the corporation, no person shall
28902-5-396J
World Exhibition Corporation Act
(a)	apply to any goods or wares, or to any services,
(b)	sell, offer for sale or have in possession for sale any goods or wares, or perform any services, to which have been applied, or
(c)	adopt in connection with any business, or any establishment or premises in which any business is carried on,
any mark of the corporation or the official symbol of the exhibition-
If that amendment that I propose is accepted, the board of directors, after approval by the cabinet-I do not know whether that is required-could produce something that will have distinctively Canadian connotatons. I have heard the argument for generations that we must have our national symbols; we must have a distinctive flag-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe this is it.


John George Diefenbaker: -in spite of the fact that the crown said our flag was distinctive-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt the right hon. gentleman for a moment and ask whether he could make available to us, for study right away, the amendment he is proposing, while he is continuing his remarks.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I have not written it out. I will tell the minister what I have here. I move, seconded by Mr. Churchill:
That the words "and the symbol produced in the schedule is hereby declared to be the official symbol of the exhibition" as set out in section 18A (1) be deleted.
I will send this over to the minister. I do not know whether he can read my writing any better than I can understand the symbolism of this; but it is a simple deletion of these words and it will in no way prevent the adoption of a symbol. That will be protected, because it is clearly set out in section 18A (2) that whatever is the symbol, it is protected. It will allow Canada to have a symbol in keeping with the traditions of her past and in keeping with what we are celebrating, namely a Canadian national event, an event great in its possibilities, bringing to that exhibition some 35 million people or more. Then we could have something that really represented Canada. This symbol could be used in Timbuktu, South Viet Nam, or any other country in the world. I am asking that the government give consideration to this amendment. I am asking that the members of the Liberal party, who are always talking about something distinctively Canadian, now remove this symbol from the bill. This will permit the directors, with the assistance of the cabinet, if the matter is submitted to them, to have something that will represent Canada.
6232	HOUSE OF COMMONS
World Exhibition Corporation Act


Mr. Malheson:: Mr. Chairman, may I just add a word to what has been said on this matter. I do not know to what extent this symbolism should be international or to what extent it should be Canadian; but if it should be Canadian, and if there is a possibility of following the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman which I know we have all listened to with very keen interest and, I think, sympathy, may I point out to the committee an answer that was given by the ministry on June 3, 1963, as appearing on page 560 of Hansard. The question asked was:
Does Canada have a national emblem and, if so, what is the emblem?
The answer was:
Yes; three maple leaves conjoined on one stem.
This has been the law since November 21, 1921. I might add that a similar question was addressed to the previous government and a written answer was delivered, which never appeared in Hansard. But both the question and answer were identical. That is to say there would appear to be no difference of opinion legally respecting the assertion that Canada does have a national emblem which consists of three maple leaves conjoined on one stem.
This is no way unsympathetic to the province within which the fair is going to be held, because if we look at the base of the arms of the province of Quebec, the identifying symbolism for the province of Quebec is on a field or three maple leaves conjoined vert-that is to say, three green maple leaves on a gold base. Therefore there is a great deal of harmony between the symbolism of the province of Quebec and the symbolism of Canada. I would ask that those who are responsible would give some consideration to what has clearly been established law in Canada since the proclamation of November 21, 1921 during the time of the Borden administration.


Mr. Regan:: While I know little or nothing about the background of this symbol, I am wholly in agreement with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that it is atrocious. It appears to be a beatnik type of symbol and I think we should have some symbol for the world fair that would be symbolic of the nation.


Mr. Greene:: I agree with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and his artistic interpretation of whatever it may be we have before us, but this is a world fair and it was an international agency which gave it to us in Canada. I wonder whether having a completely and uniquely national symbol as the

symbol of the fair might do something improper, so far as the international aspect of the fair is concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the hon. member for Leeds has done a great service in pointing out the answer to the question of June 3 last. The hon. member for Renfrew South asks whether or not a symbol for a world fair can give any indication of the nation within whose boundaries the fair is being held. My answer to that is that there is no reason there should not be identification as to the nation. That was something we discussed when this matter was before us, and that is the best of my recollection with regard to the point raised by the hon. gentleman.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We are going to accept the amendment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell us how much the world exhibition corporation paid Mr. Hebert for that design?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I do not know.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw the attention of the house on the fact that when that symbol was submitted to the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation, the former general commissioner and his deputy were opposed to it.
I merely wanted to put on record that this design was not accepted by the former general commissioner and his deputy.


Mr. Prittie:: I think the minister is making a mistake in accepting the amendment from this group of self-appointed art critics. I only hope he does not bring his designs for future public buildings to this house for decision.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say I have a certain amount of sympathy with what the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond said. I doubt if we would ever have a national gallery in Canada if we permitted the members of the House of Commons to be the committee of selection. But after all, we did submit this to the house. It has been submitted for the judgment of the house. There has been a preponderance of view in one direction, but possibly a compromise can be found in this matter. I hope this will be a lesson to all future governments not to submit art for legislation. We are not elected to parliament in our capacity as art critics, but for other reasons.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, would the committee be willing to interrupt its proceedings for a minute? We are considering the

amendment, so as to avoid any inconvenience, and I would ask that the vote be delayed a few seconds.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, since the minister is requesting a delay, I should like to take this opportunity to ask him whether he could assure the house that the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition will be accepted and that a maple leaf will be included in the design.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, it is not up to us, but to the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation to decide that.


Reid Scott: On the subsequent point that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, as to whether the passage of this clause will in effect prohibit the Canadian National Exhibition from continuing to use its name, the clause appears to forbid the use of many words, such as "exhibition," "Canada," "Canadian," etc. There is a serious conflict here that ought to be resolved.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If the hon. member would refer to clause (9), 18AC4) he will find the answer to his question. Mr. Chairman, I suggest you call the other clauses and we could come back to this one.


The Deputy Chairman:: Does the committee agree we shall stand clause 9?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Should not clause 11 stand too until we see what we have done with the amendment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps if we all relaxed for a moment or two it would not do us any harm.
Clause 11 stands.
On clause 9-Marks and symbols.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the effect of the symbol?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration agrees that we delete the words suggested in my motion, namely:
-and the symbol reproduced in the schedule is hereby declared to be the official symbol of the exhibition.
Then we can substitute the additional words.
I would ask to place that amendment before the committee, and then the minister will move his amendment to provide the substitutive words.
World Exhibition Corporation Act


Mr. Favreau:: It would then read as follows:
That lines 39, 40 and 41 on page 4 of the bill be deleted and replaced by the following:
"corporation, and any symbol adopted by the corporation not later than December 31, 1964, is hereby declared to be the official symbol of the exhibition as of the date of its publication in the Canada Gazette".
And I will move that clause 11 be deleted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the whole amendment be treated as moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is agreed I assume that the last few words uttered by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration are not part of the amendment to clause 9. His last few words were: "and that clause 11 of the bill be deleted". The actual amendment to clause 9 surely stops before that. He is suggesting that later, when we get to clause 11, we delete the clause.


Guy Favreau: That is a forecast of the probable future.


John George Diefenbaker: Then my motion is simply that those words be deleted from section 18A of the act, namely the words:
-and the symbol reproduced in the schedule is hereby declared to be the official symbol of the exhibition.
Substituted therefore will be the words placed before the committee by the minister of immigration.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Just one matter, Mr. Chairman. It will, of course, be brought to the attention of the corporation that the general feeling of members everywhere is that there should be something distinctively Canadian about this. I was particularly impressed with the suggestions made first by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who said the maple leaf should be represented, and then by the hon. member for Leeds, who pointed out that in answer to a question put some months ago it was stated that the official emblem of Canada is three maple leafs.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: This point is well taken, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 as amended agreed to.
On clause 11.
Guy Favreau: In view of the amendment
that has just been accepted, I move:
That clause 11 be deleted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that necessary, or can we not just vote it down?

Supply-Industry


Herman Maxwell Batten: I then declare clause 11 negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: By leave, now.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: the third reading of Bill No. C-120, to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee in supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

Herman Maxwell Batten: House again in committee of supply. Estimates of the Department of Industry, the estimates of the national research council.
National research council-
10a. Assistance toward research in industry, $500,000.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, on some previous estimates a few hon. members were misinformed as to their opportunities to speak on the emergency measures organization. The minister later said that it would be all right during the estimates on the Department of Defence Production to speak about this subject. Have I a correct understanding of the situation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I suggest this be done right away. If there are members who did wish to speak on the emergency measures organization and who have not done so by reason of our speed, I suggest they should speak right now.


Mr. Pelers:: As one who is interested in emergency measures, may I say it was not my intention to speak on the subject, but I do think the minister should say something about the changes which are taking place. The organization has been in a state of confusion for some time, and now that he has an opportunity of assessing the situation perhaps the hon. gentleman would wish to take this opportunity of clearing up a number of the doubts which have arisen. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee by putting forward views which I have expressed in the past. However, there is some confusion in the minds of those who are

serving voluntarily in this field and the minister might help to clear this up by indicating the attitude which the government intends to take.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not intend to take up very much time on this item, but I promised certain people in my constituency who are interested in the emergency measures organization that I would say a few words about it. There can be no question that there is a lack of direction in the country with respect to this organization. Policies are being carried out which are now suspected of being obsolete and there has been a decline of interest in the organization in many quarters. I personally believe this organization will not be successful unless the training given to members includes training to deal with disasters of all types. I think training of this type would interest a great many people, including possibly those who feel that there is no adequate defence against an attack by nuclear weapons.
In this connection I should like to read from an article which appeared in the Financial Post of October 19. The heading is: "If the Big Bomb drops, can EMO Cope?" and there is a further heading which says: "The harsh truth is that it can't".
This poses some difficult questions for Drury and his advisers:
There is the over-all policy question: should EMO still be formally oriented toward nuclear war or should it now be officially aimed toward natural disaster work?
Although much of the work that has to be carried out serves both purposes anyway, a rethinking of the main direction of civil defence w-ouldn't mean scrapping all-or even most-of the existing structure.
But there are still purely "nuclear" programs underway. For example, Ottawa and the provinces spent $602,500 in the last fiscal year on radioactivity measuring instruments. These would be useful to tell the public when radioactivity was reaching dangerous levels, but if the public has nowhere to go to get away from it, does it gain much by knowing?
Should Ottawa go on urging Canadians to build fall-out shelters?
Some people here are still being urged to build them though Great Britain gave up this policy two years ago. The article goes on:
If the Berlin wall and the Cuban blockage couldn't get the Canadian public digging, what hope is there now?
Drury has other heavy responsibilities-the new Department of Industry, Defence Production, government research and five crown corporations- and hasn't had much time to tackle these civil defence questions. He was to begin a detailed policy examination this week.
Whether it will lead to any basic changes remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: thanks to the threat of nuclear war, Canadians are now better prepared than ever to look after themselves in any local or national emergency. It is a happy side advantage from an unhappy era.
I do not intend to speak at any length on this subject. But I would bring to the attention

of the minister the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty about this program. It is too late in the session to deal with the question in any detail but we hope the minister will turn his attention to this matter and give direction to the Canadian people who are interested in this work, so that they may get some leadership along the lines suggested in the article from which I have quoted.


William Arnold Peters: Does the minister intend to explain what the government's intentions are?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If there is no one else to speak on this item, perhaps I might say, very briefly, that the purpose and function of the emergency measures organization are closely linked with defence policy. The committee is fully aware that the whole of our defence policy is currently under review. This organization is its corollary. The two are proceeding hand in hand. It would be my hope that about the time that there is, in the new year, a new formulation of defence policy there will be, to the extent necessary, a new formulation of the EMO approach.
I am in full agreement with the remarks of the hon. member who suggested there should be a duality of purpose in the approach of the emergency measures organization-that the organization should be prepared to cope not only with nuclear disaster but with natural disasters. This is a consideration which is being borne in mind in the review which is currently taking place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public printing and stationery-
5. Purchasing, stationery and stores, $1,247,900.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if the minister is now in a position to tell us who the queen's publisher is to be.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As the office has not yet been established it is a little premature to announce an appointment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Why has there been this delay? There was every indication several months ago that a publisher would be named. As a matter of fact, a certain civil servant let it be known-his name appeared in the paper with the title "queen's publisher" after it- that he had been appointed. Nothing has been done, officially, to support this claim. What has caused this delay in implementing what were apparently sure intentions early in the fall?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The intention to establish the office of queen's publisher is as firm as it ever was. There were, and still are, details to be worked out with regard to both administrative and legislative changes, particularly legislative changes, needed to bring
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration this intention into operation. As the committee will be aware, the Glassco commission made certain fundamental recommendations. These recommendations are now being reviewed in detail and it will not be until this review has been completed and new legislation prepared that it will be possible to establish the new office.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have two further questions to ask. Is there any intention at the present time to spread the contracts which will be entered into for both printing and other types of supply over a wider field in Canada? Will there be an attempt to spread these opportunities beyond the Montreal-Ottawa-To-ronto axis? The second question is this: Has the minister anything to report on the operation of a caisse populaire within the establishment of the queen's printer over in Hull? I raised this matter with him on an earlier occasion.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, in so far as spreading contracts is concerned, as the house will be aware the Department of Defence Production is in the process of itself being reorganized to undertake the general supply function for the government and included in the supply function will be responsibility for the procurement of stationery, office machinery, forms and the like. The Department of Defence Production has followed a successful practice of equitable distribution of this work at the lowest possible cost and the same techniques and policies will be applied in respect of printing, supplies, stationery, forms and so forth.
In so far as the caisse populaire of the printing bureau in Hull is concerned, I do not have much to report beyond what I have told the hon. member for Port Arthur privately, namely, that this is a co-operative venture on the part of employees of the printing bureau in Hull and represents a co-operative banking effort on their own behalf. As I also told him, in my view this kind of cooperative effort and form of voluntary association for communal purposes is desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This concludes the estimates of the Department of Industry.
DEPARTMENT OP CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 1. Departmental administration, $976,200.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to make the kind of speech I ordinarily would make if it were not so late in the session. I should have liked, for example, to discuss in some considerable detail some of the things which I feel need doing very badly with regard to the problem of Indians.
6236	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I must say it is very difficult to be critical of the minister because he has made some very fine speeches, very liberal, with a small "1", and he has not only made good speeches but, in addition, when members, and I include myself, have gone to him with particular problems he has shown a very deep interest and a sympathetic approach. However, when it comes to the problems of the Indians it seems to me we have a very long way to go.
I want to give one illustration of the kind of thing which I think needs to be done. I put some questions on the order paper recently with regard to the efforts of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to foster co-operatives for the Eskimos and similar questions with regard to the efforts of this department in the fostering of co-operatives for Indians. If the minister will take the time when the house adjourns to look at the answers, he will see precisely what I mean. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has specifically assigned two or three people to work full time on this matter actively and aggressively, with the result that there are 14 or 15 very active and successful co-operatives among the Eskimos of northern Canada. But the answers I got with regard to the support of co-operatives for Indians would indicate there is nobody working full time on this job in the minister's department, and that anything which is done is largely done through the efforts of provincial departments, and that if there is any success it is almost incidental to a large extent.
If we are really thinking in terms of solving the Indian problem we must think not of giving them welfare but rather of getting them to be able to function on their own. I can think of no better way of getting them to function on their own than to form cooperatives, both producer and consumer, where they will be responsible to themselves and will look after themselves instead of waiting for the department or the church or the Hudson's Bay Company or some other organization to do it for them. Without going further today, into the problem of the Indians, I suggest to the minister that he should look at this matter very seriously.
I should also like to say a few words about the question of citizenship. Here again I must say I am more than satisfied with the specific responses I have had from the minister with regard to actual cases. But it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister has to solve a case himself there is an admission right away that we have failed because the standards should be so clear and simple that these cases should be solved before they get to the minister. The minister has said that he is reviewing the standards, and I hope
[Mr. Orllkow.i
he will continue to be the minister long enough to be able to solve this problem and lay down policies and standards much more suited to the 60's before he leaves for another job. The revision of the standards for citizenship is long overdue.
I am one of those people who believe that the democratic system of society under which we supposedly live is the best system we can have. If this is so, it seems to me we should not worry too much whether or not a few people who have some doubts about citizenship and our democratic way of life receive citizenship. I know, and I am sure the minister knows better than I do, that in every city in Canada where there are ethnic groups, non-French, non-Anglo-Saxon, some of these people having come here before world war I, there are hundreds if not thousands of people who have not been able to get their citizenship. I have in mind Ukrainians in Winnipeg and probably Finns in Port Arthur. I could go down the list in each area where there are people of the various ethnic groups.
The answer up till now has been that these people are members of the communist party or members of organizations which have been classified as being sympathetic to the communist party. I hold no brief for the political views of these people. I have fought the communists at every turn over the years. In my constituency there are probably as many as in any other constituency in Canada, and I have fought them all my life. At the same time, however, if in 1963 we refuse to grant the right to become citizens to persons who have lived in Canada since 1915 or 1920 simply because they are, or are supposed to be, communists it seems to me we have not got very much confidence in our democratic way of life. It seems to me that if the minister is going to look at the standards of citizenship, then this is something at which he should look very seriously.
There is one more point I should like to make, Mr. Chairman. In recent years a number of people from the United States have come to Canada. Many of these people are highly qualified in various fields, such as science, town planning, and what have you. They have been appointed to some very responsible positions in Canada. I can think of one whose name I shall mention because he has been referred to in the press, namely Mr. Blomenthal of the city of Toronto, who has been the chief town planner of that city. I can think of several who are scientists who have represented Canadian organizations within the fields in which they are working at various international scientific conferences. We thought enough of their abilities and their

qualifications to let them come into Canada. They are holding responsible jobs. I think of one who is doing work that the government of Canada thought so important they erected a building costing a couple of million dollars in which he could work. Some of these people have applied for citizenship and have been turned down. I can think of nothing more stupid, nothing which indicates more to me that we really have not got confidence that our democratic society will work, than this action. If we had that confidence, we certainly would not turn down citizen applications from people like these. I think the minister should have a careful look at this situation after the house adjourns and he has the time to do so. Many of these cases have been on his desk for some time.
I should like to say a few words on immigration. I was glad to hear the minister say that the government intends to follow a more aggressive policy than it has. I was glad to hear the minister say that his objective for the next year is to have more than 100,000 immigrants come to Canada. There will be general agreement with this policy amongst the population. The labour movement of Canada, for obvious reasons, has been skeptical of a policy of mass immigration. After all, when you have 500,000 or 750,000 people unemployed, the trade unions that were formed to protect the conditions and way of life of their members cannot be blamed if they are a little worried. They have made it very clear, however, that they support increased and continuing immigration into Canada, provided we keep in mind the problem of unemployment.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, they have also made it very clear, and they did this as early as 1957, that they are completely opposed to the discriminatory immigration policies of past governments on the basis of race, religion and colour. I should like to quote a couple of sentences from their submission to the government in October, 1957. This is the submission of the Canadian Labour Congress and reads in part as follows:
The present Immigration Act is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It was passed without giving anyone but a few government departments and the transportation companies any opportunities to be heard. It contains a series of provisions which are a threat to civil liberties which the British people fought for centuries to establish. It enshrines the vicious principle of racial discrimination. It gives the administration sweeping and arbitrary powers, with a minimum of judicial control. It has been administered in a high-handed spirit which has often totally disregarded elementary human rights. Immigration officials overseas have often been imperfectly informed of conditions in Canada, and have accordingly misinformed intending immigrants, and induced people to come here at times when it would have been better if they had stayed at home.
28902-5-397
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have been making speeches in which they try to create the impression that Canada's immigration policies have been shorn of their discriminatory and racialist slant. Thus the Prime Minister said in parliament on October 18, 1963:
-I should like to make it clear that the present government, like its predecessor, is firmly opposed in principle and in practice to racial discrimination.
He said that, Mr. Chairman, when he was asked a question about the refusal of the United States government to permit Mr. Wayson S. Choy, a Canadian citizen, entry to the United States. This is a very laudable statement of intent, but it does not really fit the Canadian situation. If we examine the Canadian Immigration Act, and more particularly the regulations which have been promulgated by the department over the years supposedly to carry out the intent of the act, we can see how far we have strayed from this very fine statement of principle which the Prime Minister expressed on October 18.
Permanent admission to Canada is regulated by the Immigration Act. There are a whole series of prohibited classes, including of course people who have been convicted of certain criminal offences, people with communicable diseases, people who have been guilty of having subversive associations, etc. Section 5 of the Immigration Act lists classes of persons prohibited from entering Canada. Subsection 1 of this section prohibits members of subversive organizations from entering Canada. Under this section any person who has, while living in a country behind the iron curtain, attended a university can and probably will be prohibited from immigrating to Canada since in all likelihood membership in the young communist league of that country was probably a requirement of university attendance. It seems to me that this provision is completely unnecessary.
Section 5, paragraph (t) prohibits the entry into Canada of persons who cannot or do not fulfil or comply with any of the conditions or requirements of this act, or the regulations, or any orders lawfully made or given under this act or the regulations. This section, gives unlimited power to the officials of this department to refuse entry into Canada to anybody on any ground or without any ground because the decision rests entirely on the whim of the departmental officials. I am not saying they use this section, but the fact it is there gives them unlimited power which I think is an unnecessary power in a democratic society.
6238	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Now, the main control on the admission of immigrants to Canada is based upon regulations passed by the cabinet, under the authority of the act. These regulations can, of course, be changed more readily than the act itself. Under these regulations, Mr. Chairman, we make it much more difficult, in fact we make it virtually impossible, for people from Asia and Africa to come into Canada. Certainly, it is much more difficult for them than for people in other parts of the world. In other words, what we have done has been to apply the principle that George Orwell talked about in his book "Animal Farm", when he said, "All pigs are equal but some are more equal than others." We have said that all people are equal but some are more equal than others.
Section 61 of the Immigration Act, which deals with the regulations which may be made by the governor in council, permits,
(g) the prohibiting or limiting of admission of persons by reason of
(i)	nationality, citizenship, ethnic group, occupation, class or geographical area of origin.
(ii)	peculiar customs, habits, modes of life or methods of holding property,
(iii)	unsuitability having regard to the climatic, economic, social, industrial, educational, labour, health or other condition or requirements existing, temporarily or otherwise, in Canada or in the area or country from or through which such person comes to Canada,
(iv)	probable inability to become readily assimilated or to assume the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time after their admission.
Mr. Chairman, if there is any way in which the department could find an excuse to keep a person out other than those listed here, I certainly cannot think of one. In this section you are talking about things such as customs, habits, climatic conditions, and so on, and of course if the people in the department think the number of non-white people in Canada is as large as they want it, they could-they have done this in other years, although I do not say it is done now-take the attitude that people from the West Indies, for example, ought not to come here because the climate of Canada is cold-it is certainly cold today-and therefore these people would not fit into our country.
It seems to me that the time to stop this nonsense has long passed, and I think the minister should really get at it. I think these kind of racial and religious prejudices should have long since been eliminated in Canada. Under section 31 of the regulations with respect to the Immigration Act, which deals with handling requirements and specifies the type of classes permitted to enter Canada, subsection (d) says that the following may enter:
[Mr. Orlikow.l

A person who is a citizen of any country of Europe, including Turkey; of any country of North, Central or South America or islands adjacent thereto, or Egypt, Greece or Lebanon-
In other words this regulation can be used to bar people from every country in Africa and every country in Asia but Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon and Israel. How much more discriminatory could we get, even if we tried harder? I think it is time the government made public a statement of policy showing clearly what the government, rather than the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, consider to be necessary standards of training for admission to Canada and what sort of economic circumstances in Canada are required when the number of immigrants to be permitted to enter Canada is decided.
Parliament contemplated giving an applicant a hearing by a special inquiry officer. If that officer found a person was not admissible, that person should have the right of appeal. But the regulations have now been expanded to say that a person can have a hearing only as to whether or not he has a visa. If the department officials think a person undesirable, they do not have a hearing on the reasons for that person being excluded. They have a hearing only on whether the person has a visa, which the department has already refused to grant. Thus they never discuss the real reasons for exclusion. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the supreme court has upheld this right of the department. It seems to me that the immigration appeal board, which is now composed of former or actual immigration officials, should be completely and totally divorced from the department. It should be required by the act or the regulations to give reasons for its judgments, and should have authority to make recommendations to the minister.
Further, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that prospective immigrants should have the right to appeal and also the right to be told why they are being turned down. They certainly do not have this right at the present time. These are just a few of the things which I think the minister should look into. I hope he will have a chance to look into them before he leaves this department, if he does, because I think if before the house meets to discuss the estimates in the next session the minister changes the regulations and recommends changes to the act, it will please members of the house, certainly those in this group, and I think it will please most of the people in Canada.


William Arnold Peters: 
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Over the years I have been interested in the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and it can be agreed that slowly but surely we have been making many improvements in this very important area of Canadian activity.
I was pleased to hear the minister indicate that he will continue and expand the new humanitarian emphasis that in recent years appeared in relation to immigration matters, and that he hopes the target of 100,000 newcomers will be reached in the next fiscal year.
There has been an improvement in the attitude of Canadians generally towards immigration matters, resulting from a combination of circumstances, such as the activities of the United Nations organizations operating in this field, and the voluntary groups that have carried out extensive adult education programs among Canadians. I refer in particular to the work of the Canadian citizenship
6240	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration council which has branches in every part of the country and has an adult education program as one of its main functions, interesting Canadians in improving the immigration laws, and their attitude toward Canadian citizenship.
It will be agreed that the changes introduced in the regulations in February, 1962, were a step forward. One of the complaints hon. members had concerning the regulations was their attempt to define qualifications for intending immigrants for the purpose of maintaining what might be described as an elusive ethnic balance. To me this always had some element or overtones of discrimination, and the new regulations, placing the emphasis on skills and training rather than on conforming to an indefinable ethnic balance, are a much fairer approach.
Another improvement in the regulations was the inclusion of unsponsored immigrants. The element of sponsorship was restricted to a very narrow group, or rather I should say unsponsored immigrants, and this narrow group mainly included the old commonwealth countries and the western European countries. This meant that, with the improving standards of living in Europe and the United Kingdom, the traditional sources for large numbers of new citizens were rapidly drying up. Prior to the regulations being changed in 1962 there had been a declining inflow of immigrants from those traditional sources, and I would presume that it is largely because of the changes in the regulations that we can now anticipate the increase that was mentioned by the minister. As a matter of fact there was an encouraging increase last year.
Before I leave this point I would like to say there has been a tendency to be more restrictive on applications for intended immigrants from Greece than from other similar parts of Europe. I have found, in my own personal experience, it has always been more difficult to get approval, particularly for unsponsored immigrants, from Greece than from other countries of Europe located in the same area.
I wonder if the minister could indicate to us to what degree the change in the regulations has resulted in the increase of immigrants. Is it possible to separate numerically the improved immigration figures on the basis of the broader approach taken by the amendments to the regulations in 1962?
I was also pleased to see there has been a tendency, along these same humanitarian lines, towards encouraging the reunion of family groups. Again this is due to the broadened regulations. Before they were changed they were so narrow in their application to


Chinese immigrants as to be almost prohibitive. If I wished to be sensational I could relate many tragic experiences of Chinese Canadians during the early '50's when it was impossible for them to bring their wives or married children over to this country, due to the very restrictive nature of the regulations.
I am also pleased to note that the minister will proceed to amend the act as quickly as possible. As I have already indicated, it is one thing to amend the regulations; but regulations must be reinforced by specific legislation, and I am sure that the minister will be assured of support from all sides of the house when he moves to bring the Immigration Act into line with the more humane approach which has developed in Canada, and in the world generally, toward these matters.
I should like to say a word in the area of the minister's other responsibilities, concerning the superintendent general of Indian affairs, and I will be brief owing to the shortage of time. I am pleased to see that here too there has been a tremendous improvement in the attitude of members of this house, and of the Canadian public generally, in respect to the rights of our first citizens. The Canadian Indian, if we look back in historic perspective, has been subject to segregation, neglect and discrimination in every respect. From time to time sensational situations develop which bring to the attention of the public some of the extreme problems in looking after the welfare of these, our first citizens. I recall it was just a year ago when Manitoba was exposed to a rather sensational amount of publicity regarding a situation which developed in one of the reservations in northern Manitoba. If the searchlight of publicity had been applied at the same time to any of the other reservations, I am sure a similar situation would have been exposed. However, since the unlimited franchise was extended to the Indian population of Canada-this is also a recent occurrence; I believe in 1960-politicians have become interested. We have had more discussion in this house concerning Indian affairs than ever before. The Indians themselves have become interested in public affairs. I have noticed this in my constituency, in which there are two reservations. It is now possible to hold regular public meetings in which the residents of the reservations take a very keen and active interest. But I think even more encouraging has been the expansion of interest to neighbouring communities. Segregation, out of sight, out of mind, has been the great curse of our Indian problem. The fact that these our first citizens were isolated

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
on reservations kept the problems largely hidden from the population generally.
I want to encourage the minister and the department along the lines of the encouragement already given to voluntary groups which are now appearing in communities right across Canada. I believe financial assistance is available to friendship societies, for example, where they are formally organized and make application to the department for such assistance. I am wondering whether it is possible to get some idea of the number of friendship groups or societies which have qualified for the available grants. Here at long last is an attempt being made on the part of Canadians generally to make contact with the people on the reserves, to introduce them to the community, and in turn to have regular contacts and associations with the Indians in their own reservations. It seems to me that this is the best way to deal with a problem which has been with us for far too long.
With regard to education, again we are moving forward. The program of integration of students in our community schools has, I think, been the most progressive approach to this problem in recent times. In the past four or five years in which it has been in operation I have seen the schoolchildren in the reservations of my own constituency almost entirely removed from this double situation of segregation-educational segregation as well as ethnic segregation-and fitted in happily with the schools in the surrounding communities. There have been expressions of approval not only by the Indian population themselves but also by people who for the first time are having Indian children to their homes-because some of these youngsters are boarded-during the Christmas recess, and making important contacts in this way.
Another major difficulty with our first citizens is the economic problem. Here is one area in which we have not made much progress. I know there are special placement officers who have been appointed who are beginning to do outstanding work; but if we are really going to tackle the problems of our first citizens which are so well known, next to the educational solutions we must have some kind of program which will make it possible for them to find suitable and adequate economic means of supporting themselves.
I am sure the minister agrees that the ultimate objective in all these programs is to move the Indian population toward full citizenship as quickly as possible. As a former minister of northern affairs I know this was my objective with the Canadian Eskimo; while there are some differences of approach
to the problem here, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North indicated, I know there is general unanimity in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as in the department of northern affairs, to move these first Canadians toward full citizenship as quickly as possible. This can be accomplished only as the concept of community development pioneered by my native province of Manitoba in recent years is accepted in each provincial area. Until we can develop a spirit, a self-propelling spirit, in each of the Indian reservations which gives them the motivation and creativity to come to grips with their own problems, we are not going to make it possible for these first citizens to become real first citizens in fact as well as in name.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, since immigration is a vital matter, I apologize for having to take the time of the committee to make some brief remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Favreau) for the stirring speech he delivered a few days ago in Quebec city. Should he also be congratulated for his tactful blame of the Quebec provincial authorities?
Indeed, immigration is an extremely important and even crucial matter if one considers, for instance, that from 1951 to 1961 the population of Canada increased by
4.230.000	and that 25 per cent of that increase must be ascribed to immigration.
I should like to submit to the house a few figures I compiled; they go back to 1926. I hope I will be able one of these days to go as far back as 1867.
At any rate, those figures indicate that 3,102,449 immigrants were admitted to Canada between 1926 and 1962. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to be aggressive or spiteful but I should like to point out that these figures indicate that there is a real threat to French Canada. Only 90,206 of those immigrants were French speaking and, by that, I mean specifically French speaking people like Belgians and Frenchmen. On the other hand, immigrants of Anglo-Saxon origin, that is the English, the Scots and the Irish, totalled 1,038,888.
Mr. Chairman, the difference in numbers is fantastic. I am not saying that all of the
3.102.000	immigrants were English speaking but I wonder if the Department of Citizenship and Immigration could make a special effort to translate into practice the principle of biethnism we hear so much about.
Messrs. Laurendeau and Dunton may well indulge in semantics to define the words
6242	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration "biculturalism", "bilingualism" and "bieth-nism"; it will be a loss of time it there is no one left in Canada who speaks French.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome to our fine and great country people from the British isles and elsewhere. Everybody is welcome as far as I am concerned.
We want to create a Canadian ideal based on the fundamental respect of the rights of the two great races of which we are proud.
Mr. Chairman, let us not, therefore, hand to the extremists of our country a weapon they try to use to their advantage, especially in the province of Quebec, where there are bad Canadians who want to break up confederation. We, the Liberals of the province of Quebec, are trying to prevent this because we want to maintain confederation as radiant as possible.
In order to do so, however, it is essential that the decrease in population among French speaking Canadians, which has taken alarming proportions according to the figures I have just quoted, should be stopped.
Consequently, I earnestly ask and I even beg the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make a firm and continued effort to redress that difference which has worked against French Canadians. I suggest that if 25 per 100 of the increase in population from 1951 to 1961 is due to immigration, a good and a sound immigration policy can help to save confederation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Many things have come up in the debate, including the contribution of the hon. member who has just spoken, that I should like to get into. My disappointment is most bitter in connection with the fact that I have a great number of Indian problems. I think I represent as many Indians as anyone in this house, between six and seven thousand; no one is sure of the number. Honestly, they are in the most pitiful condition of probably any inhabitants of Canada, and there are a great number of questions to ask and remarks I should like to make in connection with them, but I will give them over in the main and stick to questions.
Before I do, I would remind the minister of the remarks made by my hon. friend from Timiskaming, and the need to investigate the orders in council in that situation. I want to be even more specific and blunt than the hon. member for Timiskaming. I do not know whether the minister is aware, but this is what he was suggesting, that a number of members of parliament in the past have worked on this kind of case and have used their influence to smooth this kind of arrangement. What we would be interested in knowing is that this practice has been stopped
[Mr. Choquette.l
by this government, and that there is no possibility of this being an avenue for the kind of private patronage available to any member of parliament. If the minister would like some names of members of parliament from previous parliaments and would like to see the record checked in this regard, I will be glad to provide him with three or four.
I should like to ask the minister one question with reference to immigration. It relates to the fact that for a number of years-


Norman Platt Lambert: Is the hon. member suggesting that a member of parliament should not intervene on behalf of the constituents who are having difficulties with respect to immigration or citizenship? Perhaps he would tell us just what he means.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have got all kinds of letters here where I have intervened. I am referring to the situation where certain members of parliament have acted as a regular channel over the years. In most cases they are lawyers, and there has been a fee exchanged. That is what I am referring to. It is something distinct and special and, I think, a bad situation.
I should like to point out to the minister that there has been a great big holdback in the coming to Canada of Italian people who have qualified. As a matter of fact, I think three years ago there were some 59,000 people who had qualified to come to Canada and who were being held up. I have a large Italian population in my riding. This pressure is upon me all the time. The minister has told us that the Italians who come to this country are very seldom involved in crime, relatively speaking, and that they have a great sense of inner responsibility. This is one of the reasons why a lot more of these people could be brought into this country as a responsibility of their relatives. Instead, what seems to be the situation is that the demands which are being made on relatives in terms of bank accounts, housing facilities and requirements such as that have been increased in the last year or two, rather than decreased, and I would like to know from the minister on his estimates what the holdback figure is at the present time and whether it has been much reduced.
I will call it six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was some question left last night, depending on the progress made, whether it might be the disposition of the committee to sit during the supper hour. I thought I would just find out.


An hon. Member:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think it is perfectly apparent that we have not made the progress which had been anticipated, and that there is no prospect whatever of our being able

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
to finish tonight. Had there been some prospect of doing so we would have been prepared to sit through the supper hour in order to try to finish the work. But there are two important departments, the Department of Na-ional Defence and the Department of External Affairs, whose estimates still have to be dealt with, and it is apparent we shall have to sit tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that the hon. member has made a most eloquent argument in favour of sitting during the supper hour. But since there is no unanimous agreement, it is now six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, just before the break I was talking about the question of Italian immigration. I should like to add that I believe it is time for our government to talk firmly, directly and brutally to the Italian government about the fact that it is so difficult for Italians with any techniques or training or skills to get out of Italy to come to Canada. Very many of them are now going to Germany, France and the other common market countries. There is a very large flow there, but I think the minister and his officials will have to admit that there is a tendency on the part of the Italian government and officials to block off this kind of skilled person coming to Canada and, of course, there is encouragement on the part of the Italian government for unskilled people to come to Canada. I think we can absorb a good many of the unskilled. We have and they have made their way and have risen very well, particularly in the business world, the construction world and in carpentry. I do not know where our construction industry would be today if it were not for the Italians and the contribution they have made.
But I suggest we need to talk very directly to Italy in this regard because it seems to me this is one country where we can get many more people. With reference to the argument of the hon. member for Lotbiniere about wanting a greater Canada and recognizing that it is people who will bring this about, if it is hard to get people from France and Belgium of French speaking background, perhaps there is an affinity between the Italians and the French that would make Italy promising ground for the kind of recruiting efforts that the minister suggested the Quebec government should undertake.
There is one last point in connection with immigration on which I want to touch and that is the possibility of an amnesty for more than just the Chinese people who entered Canada illegally. I have spoken to the minister about this matter. In my own riding I am acquainted with five or six people who happen to be Portuguese and who are not here on forged passports but are here illegally, in that they came in on visas, although the visas were not forged. At the present time they are working in the country. I have talked to several of them. I am not trying to condone the fact that they are breaking the law. They have told me that to their knowledge there are probably 500 or 600 people of their particular background in northern Ontario in the ring extending from the lakehead around to Sudbury.
Most of these people have been able to carry on for three, four or five years in this country because they are good, steady workmen who are never in trouble. It seems to me that some kind of effort is merited not only to examine and clear up each one of these cases that are outstanding, but also if they are typical of other groups of people of other backgrounds who are in this country illegally I think an over-all amnesty that would give them a chance to come forward with some hope of being able to stay here would be a very good move. I hope the minister will consider this. I think it should be much wider than just for the Chinese because people from other lands are involved.
Turning to the Indian affairs branch, I received a very sad document the other day from the Little Longlac chamber of commerce, a very prosperous small town in northern Ontario. It is supported by the Kimberly-Clark Corporation, one of the most enlightened companies I have had any dealings with. Right adjacent to this community there is an Indian reserve and the Little Longlac chamber of commerce points out in its representations, which went to the minister and to the Prime Minister, that there is a desperate situation in the community. You can see it in the statistics that half a dozen of the Indians from the reserve adjacent to this community have been killed on the roads or have died terrible deaths in other ways in the last few years as a result of drinking, careless behaviour, a complete misunderstanding of traffic rules and such things. Little Longlac or Macdiarmid in my constituency are perfect examples to show how badly we have done with the northern Ontario Indians.
I know the minister is sympathetic in this regard. I assume he was the one who was responsible for sending to us this pamphlet, "The Dilemma for Our Indian People", by James P. Mulvihill, O.M.I. I think it is an
6244	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration excellent analysis of the situation. It is quite apparent that we need to do something drastic. As far as I can see, in the northern Ontario Indians we have a form of crisis on our hands. It is no good belabouring the Indians affairs branch. Many of their agents have behaved like feudal barons, but they have not had any background or training in sociology or social work. It seems to me that many of them behave as though they are carrying out a routine job and are taking the easiest way out of it. But I think the reason for this is our lack of response. The Indians now have the vote, but as you go around an area the size of mine, which I would point out to hon. members comprises almost one third of the area of Ontario, you begin to appreciate that there is no simple answer.
I am sick about the situation of the Indians in my area. I have talked to the Jesuits, who have a religious interest in many of the reserves, and they are sick at heart about the situation. Many of them are despondent. I talked to one old priest last year just before he died. He had a total of approximately $7,000 in i.o.u.'s in a great big box in his kitchen. These were i.o.u.'s that had been given for two or three dollars at a time by Indians on his reserve so they could make a phone call, buy bread or use the money for taxi fare to go to the unemployment insurance office. He had no complaint about the fact he had advanced this form of charity. He knew it was charity. He knew the i.o.u.'s did not mean anything, but to him they were typical of the fact that these people always had to be turning to him or to someone else for assistance, even for a minor loan of $2 in order to go down the road a way.
This kind of difficulty is widespread throughout my whole riding. Every Indian reserve of which I know in my riding has a water problem. For example, at Heron Bay they have three pumps, and wells have been sunk. None of the Indians want to use any of the wells. They have a real complaint. Traditionally, they use the river, and the river is full of pulpwood for most of the year. We have been trying to do something about this. Gull Bay has had some wells sunk and some pumps put in. Every time I go there the Indians tell me that the pumps are not working. Sometimes this is the result of vandalism and sometimes it is recalcitrance on their part to use the facilities or take care of them.
I can give the minister a typical example. I went into one place last spring on the Gull Bay Indian reserve and a young man pointed to the walls. He said, how would you expect anybody to live through a winter in

this place. He and his wife had just been through the winter. You could see outside and there were the remains of some snow on the ground. You could see right through the walls. I was quite incensed, so I went to the Indian agent. I discovered that the Indian affairs branch had provided him with liner for his shack, provided insulation and everything. It had been brought up by trucks, and as soon as it landed he had sold it. Then, he and his wife had gone on a drunk and left the kids to be looked after by the grandmother.
I could tell the committee a really sad story. Last summer a 17 year old girl came to me and wanted to know if there was any possibility of getting a job. Obviously, she was pregnant. I made inquiries and discovered she was seven months pregnant. She was a very pretty girl. I inquired into the case from both the people on the reserve and the Indian agent, as well as from people who did welfare work. Here was a little girl who, at 13, was dragged off into the woods by one of the older Indians and kept as a prisoner for six months. None of the other Indians told on him. Finally, a school teacher found out about it and got the police. This man wound up with three or four years in Stoney Mountain and the poor girl was a physical wreck. She had been beaten and battered, and she wound up in a training school. She came out of the training school at 15, and where did she go? She hit the streets of Port Arthur. I do not know what can be done with a child like that. She does not know who her father was, and she does not know the potential father of the child she was carrying.
If this were just an isolated situation, if this were just the odd case, I could say we just needed mild remedial measures. However, that is not the situation. The minister can go into almost any reserve within range of the highway, and the tracks, where the white men are living close to the Indians, and this will be the kind of situation he will find. I went into one Indian home near Armstrong in my riding a little over a year ago and talked to the Indian father. He stated his daughter was home from school. She had gone to grade 12 and she hoped she would go on to be a nurse. I said, you must feel very proud. He said that he did, but she was not going to be a nurse. I asked why and he said she was pregnant. I asked how this happened. He told me she came home during the summer holiday and there was a pretty wild crowd around there. There happened to be some troops in the vicinity and that was the end of another promising Indian career.

I do not want to suggest any scandal. However, the actual living conditions, the morality, the behaviour of the Indians in my area of northwestern Ontario, including the riding of Kenora-Rainy River, all the way along the railway is as bad as this.
What have we got in the Indian affairs branch to face up to this situation? So far as I know, in that whole area we have one training or location office. To my knowledge, there is not any person intimately connected with Indian affairs in that region who is a trained social worker. The Indian agency centre for our area is in the town of North Bay, which is a long distance from the concentration of Indians in our part of the country.
I want to put it to the minister that it is about time there was a serious effort made in that region along the north shore, and up to Hudson bay, to bring to bear the skills that are available in the Indian affairs branch to do something for these people. Obviously, the solution is not a religious one, although I believe the religious authorities could help. I am sure they will help, and they are ready to help. It is more than just a community problem of association with whites in the small towns around which the Indians cluster. It is more than just an employment problem, although the fact is that employment is a factor. I know of one reserve on which there were 112 able-bodied men right in the middle of a timber limit that is being exploited by one of the big companies in Canada. However, only two men out of the whole band of 112 who were considered adult and ablebodied had any kind of permanent employment. You look at the figures for forest land in Ontario held by or for the Indians, and it is pitifully small. It is down to a few thousand square miles for the whole province of Ontario.
I can express my umbrage and my dissatisfaction. I have not any simple answer to suggest. It puzzles me, it defeats me, it discourages me. All I do know is that it will take some of the best wisdom and some of the largest resources that we can muster in terms of money and skill to really arrest the situation and to begin to convert these Indians into people of whom we can be proud, as Canadians, instead of being ashamed that these people live as they do. Some people are saying that the minister is going on to bigger things. I hope if that is his ambition he does. However, I suggest there is no bigger disgrace that we have to face as Canadians than the Indian situation-I can only speak of northern Ontario. I cannot think of any greater challenge for the minister or his successor than to really do something about
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration this situation-instead of just what I am doing, standing up and talking about it.
I should like to close by saying that I think within the Indian affairs branch there is a group of people who are waiting for the kind of imagination and leadership to gear and move this kind of program. However, it has to be much more intensive than before. There has to be more encouragement from the minister and from the senior officials of the department than I think has been given. I suggest that we have one experiment going in my area. A gentleman in Port Arthur who is working for the children's aid has taken on one of the reserves, one of those where conditions are poor. As a result of the cooperation he has had from the Indian affairs branch, he is carrying out a recreational program that is a real bootstrap operation. I should like to suggest to the minister that needs to be examined very soon to see if the results are worth while. If they are, this type of program should be applied to other reserves in the area.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have been longer than I intended in making these remarks. I should like to conclude now by saying that my sense of shame that my constituents have to live this way and be isolated as they are with a kind of apartheid with which most of us go along, although we would never accept it as a philosophy, has caused me to speak. I will tell the minister that any move he makes in this regard that shows an awareness of the problem and an attempt to meet it will have my support. I can almost guarantee, too, that he will not have to stand up in this house and plead or beg for money, or for votes to support it.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, there are a few subjects I would like to talk about on the estimates of this department. The first has to do with Indians and Eskimos. One might ask, what have I to do with Indians and Eskimos, since I represent primarily an urban riding in which there are no Indian reservations. But there is located within the riding of Edmonton West the largest Indian and Eskimo hospital in the country. This is the first subject I would like to draw to the attention of the minister. The Charles Camsell hospital does not come under his direct jurisdiction, but under that of his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare; but this hospital deals with the people in whom the minister is primarily interested, as is the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I know the northern health services came under the examination of the Glassco commission, and one of the recommendations was that the Charles Camsell hospital be not rebuilt. I happen to know a

6246	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration number of the doctors who were on the project team, shall we say, that looked into this matter and I had rather violent disagreements with them in this regard. With all due respect to these gentlemen, I think they were at least one generation ahead of their time with regard to medical services for our Indian and Eskimo populations, particularly as they deal with the Northwest Territories and the province of Alberta.
It was only a few years ago that the Indian and the Eskimo was prepared to accept and trust the white man's medicine. We now know from statistics that the health condition of our reserve Indians and our Indians and Eskimos in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon has improved immeasurably. But this progress must be maintained. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done in this regard. We can help by encouraging them to continue coming to a hospital where they are welcome, where they feel they are among people of their own kind, where the staff know how to handle them. An Indian or Eskimo patient from the Northwest Territories is not the same as the white man off the streets of the city of Edmonton.
I must confess that I was absolutely astounded at the philosophy that seemed to be propounded by those advocating that the Charles Camsell hospital be not rebuilt or modernized, because the main building is an old college building going back 50 or 60 years, and the remaining portion is a redwood building erected by the United States army when they were putting through the Alaska highway and the Canol pipe line. It is a veritable fire trap and it is inefficient; but it does the job. The plans had reached the point where there are working drawings for the new hospital. This project is now at a halt. I do not know how many times since last April I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether a decision had been reached with respect to the Charles Camsell hospital. I always received the usual answer, "No decision has yet been reached. When one is arrived at, you will be advised". I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that I think I would have received a little better action under other circumstances. It is high time the government made up its mind one way or the other with respect to this hospital. If the government decides to follow the recommendation of the Glassco commission report, I would say to the minister this would be a most retrograde step with respect to the health services for our Indians and Eskimos.
It is true that there is a hospital at Inuvik and there is a hospital at Whitehorse. But for the long term treatment of tuberculosis and some of the other diseases which are more difficult to eradicate there is nothing

like the Charles Camsell hospital in Edmonton, where you have the most highly qualified medical practitioners available as consultants, where there is a good staff within the Department of National Health and Welfare, people who are dedicated to their work. I will simply tell the committee that last January I went through the hospital on the occasion of the awarding of scholarship certificates. These were awarded to a young Eskimo from Inuvik who was going into second year medicine, a girl who was going into education but who was a patient at the hospital-these were university students-and a girl who had just received her certificate from a commercial school and was going out to work as a stenographer. Every year I have had the opportunity of congratulating these young people who have made their mark, who have achieved something. They are examples to other young people among the Indian and Eskimo populations.
Just a few months prior to that the hospital had been closed at Hobbema, which is located in the constituency of my colleague the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. It was indicated to the Indians on the two reserves at Hobbema that they could go into the Wetaskiwin or the Ponoka county hospitals. What was the result? The registrations in the Camsell hospital during January and February, 1962, were up by 45 each month in respect of people from those two reserves. You ask the Indians, "Why do you come here to Edmonton when you could be so much closer to your homes at Wetaskiwin or Ponoka?" They say, "We come among people who know us, who understand us. We are here with patients from other reserves. We have rehabilitation services here. We are welcomed in this hospital". We know that in the county, municipal and city hospitals the overcrowding is fantastic. Unless you are just about dying and require an emergency operation you cannot get into some hospitals. If they are queuing up from the white population to go into our very limited general hospitals, how is it to be expected that our Indians and Eskimos will be accepted? If an Indian woman wants to come into hospital to have a child, is she going to go into a general maternity ward? Today she will not. A generation from now, she may. So I would urge the minister to give this matter serious consideration.
I do not want to belabour the point but I wish to re-emphasize everything I have said in correspondence with his office and the office of his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Charles Camsell hospital must be rebuilt. Ultimately it may be made into a general hospital, but that is a generation from now. I think this would be one step in helping these people to integrate.

We should not give them the sort of cold water treatment of saying, "All right; we are taking your hospital away from you. You can now fend for yourselves in the local hospitals". That is not good enough and it would be a retrograde step.
Still on the subject of Indians and Eskimos, Mr. Chairman, there is a residential school in my riding to which some young Indians are brought from northern British Columbia to attend the city schools.
On examining the situation as to the training for the Indians at Yellowknife and some of the other training schools, I think that somehow we have missed the boat. We take these Indians from their homes while they are still in their early teens, and perhaps younger, put them in a white man's school, teach them white man's training and white man's habits, and then at the age of 16 turn them back to the reserves or among their own families. They are not adapted to Indian native habits. They have not acquired skills in hunting. They have the white man's skills, but no agency is there to follow up and see that they use that training.
The minister may say, "Well, we do for a bit." But is it not like a child learning to walk. You are asking these young people to go from a crawl to a walk and, Mr. Chairman, you know that a child learning to walk will stumble many times. You have to pick him up and get him back on his feet. I suggest that a massive assault must be made on this problem. It may take a generation. I hope it will take less, but these young Indians have got to be followed up, and this must be a government policy decision.
I hoped I was convincing the minister's predecessor in this regard to start such a program, but it does not concern only the minister within his department. He must convince his colleagues that there has to be a massive assault on this whole problem. It may take 10, 15 or 20 years, but if we do not do it we will not have a satisfactory solution that will help these people become self-reliant, more adapted to modern ways, and able to form an integral part of our population. If we can do that, we will have achieved something and the increased moneys we will have to spend will be worth while.
There are several reservations in and around the Edmonton area. They are handled through what is called the Edmonton agency, where there is an officer in charge, with various Indian agents operating out of the Edmonton office. I wonder whether this is right. It has been put to me by people who know Indians, and have been associated with them for many years, that it might be better if the Indian agent as a general rule lived on a reservation. There may be a paternal
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration aspect to this, but there is a benefit in his being there and knowing the people. He is not then an office man who comes out to them three times a week.
I shall now switch to the subject of immigration. I have discussed privately with the minister something which I hope he will look into, the acceptance as immigrants to this country of more young people from the other side of the iron curtain. There should be an extension of the rules regarding relationship, so that we can admit young people under the age of 21 for the purpose of reuniting members of families, where the senior members of families in Canada are well established, in the position to take in further relatives, and are willing to do so.
Some excuses have been made on the basis of security, and one thing or another, but I will put this question: Is the government's policy more concerned with immigration or security? By this I do not mean any disrespect to the R.C.M.P. who have a difficult problem to deal with. As I say, I have discussed this with the minister privately, particularly with reference to countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia, provided of course the governments of those countries will release their nationals to come to Canada. We cannot drag people here from those countries.
Gracious me, are boys and girls of 15 or 16 years such subversives that they cannot be admitted to this country on the same basis as orphaned nephews or nieces? What is wrong with extending the regulation to cover second cousins? We are prepared to make exceptions for nephews, nieces and unmarried children, so what great danger would there be in extending the regulation to cover grand nephews, grand nieces and second cousins? We would be doing a great service in uniting members of families and assisting them to become economic units. If there is a step that can be taken in the right direction with regard to immigration, it is in this area, and I suggest it apply to countries on the other side of the iron curtain, and indeed to all the countries of Europe.
This afternoon the hon. member for Lot-biniere spoke about the disparity in the figures of immigration from France and from the Anglo-Saxon countries.

He referred to the Belgians and the French. When you mention the Belgians, you have to speak of the Walloons and the Flemish.
As for me, I am of Flemish origin, and I know there is quite a difference. I know also that my grandparents never thought of themselves as French speaking, despite the fact that they could speak the language.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
And I can tell the minister it is quite likely that, out of the thousands of French immigrants that we have received within the last two generations, many have left the country. As a matter of fact, before I was elected to this house and at the request of the American consul, I used to translate and check the documents of the French and Belgian people who wished to obtain a certificate executed and authenticated by a notary.
I then translated law reports, military bulletins, etc., and I can tell the minister that, from the outset, namely some time before 1954 or 1955,1 cannot remember a single week when I was not required to translate such documents for French people who had immigrated to Canada and were going to the United States. When they were asked why they were doing so, they answered: Well, here, in Canada, the weather is very cold. Most of these immigrants were coming, so it seems, from southern France, and they were going to California. We could not keep them here and this is the reason for this lack of balance in the field of immigration.

There is one further brief point I would like to make with the minister, and it concerns Chinese immigration. Those of us who represent western cities have more contact with the problem of Chinese immigration than our colleagues from eastern Canada. I have heard, not only from the minister but from his predecessor, about the staff difficulties in Hong Kong, and I would like to know what has been done to ameliorate those difficulties in the last year? I still get from time to time queries about applications for immigration, where a potential immigrant has been told to come back for an interview in four or five months. This does not do much good, when a wife with small children is told to come back in four or five months.
This situation has existed for some time. Is it to be tolerated forever? I suggest to the minister that so far as Chinese immigrants are concerned we in western cities would welcome a lot more. They represent in the city of Edmonton I suppose one half of 1 per cent of the population, if that. They are not what used to be the popular conception of a Chinese citizen. Many of them are professional gentlemen, excellent businessmen. Second, the second generation Chinese are of the very best citizens within our communities. I think that here we can do something. I would ask the minister to let the house know what has been done to straighten out the situation in Hong Kong. I know there is a great deal of pressure in this quarter, but it seems to me that there has not been a great

increase in staff to handle it. We still get some of the same complaints about officials. I would say that almost one out of three applications by Chinese immigrants results in recourse being had to a member of parliament to see whether the application could be pushed and set moving. Strangely enough, when you do get behind it, it does move. So what is happening? Is it because more pressure is required? If so, all right, we will put on the pressure. But I think the minister recognizes the problem, so I would ask him to take the committee into his confidence and to tell us what he has done and what he anticipates doing in regard to this problem.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak very briefly indeed. I do so because I have received a letter from the minister's special assistant regarding a case which I mentioned when I last spoke on the estimates. I rise to deal briefly with the circumstances and to ask the minister a question, to which I trust I will receive a favourable reply, this being Christmas time.
I refer the minister to the application of Mr. Wong Hong Taw for the admission to Canada of his son Wong Yun Lam from Hong Kong. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister at the request of numerous people in Kootenay West who have known the old gentleman for many years. He is a splendid old chap. His application was supported by a petition of some 50 names, including one official of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, the mayor of Trail, prominent business people and other persons. It is rather a pathetic case. I was under the impression that Mr. Wong Hong Taw had more assets than appears to be the case at the moment. He was at one time quite a prosperous market gardener, but recently he has suffered from ill health. The minister was kind enough to have this case reviewed and referred to his official in Nelson, who has reported to the minister. I just want to refer to the letter and then ask the minister a question. The letter is dated December 16 last, addressed to me, and it reads as follows: Dear Mr. Herridge:
I refer to my letter of November 29, 1963, concerning the application of Mr. Wong Hong Taw for the admission to Canada of his son, Wong Yun Lam, from Hong Kong.
The immigration officials have had a report from their officer in Nelson, B.C. who states that Wong Hong Taw is almost destitute, having no assets either in cash or real estate, and being a recipient of somewhat meagre welfare payments. Under the circumstances, the applicant cannot meet minimal requirements for settlement arrangements for his son.
Mr. F. C. Crosman's letter of July 11, 1963, commented on Wong Yun Lam's limited qualifications. The report of the Hong Kong immigration officials.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
on which Mr. Crosman's letter was based, clearly indicated that Wong Yun Lam could not qualify as an unsponsored immigrant.
The previous decision in this case can therefore only be sustained. In view of your interest, I regret that my reply is not more favourable.
I am returning herewith the documents which you left with me in connection with this application.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Bosa,
Special Assistant.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am rising again at the request of a number of people in my constituency who are very concerned about the welfare of this really lovable old man whom they have known for many years. I understand the circumstances and the reason for the minister's reply, but I ask him this question. If the hon. member for Kootenay West sponsors this young man and guarantees that he will never be a public charge, will he be admitted to Canada to stay with his father?


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Only one question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have only two questions to ask. I should like to ask the minister whether his department intends to implement the report of the Glassco commission, which suggests to allot the issuing of passports to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration rather than to the Department of External Affairs.
My second question is this. Did the minister, who is very close to the government of the province of Quebec, meet the authorities of that government to suggest that the province of Quebec should make the necessary efforts to be in a position of extending a better welcome to the immigrants, as the other provinces do, especially Ontario?
In this connection, I am inspired by an article published in Le Devoir on November 10, 1963 and which reported the statement made by Mr. Lesage on television:
The province of Quebec should take the necessary means so that immigrants be given a better welcome on their arrival in Quebec province.
Those are the only comments I had to make on this question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to take a few minutes of the committee's time to express my approval of the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) concerning the immigration to Canada of French speaking people.
I know that I can develop the hon. member's arguments because, unfortunately, he
was unable to do so himself since the party whip likes nothing better than to restrain the members of his group.


Auguste Choquette: I regret to inform the member that it is not so.


Gilles Grégoire: As for me, I feel much freer on this side of the house, I can express any opinion I hold.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the statements made this afternoon by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. Of course, as in all the speeches he has been making these last three or four days, he began by praising a good deal the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However, I agree that in that case the praise was well deserved. In fact, I wish to take the opportunity to say that the minister has a brilliant future in his party.
However, Mr. Chairman, a fact remains. According to the figures quoted this afternoon there is a disproportion between immigration from English speaking countries and immigration from French speaking countries and there are many reasons for that. What solutions could be brought to the problem?
I believe that the first one would be a better concerted and better prepared publicity in the French speaking countries.
I also believe that the minister should give more attention to another important fact which is the supervision of the emigration of a great number of Canadian citizens to the United States. If we take into account the number of citizens of the province of Quebec and other provinces who have, since the beginning of this century, left Canada to go and work in other countries, we will find that this emigration has been harmful and even disastrous for us. One of its causes can be found in the facts of life.
For instance, the lumberman in the Belle-chasse, Beauce, Dorchester, Kamouraska and Temiscouata constituencies, and so forth, go to work in the United States in winter, and when they come back into the country, they do not benefit from the assistance their country gives in the field of unemployment insurance. Well, when that happens, these Canadian citizens are inclined to try to emigrate to the United States, where they may take advantage of the social legislation in that country.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration might perhaps urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) to have our Canadian citizens share in all the social benefits to which they are entitled.
Mr. Chairman, I have a last comment to make. For some time, a debate has gone on between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Ottawa and the minister of national resources in Quebec in order to find

6250	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration who will have charge of the administration- and at the same time, who will have jurisdiction over the educational system-of the Eskimos and Indians living in New Quebec or in the north of the province.
I submit it is quite an important problem to consider. Perhaps, at the present time, a rather limited number of individuals are involved, but there is every reason to believe that, within a relatively short period, mining or industrial developments will take place in that part of the province of Quebec. At that time, Eskimos and white men will live side by side, and one of the two groups will come under the authority of the provincial administration, whereas the other will live under federal jurisdiction. Then, that problem will be more acute than it is now. That is why I think the minister should give it his whole attention in order to anticipate the related problems which will come up within ten or 12 years in that area. Problems will inevitably come up if the present situation keeps up, when New Quebec and the far north are developed. But if we anticipate the problems -I think that what is wrong with the government at the present time is that corrective measures are taken only when the problems come up-if, in that area, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, with the capability we know he has, could anticipate the difficulties and find the solution right away, then, we would avoid for the future generations, discussions which might be very bitter.
Mr. Chairman, those are the three points I wanted to submit to the minister, and I would sum them up like this: French immigration in our country; disastrous emigration of too many Canadian citizens to the United States; and the Eskimos and Indians living in northern Quebec.
I hope the minister will take those problems into consideration and that in his next estimates, he will be in a position to tell us what he intends to do to settle them.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I shall start by replying right away to the three questions that have been asked. First of all, I shall answer the question dealing with the recommendations of the Glassco commission concerning passports. This recommendation will be looked into. I must say, however, that the matter does not come under my depart-mnt as such, but concerns rather the study group which is presently considering the recommendations of the Glassco commission. In any case, that is one of the points under consideration at present.
Second, with regard to the discussions with the Quebec government, I must say that the discussions held were informal [Mr. Gregoire.l
rather than official. I have already had or started to have talks. I feel confident that, in the future, my views in that regard will prevail.

As to the matter raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West, I am not in a position, in full committee, to settle a specific question of this kind; but I can tell the hon. member that in view of the sympathetic nature of the proponent of the question I cannot help but consider the matter very sympathetically.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I first wish to thank the hon. members who made such flattering remarks about me. I simply consider them as an encouragement to perform my duty in the future as I have done up to now.
Some constructive suggestions have been made, several have already been implemented and others are under consideration. We must not forget that criticism is still one of the best ways to expedite public business. I thank the members for their constructive criticisms.
I would like to say a word about Chinese immigration. I hope that I did not convey the impression, in my remarks, that Chinese immigration, which evidently involved some complex problems, had been overlooked by the department.
May I say on the matter of sponsorship that there will be a broadening of the plan with respect to families, particularly in the speeding up of consideration and disposal of requests which are being processed.
Many protracted meetings have already taken place in that connection with my officials, and I can even promise the committee that within the next year, recommendations will be submitted to the cabinet and, for this reason, I am not free to disclose, for the time being, the solutions I intend to propose.
Now I must point out that in 1961, 661 immigrants of Chinese origin were admitted into Canada, that 826 came into this country in 1962 and that, during the first nine months of 1963, 1,008 have already been admitted, which means that this year we will substantially exceed the number of immigrants of Chinese origin admitted up to now.
Two weeks ago, the acting director of the immigration branch went to Hong Kong at my request, and I intend to follow him soon. As a result of recommendations, we have already applied measures which will reduce by 50 per cent the work and time involved in the processing of applications of Hong Kong immigrants.

In the course of their remarks, some members have asked whether or not Anal consideration has been given by me to the case of Miss Irene Rebrin who immigrated to Canada in 1958 and who was ordered deported in January, 1959. I must say that this case was relatively complex. It involved certain delicate factors and it was my intention to give it all the consideration required. I am pleased to inform the committee that the review of this case has now been completed. I have decided that Miss Rebrin should now be admitted to Canada as a landed immigrant. The necessary procedures are being commenced to adjust her status. The conclusion I have reached takes into account the current circumstances and it is not intended to have any bearing on the past treatment of this case or to imply that any decision made in the past in this respect was improper at the time it was made.
I have stated, Mr. Chairman, that it is at least my opinion, because we are dealing with human beings directly, that in these cases the minister should refrain-I do not say that in the past the minister has not refrained-from any comparison between his own policies and the policies of previous ministers or governments. This is why I wish to make it very clear that the Rebrin case has been looked into in the light of the facts as they existed in December of 1963. If an immigrant is refused in 1959, for instance, under section 5 because this immigrant suffers from a disease, and if the matter is looked at in 1963 and that person has been cured, a decision is then made in the light of the factors as they exist in 1963 and may not be interpreted as reflecting unfavourably on any previous decision.
I am not unmindful also in taking this decision, and I think it is important, that there is presently pending a libel suit between Miss Rebrin and somebody else. As a lawyer I have considered that and I know I am satisfied in my own mind that in the suit the facts, of course, will be looked at as they were in 1959, and not 1963, and that consequently any decision I may make may not be used for or against anybody in the case, because anything which I might say would not be acceptable legal evidence. It would be purely hearsay. So I thought it was my duty to make the decision, and having arrived at that conclusion, I am pleased to state it to the house tonight.
May I say just one word with respect to Indian affairs. In a jocular fashion but in a way seriously, I know, it has been suggested that the minister try to devise a system whereby he will ensure that the important
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration branch of his department known as Indian affairs will disappear in 20 years. I must say I cannot agree more. I also know that when I say this my officials will not be frightened by the proposition because, knowing their dedication to their cause, I know that they all agree. This is the objective and the purpose, that once the Indians have fully succeeded in adjusting themselves to our present way of life in a fashion compatible with their own traditions and original culture and also in the freest possible way there will not then be any necessity for an Indian affairs branch as such. This objective, of course, embodies a requirement for the implementation of all of those measures which we have discussed during the presentation and discussion of these estimates.
May I say a last word on matters of immigration about the relaxation of what have been called the rules of relationship. This is one of the subjects which, as many members know, I have most deeply at heart at present. Rules which were probably necessary at the time they were made have caused difficulty, and ways and means must be found to adapt them to more humane conditions of immigration.
My last word is to join with hon. members in congratulating the new deputy minister of my department on his accession to that high position. I must say that if the first 30 days of his presence in the department are a sign of the future, and I know they are, there will be a great future for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the minister on his decision with reference to the Rebrin case and say to him that many of us are highly pleased at the excellent beginning he has made in the handling of his department. We look forward to a very enlightened period of administration under his guidance.
I should like to ask him one brief question. I have reference now to the Mrs. Miriam Stevenson case which I raised in the house on the orders of the day some weeks ago and about which I wrote the minister. I do not want to take much time of the committee but I would like the minister to give, if he can, some assurance with reference to the immediate status of this case. I do not know Mrs. Stevenson nor am I familiar with all the details of her case. I do know that, according to press reports, she is a citizen of Great Britain, that she lived for a while in the United States and that she is now being deported because in the 1930's she was for one year, it is claimed, a member of the communist party. She contends that she has had no association whatsoever with the communist party since the 1930's.
6252	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The minister was gracious enough to grant a stay of proceedings for 60 days on this case during which time she and her legal counsel are requested to produce evidence to prove that she has dissociated herself from her former connections. I hope she can do that but, as I pointed out to the minister when I wrote him, it is very difficult to prove a negative. How you prove that you no longer are something is extremely difficult. She may be able to get character references or people who will express opinions, but I do not know how you can prove you are not something. It may be possible to prove that you are a member of an organization, but how you prove you are not a member of an organization seems to me extremely difficult.
It may not be possible within the time limit she has to produce this kind of evidence. Therefore I want to ask the minister first of all whether it will be possible, if that evidence is not forthcoming and it appears to him that the case is deserving of consideration, to extend the time during which she can endeavour to get this kind of evidence. Second, is it the intention of the minister to review the act to see if some of these very wide discretionary powers which are given to the minister could be spelled out in the act? It seems to me that the powers are very wide when the whole discretion whether or not this woman, who is a British subject, who has lived in Canada and who is now in her late 50's, will be deported lies entirely with the minister. It so happens I am fairly well satisfied with the discretion of this minister, but that is not the point at issue. The point is whether or not this is a discretion which is far too great to reside in any one person, without any right of appeal.


Frank Howard: I have just a brief word or two before the item passes. The minister made a statement a while ago which will be pleasant sounding music to the ears of native Indian people of Canada, namely that it is his desire that within 20 years or a reasonable period of time there will no longer be a need for an Indian affairs branch, or the Indian Act for that matter. It has been one of the sore points in the minds of the native Indian people for many years, that they should be singled out and subjected to a law and an administration specifically dealing with them on a racial or ethnic basis. As I said earlier in my remarks, and I hope the minister will not take this personally because it is not intended that way, the Indian people feel that there is a need for action rather than words. Words have been directed to them time after time in years gone by. It is action that will impress them at this point.


I have great hopes that what the minister says will be accomplished will, in fact, be accomplished.
I have a question or two I should like to direct to the minister about a problem I raised earlier. However, it might be as well to wait until the item is called which deals with welfare.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As the member who first raised the case of Irene Rebrin in the house I wish to thank the department on behalf of the people in British Columbia. I am sure the minister has made a lot of people in British Columbia happy to hear that he considered the unfortunate plight of this young lady.


Mr. Clancy:: I should like to ask a question of the minister with reference to the order in council concerning Weldon Chan. This is a man who broke every law in Canada and who went underground for three years. Suddenly, he is pardoned by order in council. Now, how do I advise my constituents, a lot of whom come from eastern Europe? Do I tell them to bring their relatives in, admit nothing and hope that they will be pardoned by the minister? This was the most disgraceful thing that ever happened in this country.


William Arnold Peters: Is the minister going to say anything about the matter I raised earlier concerning the opening up of old orders in council to try to ascertain where the difficulties lie in the cases that have come before the department?


Guy Favreau: I am sorry if I forgot that question. I first wish to thank the hon. gentleman for having agreed to my suggestion to restrict the area of his very broad question. The answer to his first question would have required a lot of time and expense. When the answer is completed, whether or not the house is in session, I will send a copy to my hon. friend for sure. I must say this, though, that the adjustments are not made by order in council. These persons have entered Canada and once their status is adjusted, they are not deported. They are considered as people who have been admitted, and for the purpose of citizenship their landing is considered to have taken place at the time of their arrival.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Could I have an answer-


William Arnold Peters: Could there be-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Yorkton.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I should like to ask the minister what advice I should give to my constituents. Do I advise them to forget the laws, come in under a visitor's permit and then disappear?

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Guy Favreau: In reply to the hon. member I would say that his experience in the house and with his constituents is much greater than mine. I know that he cannot give them anything but sound advice.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I may tell the minister that I try to be honest with my constituents.


Guy Favreau: You can advise them that the minister looked into all the circumstances of the Weldon Chan case. In so far as I am concerned, this was a very particular case. If you look at the circumstances as a whole, it is a case without precedent. Each of these cases must be examined upon its own merits at the time it comes before the minister. He tried to do justice to the best of his ability and knowledge.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: May I advise my constituents to break the law and throw themselves on the mercy of the minister?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the minister give me a report on the Miriam Stevenson case about which I was asking? Has there been any change?


Guy Favreau: All I can say is that it was a good thing there was a discretion in the minister because I saw the file about 24 hours before the deportation order would have been executed. My power of discretion allowed me to send a telegram suspending the deportation order for six days. We have not yet received the representations sought. Instructions have been given for a further investigation, and no deportation order will be given until such time as we are satisfied that the facts are before us.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25. Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $10,000 for grant to immigrant welfare organization, $7,059,800.
Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to filibuster my own estimates but I ask my colleague, the Secretary of State, to present an amendment to vote No. 25.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I move:
That vote No. 25 be reduced by $20,500.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
60. Welfare operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the total of all amounts to be paid by the governments of provinces and territories under agreements entered into on terms approved by the governor in council with such governments in respect of social assistance to non-Indians residing on Indian reserves, $11,772,900.
Frank Howard: Vote No. 60 covers the operation of the welfare branch of Indian affairs, with which I dealt in an earlier part of my remarks. There is an agreement, I have not got it with me now, but I believe it is headed, statement of policy on health or welfare services, and it is an agreement between the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia. Perhaps there are similar agreements with other provinces, I do not know. The effect of this agreement which came into force this past January, as I read it, is that if an Indian lives on a reserve and is eligible to receive welfare, he will receive that assistance at the rate established by the Indian affairs branch, namely $22 per month. Then, if there are any dependants the amount decreases to $15 per month for dependants over 12 years of age and $12 per month for dependants under 12. I do not know if these figures are correct. However, if an Indian person lives off the reserve for a period of time and is eligible for welfare assistance, he receives welfare assistance at the rate paid by the provincial department, which is substantially in excess of the amount paid by the Indian affairs branch.
Then, if a non-Indian living on the reserve is eligible for or in need of welfare assistance, he will receive that assistance at the rate payable by the Indian affairs branch. If he is living off the reserve, of course, the agreement does not apply. The essence of this agreement is that it sets up two schedules of welfare payments for Indian people, one when they are on the reserve and one when they are off the reserve. In view of the desire of governments-as enunciated also by the minister recently-within the last couple of years that the goal and objective should be what we loosely call the transfer of jurisdiction over these matters to the provincial government, I wonder whether the minister could tell us what plans are afoot to either discard that agreement or revise it in such a way that there is equality of welfare payments to native Indian people as compared with people of non-Indian origin. I am talking about British Columbia, but I am sure that if similar agreements are in existence in other provinces and the same sort of discriminatory system prevails, naturally what I have said applies to those provinces also.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, first I must say that it is probably a laudable objective to even out as much as possible the rates of welfare payments. But surely no member of an Indian community may complain about the fact that when they go off the reserve and live somewhere else in the province the
6254	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration federal government has seen to it by agreement that they be not treated differently than other residents of the province. I do not want to justify the rate that is paid to Indians, and I do not say it is not justifiable either. I must say that the rate paid to Indians on the reserve is for food only, but Indians living off the reserve have considerable additional expenses which those on the reserve do not have, including provision for lodging, heating, fuel and other factors. Indians living off the reserve have to meet these expenses and those on the reserve do not have to meet them.
In the same way it is true that the rates vary even from province to province, and so long as uniformity between the provinces is not achieved, even if we adjusted the rates as applied to Indians there would, because of the different levels in the provinces, remain certain differences. It is our objective to level out these things as much as possible. I think we will be in a position to do a great deal with respect to looking into this question in depth at the conference which takes place in the month of May between the federal minister and the appropriate provincial ministers. As I said, this conference is in preparation and the agenda will soon be discussed among the provinces and the federal government.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I anticipated that the conference which arose out of the recently concluded dominion-provincial conference would provide the arena for the discussion of a great many of these matters. I only wanted to raise the question with the minister now, so that it is on the record once again and we do not lose track of it in the wealth of all the other things that take place; because this is an important matter. The minister said-and I am paraphrasing him now-that surely no Indian living off the reserve would complain that he is receiving the welfare assistance payable by the province. Perhaps they do not, but an Indian person does complain in this way. They look at the disparity in welfare payments as a result of this agreement and say, "Ah, ah; here is another attempt by the government to entice us to get off the reserve. They are now using the enticement of increased welfare payments to do it". I say this because, as the minister well knows, the history of the treatment of native Indian people by law has been full of enticements for them to become enfranchised, to leave the reserve, to lose their status as an Indian. These enticements involve the right to vote, which was granted a few years ago. They involved liquor, and still do to a certain


extent. They involve the amount of band funds the Indian gets when he becomes enfranchised, and so on.
Most of the Indian people have resented the fact that enticements have been offered to get them to cease being Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act. They want to retain their history, culture and association with their own people. They look upon this agreement, with its disparity in the approach to welfare, as being another enticement by government to get them off the reserve. It is unfortunate that this attitude exists. I can only hope at this moment that when the federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs is held it will do something to correct this discrimination. Everyone will be praying for it to come up with something that is reasonable, decent and conclusive with respect to Indian affairs, so we can take the step the Indian has been looking for, for so long-* the step toward equality and decency of treatment for them.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Favreau) of my request addressed to him last November in favour of Indians belonging to the La Manouane reserve who are deprived at the present time of all medical assistance. There is no nurse in the reserve at the present time and, unfortunately, tuberculosis is rampant there.
I have been in recent contact with officers of the minister and I pointed out to them that I had been told by the reserve chief that it would be advantageous for a doctor to practise in that reserve. As I am aware of the minister's concern with problems relating to his department, I feel sure that the Indians of La Manouane will be given, in the future, the medical assistance that is essential to that community.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to express my thanks to all members for the high degree of co-operation they have shown, particularly for the spirit of understanding they have displayed towards the poor minister who presented his first estimates.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is thanks to your parliamentary secretary.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,529,570,600 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 10, 15,

20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $978,136,600 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $3,432,000.
Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Shall this item carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman. I am quite prepared to move very rapidly on these items if the minister will give us a short statement on the NATO conference, and any developments at that conference, and bring us up to date on the recent changes that we read about in the newspapers concerning national defence. We would like to hear about these matters right here in the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the NATO conference I would be pleased to make a very brief report. It was, in my opinion, a most satisfactory conference. There had been some apprehension, I believe, that certain issues would be divisive, or could possibly be divisive; but there was no evidence of this at the conference. There was reaffirmation of the solidarity of the 15 nations which compose the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We received a first class briefing of the military threat which presently exists from the Soviet union, an assessment of their strengths and of their capabilities. If anything, the consensus was that the conventional strength of the Soviet union, when given a qualitative analysis, is not as great as was previously estimated, but of course is still quite formidable.
We also heard a very interesting statement in respect to the western capabilities, the forces available to meet the threat, and the state of the alliance from the military standpoint at the present time.
On behalf of the Canadian delegation we had a statement which made the council aware of the defence review which is presently being undertaken here, and which mentioned certain decisions that already have been taken and of which the council were already aware. It also indicated that one or two other matters were under consultation at present with the military authorities, and that these would be presented to the permanent council in the usual way as soon as agreement was reached.
It was pointed out that our review in this country was really in two phases. The first phase dealt largely with procurement, which is now completed. We attempted not to procure equipment which would limit the options
Supply-National Defence open to us in future years. The second phase of our review was in respect to longer term policy, and that in determining longer term policy the government would be very much aware of the relationship between our armed forces, and those of our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This statement seemed to be well received, as were any consultations we had with military and civilian authorities at the conference.
I think the most notable achievement of the whole meeting was the reaffirmation of solidarity, and the undertaking on the part of all members of the alliance not to stand in the way of going ahead and working out problems which arise from time to time, as is inevitable in any alliance of 15 nations in peacetime. In summary, it was a most satisfactory conference and we in the Canadian delegation took satisfaction from it.
With respect to the hon. gentleman's second question, it is unfortunate that consultations are not yet complete and therefore I am reluctant to say anything more at this time. It is not helpful to give information in detail before negotiations have been worked out, and these negotiations are presently under way. The NATO military authorities have been advised of any proposals the government of Canada has at the present time. These are being studied, staff work is being done at the moment, and we expect to hear back in the not too distant future. I would hope it will be possible within a few weeks to make public any additional information that is relevant to the slight adjustments which have been proposed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the minister give us some information regarding two matters recently reported in the press. One is a report which appeared in the Globe and Mail of December 20 and which says:
The Royal Canadian Air Force base at Gros-tenquin, France, will be closed, a highly placed source said yesterday.
The other Canadian base in France, at Marville, will be retained but the CF-104 nuclear bombers there will be converted to a strictly conventional, reconnaissance role, the source said-
The CF-104's at Grostenquin will be moved to the German bases.
Is this the plan which the department has in mind? Is it intended to close the first base and move the aircraft to Germany, and is it also the intention to keep the Marville base open but to change the equipment on the CF-104's so that they can be used for conventional purposes?
The other matter is with reference to an announcement which came from Paris while the minister was there. There were some conflicting reports about this. I gather some of the papers were quoting the statement as though it came from the minister, but later

Supply-National Defence I received a more accurate report which said it came from British military sources. It was a statement to the effect that an agreement had been signed permitting the British V-bomber force to be trained in Canada and it said-
-that the R.A.F.'s nuclear V-bomber force is to use Canadian air space to test a new "low-level" attack strategy.
It also said:
-the V-bombers would operate from Canadian bases, covering "distances in northern Canada similar to those which would be met in a retaliatory assault on Russia."
Most people felt this was hardly the way to contribute to a lessening of international tensions, and to strengthen the detente which it is hoped we are building between the east and the west since the signing of the partial nuclear test ban agreement.
I would like the minister to give some explanation why this new training program is being launched? Is a new agreement being entered into, or is it being done under some former agreement? Will it mean a great increase in the British personnel located in Canada, or is it simply an old program being blown up for publicity purposes by the British government, which is sorely in need of being bolstered on the home front?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Globe and Mail report is one of a series which has appeared in respect to the proposed adjustments to the air division. It is not too inaccurate in respect to a proposal that has been made by the Canadian government, and is a pretty fair reflection, though not quite complete, of the suggestions we have made to the military authorities in NATO. I would prefer if the hon. member allow me not to go beyond that in spelling it out, because I feel we have some obligation to our allies not to pre-publicize in detail suggestions which have been put forward while they are in fact subject to consultation.
I believe the second report had an unfortunate emphasis. It is true, and this much I confirmed while in Paris, that there has been agreement to permit British V-bombers to use a low-level training route in Canada. This is not really a new situation because we have made air space available to the British for training purposes many times, and it is really just an extension of the long standing cooperation existing between the Canadian government and the R.A.F. This involves a technique of contour flying, low level flying which requires special training.
The difficulty is in obtaining routes which do not unduly interfere with the civilian population. Particularly in England such routes are just not available. For that reason

a request came forward to make available a route in Canada which would be over part of our territory, but which would not be an undue nuisance to the civilian population. A route was selected and permission given to operate this one route. It does not mean that there will be any sizeable augmentation of British personnel in Canada. It will just be a staging operation. Planes will come over. I think they are to operate from Goose Bay; they will fly this training route perhaps on several successive days, and then fly back to their regular bases in the United Kingdom.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his concise reply. I only want to say one thing, that when he tells us about reports in the Globe and Mail referring to the disposition of the CF-104's, the closing of one base in France and the retention of the other for the use of CF-104's which are being converted to a conventional role, it makes me somewhat apprehensive of the fact that this is about the third or fourth time in recent months that highly informed sources have been able with amazing accuracy to prophesy what the minister is going to announce. Again I imagine that somebody has stolen the minister's thunder and has told the public what the minister has only now told the House of Commons. I can understand the reluctance of the minister not to tell the House of Commons until the matter has been cleared up with our allies, but I should point out to the minister that it is a little disconcerting for parliament to find that most of the policies of the Department of National Defence seem to be announced in the press a week or two before they are announced in the house. While there might be a certain amount of guesswork going on, the accuracy with which these prophecies have been fulfilled makes one think that the minister ought to look and see whether there is a leak somewhere in his information set-up, or whether the minister himself is deliberately flying a kite-I do not know which it is.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I say that the minister is a little apprehensive too. This information did not come from my office, if that is what the hon. gentleman is suggesting. Up to this moment I have not been able to find out just who the informed source was. I should like to know the answer to that question, and if the hon. member can assist me I would be most grateful. I find it a little disconcerting myself, because at noon I was eating in the restaurant and one of my colleagues, a member of parliament, introduced me to a young officer, who informed me to my face in front of my friend exactly what we proposed to do. So that when we refer to informed sources, it

seems to me there are quite a few of them, and it is very difficult to tell exactly which one it is.
For this reason I try to make the information public as quickly as possible. That was certainly one of the main reasons for making so many announcements on the estimates, even though they actually applied to next year's estimates, so as to end the rumours and speculation and to get the information on the record. I would be pleased to put the information respecting the other readjustments on the record just as fast as can be arranged in order to end this type of speculation, which I find a little interesting, as does my hon. friend.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the estimates of the department now before us are the most important of all the federal budget. As a matter of fact, the Minister of National Defence surely is the most greedy of all, since he takes for his department alone more than 25 per cent of the money collected from Canadian taxpayers.
I would now like to make the following remarks. I am amazed, like many other Canadians, to see that in a period such as this, the Department of National Defence has found it advisable to have three submarines built in England for the Canadian navy, while so many Canadian workers in our shipyards are now unemployed and greatly need the work that would have been provided by the construction, in Canada, of those three submarines.
I submit that the Minister of National Defence, before making other commitments of this kind and before granting to other countries contracts to build submarines, or aircraft, or any other type of military hardware, should first endeavour to grant them to Canadian industries, factories or shipyards.
If the Minister of National Defence could meet the Canadian people, he would realize that the public is voicing strong protests against his department's decision to award those contracts to foreigners while there is unemployment in Canada.
There are two or three other questions I should like to ask the minister.
First, are any nuclear arms stored at present at Bagotville for the Voodoos which are stationed there?
Second, if there are no nuclear weapons there now, when is it expected that a stockpile will be established?
Third, will the Voodoos stationed in Bagotville make daily flights or will they be allowed to carry nuclear weapons during their daily or regular flights?
Supply-National Defence
Fourth, what kind of a danger can these weapons represent for the neighbouring population, especially when they are carried by the Voodoos?
I think that the people of our Saguenay-Lake St. John region, who are fine people living in a beautiful area, would like to know the answers to those questions so as to know what to think about the dangers that those weapons represent.
Finally, a fifth and very important question: to what extent will the Bagotville, Chicoutimi and Arvida region serve as target in the event of an enemy attack, in view of the nuclear arms which are stored there?
I should be glad if the minister would answer those questions so as to make the Canadian people aware of the danger that may threaten them.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to make a comment or two on the estimates of the Department of National Defence I should like to express my unqualified confidence in the minister and in the manner in which he is conducting his department. I like the man, I like his manners, and I like his methods. When I was sitting on the other side of the house in opposition a year ago I expressed my belief that the basic point in Canada's external affairs policy and the basic aim in its defence policy should be the friendliest of relations with the United States of America. This has been my lifetime conviction and it will remain with me till I shuffle off this mortal coil, I know. On December 5 of this year when we were earlier considering the estimates of the Department of National Defence, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre interrupted the hon. member for Vancouver East in his comments on defence policy. I read from page 5462 of Hansard for December 5:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Mr. Winch:: If you do not mind, I have only got 30 minutes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You can take 30 minutes. I am raising a point of order. The hon. member has made a statement which is false and it must be corrected immediately.. .False statements made in this house must be corrected immediately.. .False statements made in this house must be corrected. They must be withdrawn if they are false. The hon. member's statement is false-
May I point out, while we are considering the estimates of the Department of National Defence-and this is Christmas time, a time ol charity and good will-that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on May 27 in this house produced a forged letter supposed to have been written by the United States ambassador to Ottawa and sent by him to the Prime Minister.

Supply-National Defence


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member without giving him an opportunity to make his point, but I suspect that he cannot deal with the subject he is beginning to deal with while remaining within the four corners of vote 1 of the estimates of this department.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I note that you were the chairman on December 5. I have one more sentence and then I will have completed my remarks. I should like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, in view of this point of order which he has discovered and which the chairman did not recognize on December 5, if he will not agree, now, to withdraw his statement made on May 27, and all its ramifications as are to be found in Hansard on pages 319, 320 and 321, thereby expunging a blot from the official record of this house and a personal affront to the representative of a friendly nation?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I feel strongly that the hon. member is not in order in raising this point. It is not relevant to the vote which is now before the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, I am surprised not only that the hon. member should have raised this matter but that he has been permitted to read it into the record. Are we not dealing with the subject of national defence? Do I, as a member of this committee, have no protection under the rules? If the hon. member wishes this matter to be debated I am prepared to give the hon. member an answer.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will realize that I felt at the start that the point which the hon. member for York-Humber appeared to wish to make was out of order. I cautioned him right at the beginning. He then said he had only one sentence to go in order to complete his point. It was a long sentence but, in fairness to the hon. member, I allowed him to finish his statement. I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that the remarks made by the hon. member for York-Humber were not relative to the item before us.


Harold Edward Winch: I know the minister did not make the decision, but can he give the committee any information as to the basis on which Canada purchased a type of CF-104 for our R.C.A.F. squadrons in Europe capable only of using nuclear weapons, whereas all the F-104's used by other countries were built with a dual purpose possibility. Why was Canada the only country which bought an aircraft with a strictly nuclear capacity? The CF-104 must have been built that way


with the knowledge of the previous government. They must have known it could never be used, except with nuclear warheads.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: First of all I might answer the hon. member for Lapointe. He asked if there are nuclear weapons now at Bagotville. The answer is, no. He asked when there will be nuclear weapons there. I do not know; probably late next year. He asked whether there will be daily flights with nuclear weapons aboard aircraft. The answer is, no. He asked what the danger would be to the people in the area when these weapons are adopted. May I say that every possible precaution is taken. We have safety procedures which are as good as can be devised and the success of these measures is shown by the fact that throughout all these years the United States has had nuclear warheads numbering many thousands, there has never been an accidental nuclear explosion. Every conceivable precaution is taken.
I am not familiar with all the reasoning which went into the particular configuration of the CF-104. It was part of the development of a new weapons platform embarked upon by a number of nations in co-operation. Canada shared the cost of that development. Our particular configuration was a little different from the F-104G which is used by some of our allies, but it does have some built-in capabilities. This would make it possible to adopt a dual role for part of the air division if that should prove to be the proper solution. The aircraft is capable of carrying bombs of various kinds. A Gatling gun can be installed. It is possible to fire rockets if the pods and the rockets are purchased. There are a number of minor modifications which, if undertaken, would give the plane non-nuclear capacity. The cost would vary according to what was done, but it would not be great. The necessary wiring is all built into the aircraft, and though some minor modifications would be necessary the cost would not be great in proportion to the total amount of money involved in the program.


Harold Edward Winch: Perhaps the minister did not follow my question. The F-104, with which a number of other countries are equipped is constructed with a dual capacity. Only the CF-104, which we have has been so constructed that it is only capable of delivering nuclear warheads. I believe this is a fact. If it is, can the minister explain why?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I was saying, although the CF-104 was designed specifically for the strike role, it does have this capability of being easily adapted to a number of roles without need for major modification. The

capacity is built in so as to give considerable flexibility. It really is not very different from the F-104G.


Mr. Laniel:: I should like to address a question to the minister of defence. I should like the minister to tell the committee something about the recent reductions in the budget of his department and the trend toward the reduction of national defence spending. I congratulate him on these reductions because the hon. gentleman has taken positive action in this regard. I should like to know from the minister if the economizing in his department will at the same time eliminate the possibility of his officials making a study with regard to establishing compulsory service in this country. In this regard I want to refer to the suggestion I made to the minister on October 29, for which I received congratulations from many parts of my constituency and from other parts of Quebec, and especially from people in the educational field. I repeat what I said at that time, that I feel that the youth of this country really need some discipline and additional education, and therefore the minister and the department should make a study of this matter. Even having regard to the need to reduce the budget of the department, I think the minister and his officials should not put aside the possibility of looking into this matter. It is something that would be good for the young people of the country, would give them some discipline and at the same time provide a supplement to their education. After all, I am not so sure that it would cost the country so very much, having in mind what is spent in the fields of welfare and unemployment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think I should comment upon some of the problems raised by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel). My hon. friend said, among other things, that compulsory military service would complete the education of our young people. I wonder how the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry can justify the idea that it is up to the army to complete the education of young Canadians.
He also said that it would give them a sense of discipline. But what type of discipline would the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry want our youth to be taught? Military discipline or intellectual discipline?
If a man is to be judged according to a real scale of values, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry is wide of the mark; I feel that the best discipline that we can give our young people, is intellectual and moral discipline, which
Supply-National Defence they can get in our vocational and training schools, rather than in the army.
Our educational system is not under the army's jurisdiction, though the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry would like it to be; that system is under provincial jurisdiction, and I protest against this new infringement, by the federal government of a provincial field, that of education.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I do not have the same gift as the hon. member for Lapointe for making fiery and colourful speeches and for getting all sentimental-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I feel it should be possible to bring forth solid arguments and to judge these arguments according to their real value, instead of trying to distract the house's attention by speaking of colour rather than of value.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, I think I should answer the hon. member for Lapointe. Listening to him, I soon found out that he had done very little or no military service-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I challenge the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry to prove what he just stated.


Lucien Lamoureux: I should like to ask the member for Lapointe to give the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry a chance to finish his remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I believe he has no right to make an allegation like the one he just made.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe has asked what additional education military service could give the young people in this country.
I wish to say to the hon. member for Lapointe and to all members of the house that if I am here today as a member of the federal parliament, I owe it largely to the army because the army gave me perhaps that additional education that our various institutions could not give me.
I acquired in the army a technique of work and things that I could not acquire in universities because they had not been put at my disposal. In the military service, I was able to complete my education. Moreover I learned what military discipline, individual discipline was but not necessarily the discipline which exists in the party to which the hon. member for Lapointe belongs.
Personally, I believe in military service, I know what it can bring to the young people. In fact, I received letters from educators, not only from my riding, but also from the city of Montreal-I could show you those letters-who simply congratulated me to

Supply-National Defence adopt such a position in saying that today, young people need discipline and that they can, in the army, learn how to assume responsibilities.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I object to two allegations made by the member for Beauharnois-Salaberry. He said he had received in the army things that he could not get at the university. Mr. Chairman, I could not let pass without protesting that insult to our universities, because I think the universities of the province of Quebec can give-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems that the discussion just started between two hon. members is not of a nature to advance the business of the committee and I would ask them to forget strictly educational matters to come back to item No. 1 now before us.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am willing to co-operate in order to accelerate progress of the business of the house, but not at the expense of the honour and reputation of the universities of the province of Quebec which are equal to the task-


Norman Platt Lambert: Learn to have some self-discipline.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is insulting the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) by attributing to him words he has never uttered. And I think that before lecturing anybody in this house, the hon. member for Lapointe should have the honesty to report faithfully the statements that were made.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, tomorrow's Hansard will report the words said tonight by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry when he stated that he received in the army a training which he could not get at the university.
And I believe that tomorrow's Hansard will amply prove that the member really made the statement I pointed out.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The only thing I wish to have recorded in Hansard is that I want the hon. member for Lapointe to know I never had the opportunity to attend university. If he had listened, he would have understood what I said, that is I did not acquire at the university what I was able to acquire in the army, since my basic schooling did not permit me to attend university. But, the army has nevertheless enabled me to be elected to this house and to serve my country perhaps even better than the member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to note the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry at last succeeded in explaining

what he wanted to say. I agree it was complicated enough, but by keeping on trying, he finally succeeded.
However, I maintain my statement to the effect that education comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces and not the army, and that the suggestion to make military service compulsory is contrary to the democratic principles we all cherish in this country.
During the last war, I was not yet old enough for military service, but despite all this, I did not hesitate to register in the air cadet corps of my country and I acquired in that corps, not education, but the necessary training, that is the training required to help defend my country, if the war had lasted any longer. That is how I know whereof I speak, since I belonged, at an early age, to a military corps which was called the air cadets of Quebec, and this at the Jesuits' college in Quebec.
On the other hand, I think that each individual should be left free to decide. This service should not be imposed upon him, because that is against the democratic principles that we must try to impress upon our young people, instead of trying to impose military service on them or to have them enlist.
Mr. Chairman, those are the remarks I wanted to make about the comments of the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, and I hope that, in future, the hon. member will think twice before speaking.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am sure everybody in this house is conscious of the fact the minister has taken a very searching look at defence. He has been assisted in this by members in all parts of the house who are, I am sure, aiming at precisely the same objectives, that is a more efficient contribution to the security of Canada and to our contributions to the alliance. There is only one thing I would ask the minister, and that is that in his search for economy, for a better role, he very carefully consider what can be done for Canada by those people who have given and who are prepared to give service in our militia.
There was a parade in my riding recently at which almost 100 per cent of the Brock-ville Rifles turned out. These militiamen have been giving hundreds of hours of their time to their country. They have been closely following the proceedings of the defence committee and every statement that has been made by the minister.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; may I bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that there

are conversations going on in the committee which make it difficult for the Chair to follow the speech now being made.


Neil Alexander Matheson: May I say that these militiamen have been trying to follow intelligently what has been happening. They recognize the high priority of the needs of their fellow Canadians who are serving in the brigade in Europe, in the air force and at sea. They know we have to have new equipment. They know there have to be economies. I am sure this regiment is typical of many regiments across the country, and many hon. members could contribute in relation to their constituencies in the way I am tonight in relation to mine. This regiment has signed a document indicating that 100 per cent of the membership is prepared to continue serving in the regiment without any pay whatsoever. They care very much indeed about the future of the militia.
I know the minister right now is taking the best advice he can get from various sources. I would ask him to consider that the advice he is getting from the service chiefs is, of necessity, placing a high priority on the active forces. These men, who have to choose where cuts may be made in order to replace equipment, do not always find it possible to give the same attention to some factors that they would if the same pressures for economies were not upon them. They cannot now assess the role of the militia as dispassionately and objectively as they otherwise might.
We have had evidence from very distinguished officers such as General Foulkes and General Simonds, both of whom indicated the militia played an important part in the security of Canada. I hope that amongst the people who might be appointed to assist the minister in this advisory capacity there might be a very distinguished soldier, Brigadier Eric Snow, now of Toronto. He has had a lot of experience in action and with the militia. I believe he is the kind of person who will help, because when we are approaching the 100th birthday of Canada I am sure it would be a great tragedy if the militia just disappeared. I am sure the defence committee has not had a chance to go into this matter carefully. I think the minister, with the pressures upon him, has not had a chance to consider this matter with sufficient care.
I am not asking him to make any statement at this time; it would be premature to express a view on this problem. However, some of these militiamen care greatly about Canada and want to play a part in its security. I hope that they will not just go down the drain.
28902-5-398
Supply-National Defence


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to support what the hon. member for Leeds has said. My whole purpose two weeks ago in declining to pass the estimates then was to give the minister an opportunity to review the situation with regard to the militia and the reserve units of the air force and navy. I was under the impression at the time he made that announcement about cutting the militia almost in half that he was acting rather prematurely. The very fact a person objects to that type of reorganization does not mean that a person is not in favour of reducing expenditures. Of course, the pundits put it the other way around and say that because we object to something the minister has done we are not in favour of reducing these expenditures. This is not the case at all. I imagine the hon. member for Leeds, who has spoken so eloquently about the militia, is just as much in favour of making reductions in defence expenditures as any member in this house. So am I. Surely it is our privilege to suggest to the minister that he re-examine this particular aspect of it and effect the reductions which he requires somewhere else. Let the defence committee assist him in this matter. Had we known that he was going to slice the militia we would most certainly have examined this aspect with great care. We would have had many witnesses there to talk to us. We had no knowledge of this at all until the minister announced it in the house.
The hon. member for Leeds has put forward the case with regard to militia, and the service they give to their country. The minister based part of his argument on the fact the militia is used for general mobilization and that the next war is not going to be like 1914 or 1939. He attempted to leave the impression that I was still thinking in the past. I believe my thinking is away ahead of the minister's. Having served in the militia and in both of these wars, I know very well the militia is not the foundation for general mobilization. How nonsensical to say that
50,000	men in the militia constitutes general mobilization. It is just nonsense. Nowadays we have manning depots for recruiting purposes and for processing people into the service. Having organized and commanded one of these manning depots since the second world war, I know what I am talking about. To say that the present formation of the militia is based in terms of the last world war where great masses of infantry were required is not to understand the facts of history.
In the first world war all sorts of regiments and battalions were organized without a militia foundation whatever. The same is true of the second world war; that is just nonsense. The

Supply-National Defence militia serves a purpose in giving an opportunity to our young men to gain military service. Military service is useful in a young man's life and you do learn things in military service that you do not learn in universities. I have had both experiences. I suggest to the minister that he have another look at this.
I am not overlooking the fact that from time to time the militia of this country has been reorganized. Of course it has. In the period of the '30's a great number of cavalry regiments were disbanded and amalgamations took place. If I had had any influence in the thirties, tank regiments would have been formed. But the thinking of the hierarchy in those days was against anything as modern as a tank. Yet I owe my life to the fact that a tank was present in the first world war. That is how experience influences your thinking. In the '30's the hierarchy was not up to the times. We do not want to be in that position in the '60's. We do not want to be away behind the times, having people in uniform doing jobs for which they are not suited in some future war.
I am prepared to go along with the minister, that the next war is not likely to be one of mass infantry actions, as were the first and second world wars. I am also prepared to go along with the minister that our active forces should be instantly ready for action and properly equipped. Incidentally, I hope the minister will correct Time magazine, which has misquoted him saying that our army is now the best dressed, etc., and the poorest equipped. The minister corrected it in the house, but the Time magazine writer failed to notice that correction.
I am prepared to go along with the minister with regard to the active forces. Behind the active forces, reserve forces are essential. People do move from the reserves to the active forces, and people who retire from the active forces sometimes serve in the reserves. This is true of the army, navy and air force. These reserve forces have some influence on the cadets. There are some changes that may be required; but let us look at them first. To cut the militia in half is to destroy the morale of the militia. I ask for a pause with regard to this proposal.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say this. This was the point raised when we talked about this matter before and I asked the minister about the role of the militia in survival operations in civil defence. I was disappointed that he brushed me off and said this matter would be explained when emergency measures operations were under discussion in the house. Then he said the whole plan apparently had to be revised because the 265 columns for re-entry, and so

on, are either badly placed or are not required in that number. I suggest to the minister that in addition to the work he has to do and the responsibility that rests upon him to make preparation through the services for a thermo-nuclear war, which is the worst of all, for a so-called conventional war and to make preparation for the work that we do with the United Nations, he still has this other job. That is the protection of the civilian population in case another war breaks out. If we are subjected to destruction in Canada by either conventional bombs as used in Europe or thermo-nuclear bombs, such as were used at Hiroshima, then we do need trained, organized, disciplined forces to assist the survivors. I do not know how that could be done except through the assistance of the regular forces and the militia forces that happen to be available in Canada, because people who have training, and understand organization, can assist the willing civilians to do the jobs that are required.
I fail to see how this type of work of survival operations can be carried out by just a civilian organization, because in time of emergency you have to have discipline. The serviceman is disciplined and understands the necessity of obeying orders, whereas the civilian does not have to obey orders. In times of great emergency a firm hand must be used and people must do what they are told. This is the result you get from service people. So, Mr. Chairman, may I join with the hon. member for Leeds in pleading with the minister to postpone his too drastic action with regard to the militia and the reserve units of this country.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief question for the minister. It would appear to me that the press and some others have interpreted the minister's recent announcements with regard to defence as reductions in the ultimate expenditures. I would like the minister to clarify that situation and let us know if the result will indeed be a reduction in expenditures or whether it is rather a change of emphasis in the direction of our defence program.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister one question. He may have dealt with this matter already, but I have not the information. Would the minister tell the committee what is planned in connection with navy league cadets, sea cadets and air force cadets, young soldier programs in the militia. Finally, would he tell the committee what will be done with the training divisions at the universities and with regard to training ships such as those in Hamilton, Vancouver and Edmonton-particularly in Edmonton,

where H.M.C.S. Nonsuch has been eliminated. What is to happen to the training division of the University of Alberta?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the details of this are being worked out at the present time. There is no reduction in the allowance for the training of cadets. There was, as I announced on the second day of the debate, a reduction proposed for the future of about 50 per cent of the allowance for the university contingents. How and where the cadets can be housed, however, is a question which will have to be given detailed study. Just as soon as plans are complete, I will be glad to make the hon. gentleman aware of them.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I did not enter the chamber until about half an hour after the minister started his speech. He may have dealt with this matter, but perhaps he did not. I would like to ask the minister if, as Minister of National Defence, he can in any way take this house into his confidence and give us some indication as to any proposals he may have made to the NATO council as to the role of Canada's armed forces within the operations of NATO.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think I did give the committee all the information that I can give at this time in that respect. There were no new proposals put forward to the council beyond the readjustment of the air division, which was referred to previously.


Mr. Perron:: In the absence of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), who should take interest in this situation, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, in connection with the low level of employment in the Canadian shipyards and especially in those of Lauzon.
Could the minister tell us whether the contract relating to the building of three submarines, which was awarded to shipyards in Great Britain, was awarded for economic or for technical reasons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the answer to this question has been given a number of times in the house. It was a production sharing arrangement which was really commenced by the previous government and which this government decided to carry on. It does not actually involve a loss of employment to Canada. What it does mean is a shift in employment from one industry to another. This has a detrimental effect in one area and a beneficial effect in another. In order to alleviate the situation temporarily, the government has already announced a shipbuilding program in the civilian field. Beyond that, the 28902-5-398J
Supply-National Defence Department of National Defence has indicated that it will resume its shipbuilding program just as soon as it possibly can, following certain studies which are now being carried out. The shipbuilding program will be a Canadian program, and the future requirements of the Royal Canadian Navy will be built in Canadian shipyards.


Edward Nasserden: Would the minister answer my question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think I am at liberty
to give the proposed estimates of our department for next year, but in the debate a week ago I said it was our intention to hold expenditures at about the current level and at the same time have a change of emphasis, to shift some of our expenditures from operations and maintenance to capital, to permit more research development and construction of new equipment.


Edward Nasserden: Am I right in assuming we could not expect a reduction in expenditures, but just a change of emphasis?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That depends. A reduction from what? What is your starting point?


Mr. More:: We all sympathize with the minister in the job he has to do and we realize adjustments and re-evaluation of programs are necessary, but I know that during the past three years the Saskatchewan area command has a new morale compared with its previous low morale, which resulted from an unfortunate situation that developed in previous years when the militia were somewhat downgraded. There has been a considerable pick up in the last three or four years. We are all proud of the new esprit de corps and the revitalization of the area command, our militia unit, and H.M.C.S. Queen which has given service for 40 years.
Among many people there has been great concern that the minister's initial announcement was too hasty and the evolution of the new program was not considered fully. I believe the minister has received some representations from Regina, and I wonder has he replied promising reconsideration, especially with regard to H.M.C.S. Queen?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have not given any specific undertakings. What I have suggested is that this does not mean the end to the militia. Quite the contrary. Although we will have a smaller reserve force I am sure it will be a more effective force. I am sure there is general agreement that though at the moment we have quite a large number of units, some rethinking as to the number of units and the groupings should be undertaken.
That is the reason we are seeking assistance in this case from militiamen who know the

Supply-National Defence
history, effectiveness and capabilities of the militia units. We will indicate to them what we need, the requirements we have for reserve forces, what they are to undertake and what their responsibilities will be. Then we will expect them to assist us by making recommendations for reorganization which will provide effective reserve units to carry out the tasks which would be theirs. Although this will mean a reduction in the numbers,
I am sure the total force if anything will be more effective.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Is any reconsideration being given to the announcement that H.M.C.S. Queen would be closed completely and abandoned?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think it has been reconsidered.


Harold Edward Winch: This is a department which concerns our party very much, but in view of the fact that the minister is taking a completely new look at all aspects of the armed services, that he has announced he will be bringing down a white paper early next year, that the special committee on defence has filed an interim report and hopes to be able to continue its studies next session, so far as I am concerned I have no more to say at this stage; but I want it clearly understood that this is on the basis of the white paper, the interim report, and the continuation of the study by the defence committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not have very much more to say but I am surprised the minister is so assured his proposed reorganization of the militia is the right thing. He tells us the militia force will be cut in half, and then the militia officers will be called together to inform him whose throat is to be cut and which regiment. He says he is convinced we will have a much more efficient operation, but there is no evidence on which to base this point of view. I would like to ask the minister, who perhaps has not been associated with the militia-I am not sure-what happens if you cut the militia down to half size? Will the militia units only be in the big cities? What about all the smaller villages and towns from which have been drawn some of the best fighting men in Canadian history?
I could give many an instance of the work that has been done by militiamen and by retired soldiers. I can tell him of a retired naval chap who worked with the reserve army for years in an area in Manitoba which has produced, on a percentage basis, more men for the services than any other part of Canada. The reserve force was essential in order to give the young men something to do. If the forces are to be cut in half, will they be located in the big cities, or outside them

in smaller places? It seems to me this cannot be done. We are talking in terms of
50,000	men scattered across 10 provinces, and that is a very small percentage of the population.
Like the hon. member for Leeds I wonder whether the minister has been listening to some people who scoff at the militia and think of them as "Saturday night soldiers," as they were described in a recent Time article. The Saturday night soldiers have given every whit as good service in times of emergency as others.
Has the minister been talking to some regular officers who are a bit irritated with the duties revolving upon them because of the militia? I have been all through this, and I understand the thinking of some people in the regular services who find it a bit troublesome working with a militia unit. From what source is he getting his advice. He cannot expect us to accept his assurance that this plan will provide a more efficient and better reserve force. That is not logical and I suggest he put a stop order on the so-called reorganization of the militia and the reserve units.
Let him give this problem to the defence committee for study, if that committee is reconstituted next session. It is too easy to write off the militia, and I speak from experience. I recall in 1938 when the crisis was almost upon us, at the time of Munich, a friend of mine said, "Now, you fellows who have been playing at soldiers, here is your chance." That was the way some civilians looked at the people who were in the militia. Our chance came one year later in 1939. They were Saturday night soldiers, says someone who I bet has never served in uniform. No one who had served in uniform would speak so disparagingly of the militia of this country. These people who have not given service say: "Well, these are just social clubs". Mr. Chairman, you can spend three nights a week in militia, as I have done year after year. That is why I did not become a first-class curler in the wintertime, because I spent three nights a week for many years on militia work. That was no social club activity. That was not being a Saturday night soldier. It was attempting to do something for our country, and a great many other people across the land did the same thing. I did not do anything of any special importance; others have done much more.
The militia of this country has never been properly recognized, and I think the minister has taken the wrong advice on this matter. However, I want to save him for another day. Let us save him for some other larger problems which we can quarrel over more effectively. Let us not quarrel over the militia.

Let the minister recognize the militia as the force it is in this country, and keep it in being, with certain modifications of course, without slicing it in half. What has disturbed us over the minister's action is the tremendous slice cut out of the militia. If it had been a proposed reorganization plan with a smaller percentage cut it would be different; but to cut the amount almost in half I think is disturbing and, I say seriously, is very unwise.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, about the radar station in my riding. I am duty bound to intervene, because I have received from almost all the municipal councils to be found in the constituency of Lotbiniere a resolution stressing the importance of maintaining the radar station in St. Sylvestre. The chief reason for doing so is that the 80 civil servants who are working there would be laid off if the station were to be closed.
Mr. Chairman, I am strongly in favour of defence cutbacks. In this regard, I must pay special tribute to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) for acting the way he did.
However, I do not think it is expedient to close the radar station unless air detection has made such progress that it is no longer needed. If the rumours going around are true, then I believe it is my duty to urge the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) and the Minister of National Defence to see that none of those employees will be laid off and that the station is not closed before jobs have been found for those people.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I have one comment before leaving this item. It arises from the reply given by the minister. I hope that our civil defence program is not to be crippled so as to acquire high-priced hardware. When you take into consideration the situation in the world today, you cannot do justice to the subject at this time. In view of the state of the session I do not want to say anything more. However, I do want to leave that thought with the minister if he is bringing forward new programs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: This completes the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, if you will just permit me before we go on to the next item of business I should like to thank the committee for its co-operation not only today but during the two earlier days of debate. I was very pleased with the quality of the
Supp ly-Transport
debate. I found it very interesting and helpful and I think it reflected the study given of the matter by the special committee on defence. While I am mentioning the special committee on defence, I should just like to compliment that committee, the members of it individually and collectively, on the excellent report which they presented to the house today. They have obviously taken their task very seriously and worked assiduously in order to come up with a consensus which I believe represents a very good judgment of the evidence and the opinions put before them.
While I was in Europe last week I received only the highest praise and compliments, not only for the deportment of the committee when visiting Europe but also for the way they attacked their tasks and the intelligent and searching questions which they put forward. There is no question that over the past few years there has been a considerable amount of emotionalism regarding defence problems in this country. The report of the committee today represents, in my opinion, a tendency or trend toward, a non-partisan or multi-partisan approach to defence prob-blems. I think this is a most rewarding development. It was well worth the effort, because in my opinion defence is much too serious a business to be the subject of political footballing. I was very pleased to see the report and I congratulate the committee on their work. I am sure that, if the committee is reconstituted in the next session, it will carry on with many of the worth-while studies it has undertaken during this session.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
120. Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum allowance payable in the calendar year 1963 $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $7,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the last time we were dealing with the estimates of the Department of Transport I had a few subjects on which I wanted the minister to comment. Certain items were allowed to stand in order that he might be able to speak to us on these particular subjects. Item 120, I think the minister indicated, was an appropriate item under which he would deal with the question of necessary improvements in pensions of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, and I hope the minister is ready with an appropriate statement on this subject tonight.
The minister knows that members of all parties in the house have for many years raised questions regarding the pensions of Canadien National Railways employees. We

Supply-Transport
are all aware of the fact that about a year and a half ago some very significant improvements were made in the pension plan so far as those still in service were concerned. I am raising this question because I want an answer from the minister and I do not see any point in talking if other people are talking to him over there.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Which minister?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Transport.


An hon. Member:: He is listening, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good. The point I was trying to make is that improvements in the pensions paid by the Canadian National Railways were made in the early part of 1962 by a revision of the plan, as far as those still in the company's service are concerned. But no improvements have been made affecting those who retired before April 1, 1962.
A few years ago, whenever we argued in favour of improving the pensions of employees of the C.N.R. or of retired civil servants, or of any group of people who had already retired, we were met with the argument that there had been a contractual arrangement and nothing could be done. But, as the minister knows, improvements have been made in the pensions of retired civil servants. Some of us think it is about time that these improvements were brought up to date; but at least the principle has been established. Some private employers have also recognized this problem and made increases in the pensions of employees already retired. The minister knows that there has been a great deal of correspondence about this subject throughout the years. Some of us feel it has been most unfortunate that these men who served the company for many years should not be getting the benefit of the higher standard of living and the higher standard of pensions which is now more general. Just as the company in co-operation with the government was able to meet the needs of those still in the service of the railway, I hope the government and the railway will find a way to deal with the pensions of those who retired prior to April 1, 1962.
The minister knows, because we have both been in this house for a good many years, that sometimes when I have made this plea I have trotted out the statistics which the minister of the day has put on record in Hansard in response to my questions. Those statistics indicate the number of retired railway workers who receive pensions and the amounts of pension they receive. Certainly, the number who receive pensions at a very low figure is altogether too high. I know this can be explained. In fact, in the tables which are given in Hansard there is usually

a footnote explaining them. The fact remains that these faithful servants of bygone years are among those who have been overlooked with regard to the improvements which have been made for retired people generally. I hope we can hear from the minister on this important subject, and maybe tonight he will have something encouraging to tell the committee with regard to it.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: As the hon. member has correctly stated, this subject was dealt with about a year and a half ago. As a result, those who are still employed are in a much better position with regard to their pensions. But the people who are of concern to the hon. member are those who retired before, and I take it he is concerned to know whether or not the government has any measure to bring forward at this time or in the immediate future which would better their conditions. I do not think this is an oversimplification of the hon. member's submission.
I want to tell him it is quite wrong of him to say that these persons have been overlooked. At the time I am not able to give the hon. member any helpful information with respect to them. It is a complicated question. It means providing, from one side only, funds out of which to pay the additional pensions. It involves, by inference, raising the pensions of all others as well. It would involve the railways bringing a plan forward. I assume, bearing in mind the operational requirements of the railways and the desirability of keeping costs down, that it would involve looking to the government for the funds from which to pay the increases suggested and I regret to tell the hon. member I am not able to give him any encouraging news at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the minister's statement that he has no encouraging news to give the committee on this subject I wonder what he means by saying that these retired employees have not been overlooked. It seems to me they have been overlooked and are still being overlooked.


George James McIlraith: That is not my understanding of the language. What it means is that this question has been getting attention. It has been studied. As I may have put on record -or perhaps it was something I said in private conversation-this very subject is receiving some study now and I hope to have these studies continued with a view to seeing whether something could be done. But there is nothing of a definite nature which I can say which would be helpful, and I am one who does not believe in trying to create a more favourable picture than that which actually exists.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister had only said that the matter was being studied I suppose we could take some hope out of it, but when he adds those words about nothing definite being under consideration it is a bleak prospect for the people concerned. I do not think it is enough to say that this is a complicated business, that it involves finding the money, and so on. I have already reminded the hon. gentleman of what had been done for retired civil servants up to a certain point in time. This was done on the basis of a formula worked out, although it had been said year after year that it was a complicated matter and that it could not be dealt with. I would remind him that the item under which we are having this discussion, an item which has been in the estimates for many years, provides for a supplement to the pensions of employees who came under the old Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees Provident Fund Act-pensions which according to that original act were very low. Yet some of these people are still alive, and it was recognized, on an ex gratia basis if you will, that they were entitled to something better.
And so a method was found. This item decreases year by year as these men advance in years and leave us. However, there are these several examples of a way being found when there is a will to find it. The minister says he has no good news to give me or the men concerned, but I hope the little sentence he put in about the matter being studied is one which will be stepped up. He must know from experience that some of us, when we feel we have a case that is just, do not let go. It is not just a case of making the same request year after year for the sake of hearing ourselves talk. It is also because we are aware of the fact that some of these cases that for 10 or 15 or 20 years we thought we could never win have eventually been won. I believe that the retired Canadian National employees who are asking that something be done for them have a just cause, and I hope the minister will step up the study or, to use the modern phrase, that he will do a study in depth and find a way to deal with the complications and to get the money, so that these retired faithful servants of the Canadian National Railways may enjoy the pension standards that are possible today.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
140. Control of civil aviation including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $5,211,100.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I just have one or two brief questions to ask the minister on this vote. They concern the matter of sums to be repaid to international air lines
Supply-Transport
as a result of the withdrawal of the government's suit against Pan American and KLM in connection with overflight charges that were made. Would the minister inform the committee what the total amount of repayments to the international air lines was, and would he also indicate specifically the amounts repaid to each of the air lines concerned?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, it is not possible to give that information because the precise amounts have not been calculated. This is an individual matter that has to be worked out with each air line, and because of the effect of allowances for other charges and so on the information is just not available yet. In any event, I can tell the hon. member that the total amount is something over $1 million.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee is entitled to more specific information than that. As I understand government accounting procedures, moneys received by the government are accounted for properly. Receipts are issued upon the receipt of any sums by the department, and proper bookkeeping entries are made. Therefore it should not be difficult at all to determine immediately what amount is owing to each of the international air lines concerned. The reason I raise the question is that I doubt very much whether the minister knows.


George James McIlraith: He does.


Erik Nielsen: If the minister knows, surely he can inform the committee what amounts are due and owing to the air lines involved.


George James McIlraith: I can only repeat that with the way the various charges applicable to air lines of this type are set out there may be deductions, in that when one charge is paid another one does not become payable and so on. The consequence is that you have to take each air line individually, get their flight statements and then re-account for a whole series of charges on each flight statement and arrive at the amount. This is now in the course of being worked out with the individual air lines. This being so, it is not possible to give the precise amount because it has not been determined by the department or, indeed, by the air lines themselves; but the best estimate I can give of the total amount to be repaid is a little over $1 million.


Erik Nielsen: I still feel that the committee is entitled to a more satisfactory reply than the minister has given. If the minister knows the total amount of moneys that have been paid by these international air lines it should not be difficult at all to delineate specifically the exact sums which are due to be returned

Supply-Transport
to these international air lines as a result of the withdrawal of the suits against the two concerned. I believe the department does not know at all the precise amounts that are owing to the air lines. 1 believe further that the departmental officials-I was going to say the minister but perhaps it happened before his time-actually had to communicate with the air lines concerned to ask them how much money they had paid in. In other words, the government had to rely on the bookkeeping of the air lines in order to determine the amounts that were owing.
I am sure the committee would be very pleased to have the minister's reassurance that this was not the case. In any event, government accounting procedures surely are sufficiently precise to allow the minister to give a specific answer to this question, because this business of paying money in and paying money out as explained by the minister does not get around the fact that ordinary acceptable bookkeeping practices should be sufficiently accurate to allow the minister to state with precision the exact amounts that are owing to the air lines concerned.


George James McIlraith: As I indicated earlier, certain charges are not made where overflight charges have been made. For instance, a landing fee is not payable. Therefore you have to recompute the charge made on each flight. Each one has to be recomputed. What has been done represents a little more care in the accounting and bookkeeping system than the standard the hon. member is seeking to have imposed, in that the government sought to check and cross-check every figure with the companies concerned so there would be no dispute afterwards. In effect you have full knowledge, because you have the benefit of the cross-check. That is why the companies were asked for that information and I think it is the correct way to proceed in the matter. That is what I meant to indicate.


Erik Nielsen: Is the minister saying that the department actually communicated with the air lines concerned in order to ask them how much they had paid to the department in respect of these overflight charges?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman, but the department did communicate with each air line to cross-check their records.


Erik Nielsen: On this point I wonder whether the minister communicated with Trans-Canada Air Lines for the same purpose, in order to determine whether or not the figures that the minister mentioned were accurate with respect to that international air line?


George James McIlraith: In the case of every trans-Canada flight, they were landing in Canada so it would not be necessary with them.


Erik Nielsen: Am I to take it that Trans-Canada Air Lines as an international carrier paid no overflight fees at all under the Financial Administration Act which authorized the charging of fees against two international air lines using Canadian air space, and air space under Canadian jurisdiction?


George James McIlraith: That statement I believe to be correct. It is possible there could have been a flight or two but I believe the statement to be correct.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have to reiterate that the members of this group have always been strong supporters of Trans-Canada Air Lines. We have always believed that the best air transportation system in Canada should be publicly owned. We certainly opposed the decision of the former government to permit C.P.A. to operate a transcontinental run, a decision which has since caused T.C.A. financial difficulties. It is with a good deal of regret, therefore, that I want to say that some of us are, to say the least, very unhappy about the leadership that T.C.A. is getting from its present chief officers. We do not like to criticize the detailed operations of a crown corporation. I am not rising to complain about Mr. McGregor just because I disagree with a decision he obviously made some years ago that the head office and most of the operations of T.C.A. which had been in Winnipeg should be moved to Montreal.
If Mr. McGregor had had the approval of his board of directors, if he had so reported to the government and to the minister in charge, and the minister had reported to parliament and had received approval for this transfer, even though it was and is a real blow to the city of Winnipeg, I would not now be complaining. The fact is that on innumerable occasions Mr. McGregor speaking for T.C.A., as well as the ministers in charge-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I bring to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North that I have very serious doubts as to whether he can go into the detailed operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines on particular points which would normally be considered by the special committee on railways, air lines and shipping operated by the government. I have not interrupted the hon. member, but perhaps he could make his point briefly. I think his remarks should be directed to the vote which is now before the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In so far as the point you have raised is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I

am sure the Minister of Transport will recall that when we had the first item of these estimates before us there was a desire to get the first item approved, and to get as many other items through as we could. Some of us identified the subjects we desired to discuss and asked that items be designated on which we could discuss them. I have dealt with the Canadian National pensions under the item agreed upon for that subject. It was agreed also that we would discuss the T.C.A. base at Winnipeg on the general item of the civil aviation branch. I think, Mr. Chairman, your ruling is technically correct, but we had this agreement the other night, the last time the estimates of this department were before us.


Lucien Lamoureux: If that is the wish of the committee, of course the Chair is satisfied.


David Orlikow: I was saying that if this decision of T.C.A. to move the major facilities from Winnipeg to Montreal had been made years ago, and had been approved by parliament, I would not be objecting. As I said, the fact that the decision had been made has been denied consistently. As long ago as 1948 questions were asked about the possibility of this move of T.C.A.'s head office from Winnipeg to Montreal. The minister then in charge, the late C. D. Howe, made it very clear T.C.A. had no intention of moving its main departments from Winnipeg. I was not here when Mr. Howe was minister, but I have heard enough about him and read enough to know that he was a pretty strong minister. If it had been recommended to him by T.C.A. that the headquarters should be moved, if the case had been proved to him, he would have so reported to the house. I do not believe for a moment, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Howe would have said in 1948 that there was no intention to do this, if the decision had been made and he had known about it.
At that time Mr. Howe said that while some head office departments might be moved, 95 per cent of the company's activities would remain centered in Winnipeg. A few months later, following further rumours that T.C.A. would move its main overhaul base to Montreal, Mr. Gordon McGregor, then as now T.C.A. president, said that some executive staff might move but the overhaul base would stay. In 1949, Mr. McGregor announced that the administrative offices and operations department of T.C.A. would move to Montreal in the fall. He said, and I quote:
-there is no conceivable reason nor any grounds for suspicion that this move marks the beginning of a mass transfer of T.C.A. activities to Montreal.
Later that year Mr. Howe said that T.C.A. did not contemplate making further transfers of personnel from Winnipeg to other centres. In October, 1951, T.C.A. transferred radio
28902-5-399
Supply-Transport
technicians to Montreal. In the same month a T.C.A. official said there was never any suggestion that the mechanical operations of the company would be moved from Winnipeg and that the city would continue to house the system's only complete repair system. In February, 1956, T.C.A. announced that it was dropping major overhaul work on aircraft radio equipment in Winnipeg, and that the staff had been offered transfers to Montreal where the work was to be centralized.
A few months later Mr. McGregor denied that the company was about to consolidate its two repair depots at Montreal and Winnipeg into one unit. In September, 1957, T.C.A. officials denied rumours that the overhaul base was to be moved from Winnipeg. Mr. McGregor assured T.C.A. employees in Winnipeg that operations in the city would not be curtailed as new operations were introduced. In October 1958 a T.C.A. official announced that in 1960 T.C.A. would move another 100 of its Winnipeg based workers to Montreal. This was the instrument shop.
In January, 1961, Mr. Hees, then the minister in charge, wrote a letter to the Manitoba government to the effect that the overhaul base in Winnipeg would be closed in 1965 or shortly thereafter.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in January of this year, I think it was, the people of Manitoba sent a delegation to see the government. The then minister, Mr. Balcer, assured them that a study would be made and that in the meantime there would be a job freeze as far as Winnipeg was concerned. During the election campaign the present Prime Minister made certain statements. I am not going to go into them tonight because we can debate them at some other time. These statements were taken by everybody in Winnipeg, including the Liberal candidate in the last federal election, and the Winnipeg Free Press, as a commitment that Winnipeg would remain the major overhaul base for T.C.A. I believe that in June another delegation from Manitoba came to see the Prime Minister and he gave the same assurance. The other day the Prime Minister reiterated the same kind of thing in a statement to another delegation.
The overhaul base at present is overhauling the Viscount and Vanguard planes which, as soon as T.C.A. switches to medium jets, will no longer be used. Obviously, then, the base will have to be closed. The interesting thing, and the obvious thing is that since January, when supposedly we were to have a job freeze promised by the former government, and which I take it is still in effect because this government has not repudiated it, 200 workers at the overhaul base have been transferred to Montreal. There are now 200 jobs less in Winnipeg than there were in

Supply-Transport
January. I do not think this is an accident. I think this is part of a deliberate plan made by Mr. McGregor of T.C.A. back in the late forties. If T.C.A. had given reasons for this decision at that time, I might have disagreed with it, but I would not be objecting now.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that this has been done by stealth, with deliberate misrepresentation by Mr. McGregor. When I say that I want to say that I speak for every group in Winnipeg, every political party, every trade union and every business organization in Manitoba. Indeed, I can honestly say I have never seen such united feeling on any issue as I have on this. In my opinion, when the head of a crown corporation misrepresents the facts as Mr. McGregor has, when he hides important matters from the people who hired him, because after all T.C.A. belongs to the people of Canada, that man has outlived his usefulness. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time the government gave serious consideration to getting a new president for T.C.A.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, since item 140 refers to civil aviation, as a member of this house, I should like to call the Minister of Transport's attention to an important point.
I would like to know whether the Minister of Transport, who is responsible after all for civil aviation and its related branches in Canada, or his departmental officials, makes investigations and experiments in order to develop a true aeronautics industry in Canada.
This is a question of current interest, since T.C.A. has purchased or will purchase over a rather brief period about 30 rather large aircraft as well as medium range jets.
There is then good ground to ask ourselves whether a crown corporation directly coming under the Department of Transport and with the assistance of other departments of the government and with all our engineers, technicians, labourers, could not have promoted the permanent establishment of such an important industry in our country, such as the aeronautics industry? Is the government taking the necessary steps to achieve that purpose?
It is noted that T.C.A. has chosen an aircraft, a very unimportant part of which furthermore will be manufactured in Canada, while this opportunity could have been used to undertake the development of a complete aeronautics industry.
We feel that the Minister of Transport is to blame in that connection for failing to intervene and protect the interests of the Canadian people and to develop our aircraft industry.

We put on the order paper a motion calling for the tabling of the report submitted by T.C.A. employees, engineers and experts concerning the choice of the new aircraft. Our request was turned down and the main argument used to justify the choice of the DC-9 is that its operation would be cheaper for T.C.A. It may well be; in fact, we are quite ready to admit it.
In that case, only T.C.A. would be making savings. Would it not have been possible to consider savings at other administrative levels? Would it not have been possible to prove that the savings made by T.C.A. could have resulted in much bigger savings for the country?
If you consider the question in general, the choice of the DC-9 means that T.C.A. will be buying an American aircraft. That is a serious business since our capital will be flowing out of the country at a time when our balance of payments is already unfavourable.
Had we been in a position to decrease the deficit balance of our international payments by that much, I am sure that the Minister of Finance, if he were here, would have been very glad. This is to say that we would have been able to make direct savings in that the balance of our deficit payments would have been reduced by that much. We would have thus had a certain profit which could have made up for the savings that T.C.A. has been able to make by purchasing the DC-9 aircraft.
The second factor is the fact that the DC-9 will be mostly built in the United States, while we could have built the Caravelle in Canada. This would have supplied work for many years to thousands of Canadians, and would have resulted in another saving, in that those workers pay income tax to the Canadian government.
Now as a third element; we must consider the expenses it would have saved the Canadian government, namely that the government would have avoided paying unemployment insurance or social assistance benefits to every one of those unemployed. It would already be a second source of savings that the Canadian government would have made on the whole.
It is a fact that when two Canadian workers are given jobs in industry, a third Canadian citizen finds employment in related spheres or in sales. That means that for every
2,000	Canadian citizens employed in the building of the Caravelle we would have 1,000 Canadian citizens employed in related fields of services or sales.
Then if we consider the salaries paid to Canadians, if we consider the taxes paid to the government by Canadians, if we consider unemployment insurance and social welfare,

that the government does not have to pay if we consider the savings realized by the Minister of Finance in reducing our balance of payments, then we can realize that for the country as a whole, it might have been more profitable if Trans-Canada Air Lines had got these Caravelle aircrafts, even at a greater expense.
In my opinion, the Minister of Transport, as a responsible member of the federal cabinet, should have tabled this report and submit it to the members of the house and to the other members of the cabinet, in an attempt to find out whether, on the whole, it would not have been possible to save more money than by purchasing the DC-9.
All the more so since at the present time any industry could have developed. We could have trained technicians, skilled workers who could have created a Canadian aircraft industry. There is no doubt that would have helped our country to find new markets, new export outlets.
If we had wanted to study the problem, not only in the limited sense of technicians and experts, but adding to it a number of opinions, the views of our competent economists-at least those who are-we could have studied also the problem of industry and foreign trade as well as our balance of payments deficit. Those are all matters T.C.A. could have looked into.
The Minister of Transport has neither the character, nor the strength or competence required in that field to analyse all the related problems concerning the choice of an aircraft. In fact, he has not even shown the business ability which we expect to find not only with a director of a crown corporation but with a member of the cabinet of a country like Canada which is due to develop. Mr. Chairman, that is the point I wanted to bring up.
There is also another field in which the Minister of Transport must assume his part of responsibilities as he was sitting beside the president of T.C.A. when the latter made his statements on the Caravelle, the aircraft produced by the Sud-Aviation.
I have read the committee's report on that point. Sometimes I feel that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), have some responsibilities in the matter, and that they must try and restore the harmony which should reign between two great countries like Canada and France, and between two large air companies like Canadair and Sud-Aviation.
I think that the minister should see to it that the necessary excuses are offered to the French people, who are a proud people and
28902-5-3994
Supply-Transport
naturally keen about a plane like the Caravelle, which has been imitated by several other countries.
I hear the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) saying, ah! ah!; I feel sure that his constituents, many of whom will not be able to find jobs, because the member for Dollard did not have the courage to stand up and to demand that the Caravelle be built in Montreal-


Mr. Rouleau:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he know that the 5,800 employees of Canadair will hold their jobs for two more years because of the contracts awarded by the federal government?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the hon. member for Dollard has just said, but I never learned to be satisfied with little when I can get much more. If the hon. member for Dollard is satisfied with the minimum, his electors will judge him, but as far as I am concerned, I think that a country like Canada, in the full swing of 20th century development, cannot be satisfied with the minimum but should rather strive for continuous development and for increasingly accelerated progress. It is nice to be satisfied with the minimum, but the Canadian people need better members than that; they need members who want their country to have an aircraft industry as well as develop and prosper in all other fields.
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, apologies should be tendered. I said also that we should get more information on those matters and above all inform the people because today they want to know what is behind all those things.
When, for instance, a report published about the Winnipeg base, which was mentioned in the house, says not only that this base must not be closed but should be kept in operation until 1973 and, a little later, it is said that an aircraft built in the United States must be purchased and the minister then refuses to consider instances and requests made to him in favour of another aircraft, we think there is one law for the rich and one for the poor.
If the minister had analysed the whole situation, not only on the basis of T.C.A. but on the basis rather of the general economy of the country, I am convinced that changes would have been made at that time and that we would have agreed to build an aircraft called Caravelle thus developing an aircraft industry here in our country which would have provided jobs for our people.
Mr. Chairman, I said earlier, when the hon. member for Dollard interrupted me, that we should offer apologies to the French people who are proud of their Caravelle which is

Supply-Transport
today copied by several other aircraft designers in other countries, and among them the builders of the DC-9 who are using the same fundamental principles which was used by the French aircraft industry when it built its Caravelle and even its Super-Caravelle. The latter will be more technically advanced and will be put into service, not in ten years as has been claimed, but in 1964 as asserted by Sud-Aviation.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that those are important points which have not been taken into consideration lately and on which the cabinet did not try to get information. But I say that this must be a warning to the present cabinet, and that the facts must be put forth so that, when faced by a problem, it does not approach it in such a restricted sense but in a sense that embraces the whole economy and development of the country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before this item passes I want to ask the minister a question to which I hope he can give me a satisfactory answer. What considerations were given by T.C.A. to Transair in return for the latter company assuming responsibility for the so-called prairie milk run? The reason I ask the question is that, as most hon. members know, T.C.A. found the prairie milk run uneconomic and wanted to dispose of it. Transair offered to take it over and applied for the franchise.
I am told that the consideration given to Transair by T.C.A. consisted of a Viscount, two DC-3 aircraft, and about $500,000 worth of DC-3 aircraft parts, all for the nominal sum of $1. In the committee the president of T.C.A. said this was a good deal for T.C.A. because it was getting out of an uneconomic line. I am not quarrelling with the deal at all. The reason I am raising the question is that Transair, who got this very considerable reimbursement, has now applied to get out of the uneconomic parts of the prairie milk run, and under air transport board order No. 3784 of December 10, 1963, they are going to abandon the service from Regina, Swift Current, Medicine Hat and Calgary, effective January 11, 1964.
The point I am making is that this company got a very considerable compensation to assume a franchise on the prairies, and it would appear it is now welching on the agreement; that having got some consideration from T.C.A. it is now prepared to drop the uneconomic part of the run, retain the lucrative part of the operation, and still keep whatever consideration T.C.A. gave it. I am not blaming the minister. This did not come under him, but what I am asking is whether T.C.A. is going to recover any part of what was given to Transair, or is the air transport

board going to take into consideration, when it reviews this matter, that this company not only applied for a franchise and got it, but got in addition a very considerable reimbursement in the form of the aircraft and the $500,000 worth of parts to which I have referred?
I would like to ask the minister what consideration was given? Is the consideration I have outlined an accurate one, and what steps is the government going to take to make sure that Transair, having accepted this consideration, is not now going to be allowed to welch on its agreement and discontinue the service which it undertook to operate when it applied for the franchise and took this consideration from T.C.A.?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak for too long-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Léon Balcer: -in view of the enthusiastic reception I am getting from my hon. friends opposite, I shall stretch my comments.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to refer to certain articles which have appeared in the press, especially one written by a talented young writer, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), concerning the dealings of the French ambassador to Canada. The Ottawa correspondent of the Winnipeg Free Press also wrote on the same subject.
Mr. Chairman, I believe everything the French ambassador did in this matter was right. I know that some people, like the hon. member for Port Arthur, were shocked because the ambassasor of another country tried to help one of his country's industries to secure a contract in Canada. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing there that is not in keeping with the role of an ambassador and I would go as far as to say that all good ambassadors are guilty of the same crime. Besides, the duties of an ambassador have evolved considerably in past years, especially since we have international organizations, like the United Nations and NATO, and since communications between countries take place at the ministerial level when political questions are settled directly between governments.
In my opinion, the embassy in question accomplished its duty by trying to promote, quite strongly, I must admit, the sale of a national product. I have nothing to say against that and, moreover, I hope our Canadian ambassadors will do the same thing everywhere in the world, instead of just giving parties.
I may quote the example of one of our best ambassadors, Mr. Bull, who was ambassador at Tokyo. I recall that once every year he

would give a party for all the bakers in the city of Tokyo, in order to promote the sale of good Canadian wheat. I suggest that this ambassador acted as a good Canadian and that he did not do anything not in keeping with his duties as an ambassador, even if he did not follow the old obsolete rules which may have had some purpose in the past. I believe that in doing what he did Mr. Bull played his role of a Canadian representative abroad.
Now, I should like to tell my hon. friend from Port Arthur that, instead of being shocked because a foreign ambassador behaves like a good citizen of his country, he should write another article, in that style of his we all marvel at, where he would encourage our own ambassadors to do the same.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Can he explain, if this is good tactics-and I am not going to quarrel with that particular argument-why there was none of the propaganda in favour of the Caravelle put to the English speaking members of parliament? Does this not raise the issue that there is a possibility that the French ambassador, recognizing a particularly difficult situation in the country at this time, was deliberately exploiting the kind of spirit which is tending to divide us?


Léon Balcer: The hon. member for Port Arthur was a member of the committee, as I was, and I think he was the one who asked, or was there when one of the members asked, the Minister of Transport whether he had received a visit from General Puget of Sud-Aviation. He asked the minister who was accompanying General Puget and the minister said that it was the French ambassador. The French ambassador addressed himself to the Minister of Transport. He was very friendly to the French Canadians, but he is not a French Canadian. I do not know about the different moves which have been made by the French ambassador, but I think that by addressing himself to the Minister of Transport he has done precisely what my hon. friend was trying to say that he did not do. I do not know everything that the French ambassador did, but I would not be at all scandalized if he tried to sell a product of his country. I hope our ambassadors will do this same thing, wherever they are in the world.


Mr. Nugeni:: Mr. Chairman, I will take only a few minutes to raise a couple of points. One arises out of the hearings of the committee dealing with T.C.A., wherein I found it a little dismaying to find that the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto run is losing so much money. On this run aircraft are operating at a very
Supply-Transport
satisfactory level of occupancy. The testimony before the committee indicated that under apparently ideal conditions of passenger traffic in the present aircraft, or on the DC19 which they are planning to buy, all we could look forward to is a further deficit on this run. Since the public will have to reimburse any deficit, what dismays me is that there was no testimony given to show what plans T.C.A. have to circumvent this problem. There was no suggestion of a new way to cut overhead.
By way of example, let me take the P.W.A. air bus between Edmonton and Calgary, on which run you merely walk on the plane and buy your passage on the aircraft. This might be more appropriate under item 145, dealing with ground handling, etc. It might also mean that T.C.A have some ideas which they did not reveal to the committee, although I wish they had said something about it.
So far as our last meeting was concerned, the situation seemed to be that with a satisfactory volume of traffic to create maximum efficiency, and with the aircraft of their choice, they cannot operate a run of that kind with anything but a deficit for some time to come in the future. The committee was left in this state, that there was no suggestion from T.C.A. that they had used any imagination as to different aircraft, a different manner of handling them, or any method of reducing ground handling costs or other costs, or whether the run should be taken over by a smaller air line with a smaller overhead. Perhaps that is the answer, but I want to inform the minister of the situation as it exists today.
It is not so bad where T.C.A. does provide a much needed service. It is not a case where they cannot get the passenger traffic. They have a very satisfactory passenger demand. In cases where planes are full but they are still losing money, obviously something more is needed. If T.C.A. have no more answers they had better find them, and I hope it is not a case of concealment from the committee.
Another point concerns Edmonton municipal airport, a matter I have raised before. The present situation is that half the traffic out of Edmonton use the new Niksu airport and half the old municipal airport, but the government is cutting off some assistance, less than $200,000 a year. If the municipal airport is cut down in this way the result to Edmonton is a loss of service. The planes now flying from the Nisku airport to Calgary are not giving as good a service as they used to give. We have made a very large investment, and if there is discouragement of air services at the municipal airport about 50 per cent of Edmonton's present air services

Supply-Transport
are going to step down a grade again. I think that no one in authority would want to think that the immediate result of an investment of $30 million or more on a new airport is a reduction in air services. The proposed reduction of $200,000 a year is less than one half of the interest on the money invested. This seems to me a penny wise, pound foolish approach. If government expenditures on airports and air services are justified we must strive to get the most per dollar we can. I want to point out that the dollars which go the furthest and give the most in air services, and the most to Edmonton, Calgary and the entire north country as far as the Edmonton municipal airport is concerned, are those dollars now spent on the municipal airport at Edmonton. I ask the minister to reflect seriously before he cuts out this small amount of money and gives Edmonton a worse air service than it had before. At the moment, the only benefit we have is from the jets. Long range jets can land there. But most of the service at that airport has been poorer, and if the department continues its present policy the other half of the air service will deteriorate. The minister can stop this trend, if he wishes, by restoring the cut and making sure that Edmonton airport remains open and that we can have good service.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) concerning the statement made by the hon. gentleman for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher).
I think the French ambassador to Canada was duty-bound to take the necessary steps so that, if possible, T.C.A. would choose the Caravelle.

I should like to direct a specific question to the Minister of Transport. I hope he will reply directly because otherwise we shall be obliged to spend two days on his estimates. I ask him if he shares the views expressed by Mr. McGregor as to the capacity of French Canadians to take their place in T.C.A.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has said with regard to Transair. There is, naturally, concern that they are abandoning this particular leg of this run on January 10. I understand they have the equipment, valued, according to some estimates, at $1 million or more. T.C.A. is reported to be losing $230,000 a year on serving this route. Transair has been serving the route for less than a year. Surely this company is not going to get out of the duty which it accepted to serve this run. I ask, what is the relationship between T.C.A.

and Transair Limited with regard to the ownership of this equipment, in view of the fact that they are getting out of the unprofitable portion of the run to serve the profitable portion of this run, and the service to the community is being denied.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I see that some people feel frustrated. Those who are not allowed by their whip to take part in the debate would like to prevent from speaking those who are free to do so. We shall give them the opportunity of getting rid of their complexes and to say what is on their minds in this house. It will do them good, I believe.
Reference was made earlier to the article written by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). Personally, I thought it was better not to mention it, because I have known for a long time that when the hon. member refers to something else than Maurice Richard and Lili St. Cyr, he talks nonsense.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) termed the whole thing as gossip and I think it was rather improper of him to do so, because hardly two days ago, he made so bold as to rave and gossip-


Léon Balcer: Does the hon. member allow me a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes.


Léon Balcer: Has the hon. member paid his $3,000?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I paid $1,671 in income tax to the federal government, and this is due to the bad administration under the Conservative government as well as under the Liberal government at the present time.
As for the rest, I say that the hon. member for Three Rivers has only gossiped just like his Conservative colleagues of the province of Quebec.
However, I wish to point out a fact. Several persons, among whom some newspapermen, have asked us whether pressures had been brought to bear on us or whether we had obtained some information from the French embassy about the Caravelle aircraft, or whether questions had been suggested that we should ask the president of T.C.A., and so on.
In view of the rumours abroad, I wanted to deny that we had ever been in touch, that any member of our group had ever been in touch with the French embassy, concerning the Caravelle or anything else for that matter, and that the embassy had brought pressure to bear on us.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, since there has been some mention in the last few minutes of the uneconomical flights operated by T.C.A. and in view of the fact that, this week, attention was drawn to the unfair competition on the part of this crown corporation which operates small uneconomical routes from one end of the country to the other, I should like to make a few remarks-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member for Beauce permit me to interrupt him for a moment? It would appear to me that it is eleven o'clock and that we are unlikely to get this particular item through. Perhaps the committee, in the next thirty seconds, would consider dealing with the balance of the items in this department and we could hold over this particular item until tomorrow morning. I think that would create a better psychological situation. I do not intend to suggest that we should extend the time in order to do this.


Mr. Barnett:: I think the minister is aware that I have a long anticipated date with him on one of the other items.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman object to the other items passing, except this one and the other with which he wants to deal.


Gilles Grégoire: The suggestion is that we should stand this item. Is that the proposal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would appear to me now that the best thing to do is regard it as being eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to call it eleven o'clock and suggest to the committee that we meet tomorrow at ten rather than eleven and dispense with the question period. We could consider what would be done about the luncheon hour in the light of the progress being made and we would be in a better position to determine how long the session would go.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is a most constructive suggestion and I hope it will commend itself to all members of the committee. Perhaps when the Speaker is in the chair we could have an order made along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Timiska-ming, that we meet at ten o'clock, dispense with the question period, go right into committee of supply and get on with our business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The only thing I think is wrong with that is the waiving of the question period. That is unsound. Something might happen in the interval. We do not object to sitting at ten o'clock.
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Last night the hon. gentleman was ready to prorogue tonight, in which case there would have been no question period on Saturday, so we would be giving up something which, if his expectations had been realized, would not have existed. I suggest we accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If we want to complete these estimates it is important that the Minister of Transport should answer the direct question I put to him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the house consider a compromise and limit the question period to 30 minutes definite?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Fifteen.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, surely we should waive the question period entirely. It is a Saturday and not a normal sitting day. There is not going to be too much press coverage come out of it anyway on a Saturday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There may not be very many answers come out of it either, but I think parliament exists as an institution which requires a question period. Thirty minutes as has been suggested is all right but let us not bargain everything away.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is not a question of publicity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We work for the public interest.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the understanding of the Chair that we will meet toworrow at ten o'clock and that there will be a 30 minute limitation on the question period. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about the balance of the day? Do we rise from one to two?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand the other place has adjourned to meet at one o'clock. I would hope that if there was some reasonable prospect of concluding our business by say, two o'clock we would not rise for lunch, but if we were going to go on all day perhaps we could rise between one and two. If it could be understood that there would not be any objection taken to making a decision at that time and taking the general sense of the committee at that time, it seems to me that that would be the best arrangement.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might indicate the order in which the departments will be called tomorrow. We will continue with the few items left in the Department of Transport. I believe there are four or five or possibly six. Then we will take the Department of External Affairs, then the Speaker's esti-

mates, then the estimates of the Minister of Finance, then the various items for which I have to answer to the committee, and finally the one item that is standing in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day (for amendments, see text):]

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,529,570,600 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $978,136,600 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of any provincial or municipal government, $3,432,000.
Defence research and development-
Defence research board-
45. Operation and maintenance, $25,416,000.
50. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $5,501,000.
55. To foster defence research in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence applied research programs, on terms and conditions approved by the treasury board, $5,300,000.
57a. Research satellite program-To provide for the design and instrumentation of a series of satellites to carry out a scientific research program agreed upon jointly by the United States national aeronautical and space administration and the defence research board and, subject to allotment by the treasury board, to authorize for the purpose of this vote an increase of $5,129,500 in the amount included in vote 1 for total commitments (of which it is estimated that $4,302,500 will come due for payment in future years), $827,000.
60. Development, $15,000,000.
Mutual aid-
65. Contributions to infrastructure and the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the transfer of defence equipment and supplies and the provision of services and facilities for defence purposes in accordance with section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, not exceeding a total of $41,080,000 including the present value of defence equipment or supplies or the cost of services made available by the Canadian forces estimated in the amount of $8,980,000 and provided by appropriations for those forces in the current and former years in respect of which, notwithstanding subsection (3) of section 3 of the said act, no amount shall be charged to this appropriation or paid into a special account; provided by this vote, $32,100,000.
General services-
70. Grants to military associations, institutes and others as detailed in the estimates, $246,825.
75. Grants to the town of Oromocto, subject to the approval of treasury board, for municipal services including the maintenance and operation of schools and to promote the development of the town, $1,800,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
85. Civil pensions, as detailed in the estimates, $2,890.
90. To authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payments
Supply-Items Passed
to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organization, $4,512.
92a. To deem, for the purposes of such statutes and regulations as the treasury board may specify, Ella May Haley to be the lawful widow of Douglas Willard Williams who, prior to his death on May 6, 1961, was a person employed in the public service, $1.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Railway and steamship services-
65. Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment as listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects, $1,375,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
120. Railway employees' provident fund-To supplement pension allowances under the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum allowance payable in the calendar year 1963 $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said Act, $7,000.

[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs branch-
Welfare-
65. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including assistance to Indians and Indian bands for the construction or acquisition of housing and other buildings and related works, land and equipment, $1,984,000.
65a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $160,000.
Economic Development-
70. Operation and maintenance including the grants and contributions detailed in the estimates and to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $1,395,000.
70a. Operation and maintenance, $200,000.
75. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $504,000.
Education-
80. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the total of all amounts to be contributed by the governments of provinces and territories and by local school boards under agreements entered into on terms approved by the governor in council with such governments and boards in respect of the education of non-Indian children in Indian schools, $24,202,200.
80a. Administration, operation and maintenance, $500,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
85. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including expenditures on works on other than federal property and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the total of all amounts to be contributed by the governments of provinces and territories and by local school boards under agreements entered into on terms approved by the governor in council with such governments and boards in respect of the education of nonIndian children in Indian schools, $5,670,000,
85a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $122,000.
90. Grant to provide additional services to the Indians of British Columbia, $100,000.
Immigration branch-
30. Field and inspectional service, abroad, $2,206,000.
35. Trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers, subject to the approval of treasury board, including care en route and while awaiting employment; and payments to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of expenses, incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $1,650,000.
Indian affairs branch-
40. Administration, $994,800.
40a. Administration, $67,000.
Indian agencies-
45. Operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, $4,402,000.
50. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including expenditures on works on other than federal property, $1,161,000.
Welfare-
60. Operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the total of all amounts to be paid by the governments of provinces and territories under agreements entered into on terms approved by the governor in council with such governments in respect of social assistance to non-Indians residing on Indian reserves, $11,772,900.
Citizenship-
1. Departmental administration, $976,200.
5. Citizenship registration branch, $753,900.
10. Citizenship branch including grants and contributions for citizenship promotion, $828,000.
15. Grants to organizations as detailed in the estimates, $40,000.
Immigration branch
[Stage Direction]
20. Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,339,600.
25. Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $10,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $7,059,800.

[Stage Direction]
10. Assistance towards research in industry, $1,900,000.
10a. Assistance towards research in industry, $500,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $766,300.
5. Purchasing, stationery and stores, $1,247,900. 10. Distribution of official documents, $687,900. 10a. Distribution of official documents, $10,000.
15. Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $1,152,600.
15a. To extend the purposes of vote 15, main estimates, 1963-64, to include the purchase for sale of such other publications and related material as the treasury board may approve, $1.
20. Printing of Canada Gazette, $182,000.
25. Printing and binding the annual statutes, $40,000.
30. Plant equipment and replacements, $84,200.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, December 21, 1963