1963-05-31

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-67, respecting the Canada court of Indian claims.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, this bill carries out one of the recommendations of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee on Indian affairs of both 1948, which recommendation was not acted upon, and 1961. It plugs a glaring and affronting omission in the speech from the throne, namely the need to establish some agency to deal with the long standing grievances of our native Indian people over their land and other matters, and seeks to establish a court of Indian claims to deal with those questions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence but I find he is not in the house. However, I will ask the question anyway and perhaps he can give an answer subsequently.
I base my question on a statement he made yesterday as reported at page 484 of Hansard, when he said, referring to me:
-the fact that he was well advised by his advisers of that day that it was not so-
I ask the minister this question-


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether 1 could rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman is quoting from a debate that is now in progress in this house. I believe it is absolutely against the rules of the house to raise questions on the orders of the day with respect to a debate that is in progress, or to seek to revive the debate at any time other than the time prescribed by the rules. I feel, therefore, that the hon. gentleman should wait until the matter comes up again in debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I presume we are to be subjected to closure throughout this session, and this is another example.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. gentleman has a question to put, would he please put his question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall be glad to, and that
is what I was starting to do. My question to the Minister of National Defence is this. Does he intend to bring into debates here or elsewhere the advisers to the Minister of National Defence, namely the chiefs of staff, to whom I gave an assurance that I would not involve them in the election campaign or in debates in the House of Commons? I may now have to withdraw that assurance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that in view of what the hon. gentleman has said there is all the more reason for a ruling on the point of order which was raised.


Mr. Knowles:: A little late, now.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I shall have to rule the question out of order on the ground that it is in the nature of a continuation of a debate and the hon. gentleman will have ample opportunity when the debate continues to raise the subject matter.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister intend to initiate discussions with the provinces with respect to the free distribution of milk in schools? (Text):


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When does the minister intend to write to the provinces to this effect?


An hon. Member:: Tomorrow morning.
(Text):


Harry William Hays: This is a matter of government policy, and we shall do it just as soon as we get finished with this wild session of parliament.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; does the minister intend to send that letter before the expiry of the 60 days of decision?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if hon. members to my left in the centre of the chamber would pay a little more heed when at the top of my voice I call for order.



SUPPORT PRICES-ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING SOYBEANS, LAMB AND WOOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the desirability of promoting industrial expansion in Canada and in view of the necessity of conserving foreign exchange, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I regret that I did not give him more notice. Can the minister tell the house when he expects to announce the support price for the 1963 soybean crop, and whether the government will be able to meet the request of the soybean growers marketing board for a support price of $2.55 per bushel?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for leave of the house to revert to motions in order to make this announcement? I have the support program here.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harry William Hays: This is quite a lengthy document. The support price will be $2.15 per bushel for Canada grade No. 2 or better. I can go through the whole statement if you like, or I can table it.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Harry William Hays: The Ontario soybean growers marketing board presented a brief to the agricultural stablization board in which they recommended that a support price of $2.50 per bushel be established on soybeans for the 1963 crop. In making this recommendation the marketing board expressed the wish for an incentive level of price support indicating that such would assist in diverting production from fall wheat and oats, that more protein supplement was needed for an expanding livestock industry, and that a reduction in soybean imports would be advantageous. They indicated that, were such an incentive price support level to be established, the marketing board would embark on a greater promotional campaign for expanded production.
Market returns for Canadian producers of soybeans in 1960 and 1961 were above the
[Mr. Hays.)
support levels. Higher prices in 1960-61 stemmed from a shortfall in world oil seed supplies. In 1961-62 they were maintained primarily by price support measures on a large scale undertaken by the United States government. In the current year the latter was also important, having the effect of encouraging producers to withhold supplies from the market. The demand for the limited quantities of oil seed meals available, however, with advances in soybean oil prices, resulted in rising soybean prices in spite of ample supplies statistically.
Canadian soybean prices, No. 1 or better, f.o.b. shipping points, rose from about $2.40 in August, 1962 to $2.57 during most of December. Up to the end of December 3.6 million bushels of soybeans had been marketed from a crop of about 6.6 million bushels. Prices jumped sharply in January and February and were in the neighbourhood of $2.75 per bushel. If the unmarketed soybeans indicated above are actually retained by producers, they will be in a position to increase their returns significantly by marketing during the remainder of the crop year. Prices are about 25 cents per bushel higher than about this time a year earlier. Producer returns from the 1962 crop should average between $2.40 and $2.50 per bushel delivered.
Based on the latest d.b.s. revisions of planted acreage statistics, current plantings are substantially below plantings of a few years ago. The recovery of soybean prices has not been of sufficient duration to improve acreage markedly. It would not be surprising, however, if a further recovery in planted acreage occurred in 1963.
It is considered by the board that the increased price in the market place should provide sufficient incentive for an orderly expansion of soybean production, and that a guaranteed price of $2.50 per bushel could bring undue optimism to the industry. Since the varieties of soybeans at present available have some limitations in terms of adaptability, it is felt that an incentive that would unduly expand the growing areas might ultimately be to the detriment of the individuals involved in such an expansion.
The board therefore recommends that the support price for soybeans be continued at 100 per cent of the base price for the 1963 crop, that is $2.15 per bushel for Canada grade No. 2 or better, 14 per cent moisture, delivered at elevator in Ontario. That is the answer to the question asked the other day.
Mr. Speaker, in answer to another question that was asked the other day I wish to inform the house that in so far as wool and lamb are concerned there will be the same

price of 60 cents a pound on wool and the same support price on lamb as last year.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, now that he has announced the support price of soybeans, when he will be announcing the support price on sunflower seed.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we are carrying
on these support price studies, and I will have to take that question as notice.



POSSIBLE EFFECT OF U.S. REFERENDUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) inquired about a question he had raised as reported on page 81 of Hansard of May 21. The position in regard to this matter was stated by the Prime Minister in reply to the question asked by the hon. member, and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, both of which are reported on page 170 of Hansard.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: May I
ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answers given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister on this very important subject, will the minister give consideration to a special study by the Department of Agriculture as to the impact on the purchasers of feed grain in eastern Canada who buy their feed grain from western Canada?


Harry William Hays: This government will give consideration to all these matters, Mr. Speaker.



EXPANSION OF OPERATIONS UNDER MARSHLAND LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intention of the minister to expand the operation of the M.M.R.A.?


An hon. Member:: Tell us what it is.


Harry William Hays: May I take that question as notice?



ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the heavy frost damage in the fruit, vegetable and tobacco areas of western Ontario, has the minister made any approach to the Ontario government to give
Inquiries of the Ministry to the farmers of this area a crop insurance scheme such as is now possible under the agriculture insurance act?


Harry William Hays: In reply to the hon. member's question let me say that we met this morning with the fruit growers. The hon. member knows that some of the damage has occurred in the Niagara peninsula, to grape growers particularly. It is true the federal government has a crop insurance plan but, as I understand it, the plan has to be instituted by the provincial governments. The provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island all have crop insurance plans which were instituted in the first instance by the provincial government concerned. The federal government then contributed on a 20 per cent basis. Ontario at the moment does not have a crop insurance plan. We suggested to the people we met this morning that perhaps they should make some representations to the government of Ontario, as our party feels crop insurance is an excellent idea.


James Alexander McBain: A supplementary question: has the minister recommended to his colleague the Minister of Transport that a meteorological service be set up to warn the farmers of weather changes which would be harmful to crops, just as the Department of Transport warns flyers of weather changes?


Harry William Hays: That question should probably be directed to the Minister of Transport. Certainly such warnings would be of great benefit to agriculture, and I am sure the government will investigate and find out whether there is any possibility of passing on such information, as is done in California and other areas where warning is given of possible frost damage in advance so that the farmers may take some precautions. We shall investigate the suggestion of the hon. member. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Following the reply he gave me to the effect that the government of the province of Quebec should take advantage of the excellent federal crop insurance legislation, does the Minister of Agriculture intend to communicate with the province of Quebec on that subject?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is raising a broad question of policy which, I submit to Your Honour, is not in order on

Inquiries of the Ministry the orders of the day. The purpose of questions at this time is to deal with urgent matters which have arisen since the previous day's sitting, not with broad questions of policy.


Mr. Mariineau:: On that point of order, may I say the supplementary question springs directly from the answer given a while ago by the Minister of Agriculture.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, is it the wish of the Minister of Agriculture that other provinces such as Quebec take advantage of the crop insurance legislation?
(Text):


Harry William Hays: I think Quebec already have a policy of their own, but certainly this government would feel that they should take part in such a program.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, concerning the same question, it is my opinion that the Secretary of State should let the Minister of Agriculture answer. Otherwise, he will cast reflection on the minister's ability to answer.
(Text):


Harry William Hays: I should like to answer this question. This has to be instituted by the provinces themselves, not by the federal government. The federal government only helps with this program. The provinces have a great measure of autonomy and we want to keep it that way. They are the ones to institute such a plan as this in the first instance.



TURKEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the quota on turkeys coming into Canada from the United States to be lifted as a result of trade negotiations at Geneva?


Harry William Hays: I think it is too early to be able to answer that question.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO PREVENT PROFITEERING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday to the effect that there is no shortage of sugar supplies

in Canada at present and no shortage anticipated in the near future, would the Prime Minister tell the house what steps the government proposes to take to prevent profiteering at the expense of the Canadian consumer arising out of the increased price of this commodity?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. As my colleagues have already pointed out, the federal government is concerned with this matter in regard to any aspect of it which is covered by federal jurisdiction-combines, monopolies and actions in restraint of trade.
At present, as has been stated, there is no evidence that the high price of sugar in recent weeks has come about because of monopolistic practices or because of the action of a combine. The price of sugar in Canada, as has been pointed out, is high because the world price has gone up in recent months. In the last few days it has declined, and this decline will be very welcome to Canadian consumers. It must be recognized that the price is high because of a general world shortage of sugar.
As was pointed out yesterday by my hon. friend, there is no national shortage in Canada. Our stocks are at normal level. There is no need to expect any shortage in Canada. Our prices are high because they are linked to world market prices, and if world market prices now continue to decline from the high level recently reached, Canadian prices can be expected to decline as well.
Mr. Speaker, some have alleged that the prices are too high and that government action-that is, federal government action- should be taken to limit them. There is a constitutional aspect to this matter. I would point out that it is the provinces and not this parliament which have jurisdiction over prices in peace time, and if any law or regulation were to be made limiting prices it would have to be made by the provinces. If my hon. friends in this house feel that action of this kind is necessary in present circumstances to protect the consumer, their pleas, observations and requests on this matter should be addressed to the provincial governments, which alone would have the power to set limits on prices.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary
question. In view of the answer of the Prime Minister, could he inform the house whether he has initiated any talks with the provinces on this subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the provincial governments, I am sure, are well aware of this situation and do not need advice from the federal government on this matter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I might ask the Prime Minister a question on the same subject but in a slightly different vein. Now that the United States Senate has ratified the international commodity agreement on coffee, will the Canadian government take the lead in pressing for completion of the international agreement on sugar?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has had a good deal to do with this international agreement, would reply to this question.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of this government to encourage international commodity arrangements, and we look forward to a considerable expansion of their scope. I happen to have had something to do with the negotiation of both the international coffee agreement and the international sugar agreement. One of the defects, in my judgment, in the international sugar agreement was that it did not provide the kind of protection to consumers which might have been valuable under present circumstances. I quite agree with my hon. friend that I think the time has come when we ought to reexamine the question, and the Canadian government will be actively interested in it.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. This question refers to the sugar situation and I want to direct it to the Minister of Justice. Has the director of investigation and research of combines investigation undertaken a study to determine if there are any corporate links between Canadian sugar refining companies and the companies which supply the Canadian refineries with raw sugar?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for having sent me notice of his question. I am informed that in reports of the restrictive trade practices commission relating to the sugar industry-that is, the report concerning the sugar industry in western Canada and a proposed merger of sugar companies dated January 7, 1957, and a report concerning the sugar industry in eastern Canada dated February 3, 1960-the existence or extent of corporate links between Canadian sugar refining companies and the companies which supply the Canadian refineries has not been the subject of inquiries. However, at page 8 of the report concerning the sugar industry in eastern Canada it is stated that Tate & Lyle Limited, the large British sugar
Inquiries of the Ministry refining company, acquired a controlling interest in Canada and Dominion Sugar Company Limited in November, 1959.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Pennell (Brani-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. My question is prompted by numerous representations to me and to the Ontario government. Has any communication been received from the Ontario government requesting that a quota be placed on the number of fish to be taken from lake Erie with a view to setting up a marketing board?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member I wish to advise that no such request has been received from the Ontario government. Furthermore, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, since 1898, I believe, the commercial fisheries of Ontario have been administered by the government of that province.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the reply of the Minister of Fisheries concerning quotas on the production of fish. Since fresh water fish have now been included under the Ontario department of agriculture to make the formation of a marketing scheme possible, can the minister inform the house whether there is any regulation under his department that would make illegal the imposition of production quotas on producers under such an act?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.



UNITED NATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Canada's share of cost of peace keeping

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Of the estimated $120 million required for the peace keeping operations of the United Nations until January 1, 1964, would the minister say what will be the approximate amount of Canada's contribution? Would he
496	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry also let the house know whether it is the intention to set up the committee on external affairs at an early date?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am afraid I did not advise the house that I had been talking to the Prime Minister. I was referring to the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman who is, by the people of Canada, recognized as the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister was kind enough, as I came into this house to indicate that he proposed to ask this question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a Friday morning I think a political party sitting in opposition and which has suffered such adversity should be entitled to some kind of recognition.
With regard to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I may be able to give him a little more information than that requested. First of all, our share of the United Nations deficit for peace keeping costs may be between $300,000 and $500,000, depending on the amount of arrears which may be paid by member states that are now in arrears.
Now, with regard to our share of the total regular peace keeping costs for the United Nations emergency force and that in the Congo, these would be around $4 million annually, and are based on our regular scale of contribution for these operations, which cost more than $120 million and possibly as much as $140 million for the present year.
With regard to the suggestion concerning the setting up of the external affairs committee, this, of course, is a matter for the leader of the house to discuss with the other parties, and an announcement will be made in due course. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me notice of this question.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. gentleman for his reference to me. It is apparent from the remarks of most of the ministers of the crown that coming events cast their shadows before.
(Translation):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct


a question to the Prime Minister. Further to the statement he made in Toronto Wednesday evening to the effect that the municipal loan board would not interfere with the jurisdiction of the provinces in that field, would the Prime Minister tell the house what discussions have taken place with the provincial authorities in that regard?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no necessity for formal discussion because of the determination of the government to ensure that this legislation does not interfere with provincial rights in any way.
(Translation):



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he can tell the house what were the results of the negotiations entered upon between Canada and the state of Maine in order to come to a mutual agreement aimed at granting unemployment insurance benefits to Canadian lumbermen working in that state?
(Text):


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his question this morning, but because of other preoccupations I did not have a chance to discuss the matter with the officials of the unemployment insurance commission. I will do that and have an answer at the earliest possible moment.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the continuing public protests against the Max Ferguson show yesterday, and other programs with similar overtones which attempt to create animosity between Canada and the United States, deride government policy and undermine our national morals, will the minister inform the house what action he is taking, or contemplating, to ensure that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not carry programs which so obviously are harmful to the security and well being of the nation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for Red Deer for giving me notice that he intended to ask this question. I hope the house will forgive me if I make a rather more extended reply than I usually do to questions, because this is the first time I have been asked a serious question about the programs of the C.B.C.


Mr. Bigg:: Get on with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And if the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) can just contain himself, which I know is very difficult for him, I will be very glad to continue what I have to say, which is quite serious. I am sure that the hon. member for Red Deer and every other hon. member of the house would agree that in any free society nothing would be more undesirable than to have the government, or any member of the government, seek to direct broadcasting, the press or any other medium of public opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure all hon. members that I have no intention of attempting to do that, and I feel quite sure I speak for my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and all my colleagues when I say no one in this government has any such thought. At the same time we do know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is responsible to parliament, not to the government but to the whole of parliament, and the means of exercising that responsibility is always going to present a serious problem.
I am sure no one of us has reached a final conclusion as to how that can be done, but it seems to me so far as programs are concerned the best way it can be done is to appoint the ablest possible people to the board of directors, and the ablest possible people to manage the C.B.C., and leave the responsibility to them and hold them accountable for what they do.
I am sure the C.B.C. will take account of the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Red Deer today, and that they will take account, and proper account, of any opinion expressed by any hon. member, even a member of the government; because I do not think the members of the government should be deprived of their citizenship in expressing their opinions about programs just like anyone else, but neither do I think the C.B.C. should pay any more attention to the views expressed by members of the government than they should to those of other citizens.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State tell us when he
Inquiries of the Ministry proposes to call a meeting of the sessional committee on broadcasting in order to study the C.B.C. report?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is too bad there is not, but the fact remains that there is not a standing committee on broadcasting at the present time. I would hope that the committee on procedure, which we would like to see set up as soon as we could, would give consideration to the possibility of providing for a standing committee on broadcasting. As to whether it will be possible at least in the early part of the session to find the time to set up a special committee on broadcasting, in view of all the other preoccupations, I am not sure, but I will be glad to discuss the matter with my colleagues.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Now that he has heard about the Max Ferguson show will he try to listen to it in the mornings, as some of the rest of us do, so that he can enjoy its very good humour?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member, who is most ingenious in introducing legislation into this house, could introduce a bill that would ensure there were 26 hours in the day instead of 24, I would try to do what he suggests.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the genial Postmaster General. In view of the continuing and general criticism of the designs and patterns of Canadian stamps, and in view of the long standing interest of the minister in philatelic art, would the minister inform the house whether he is giving consideration to improving the beauty and appeal of Canadian stamps?


Hon. Azellus Denis (Posimasler General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's question is yes, but I must add that the 1963 stamp program had been approved before we took office. We are already working on the 1964 program, and I hope that 1964 will be the year of good looking Canadian stamps.



REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

Inquiries of the Ministry of Justice. Is he aware of the increases in the prices of bread announced simultaneously yesterday by leading bakeries in Montreal and attributed by them partly to the higher cost of sugar? If so, will he have his department look into this matter?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty in hearing the hon. member's question, and perhaps I should take it as notice and give him an answer on Monday.


An hon. Member:: Is your machine not working?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is in perfect order, but when you make so much noise on the other side I cannot hear.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES COMMISSION ON BICULTURALISM    INVITATIONS TO YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question in connection with the letter which he sent the provincial governments, a copy of which appears as an appendix to Hansard for May 20. Was such an invitation extended to the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about an invitation in this letter, but I will look into the matter to see whether the letter itself went to the territories in question.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, if the letter did not go to the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, will the Prime Minister assure the house that the governments of those territories will be invited to participate in this discussion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad indeed to give the hon. gentleman an assurance that the governments of those territories will be given every opportunity to participate in this work to which he refers.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, since there has been reference to the Northwest Territories, may I this morning thank Your Honour and the Clerk of the house for bringing into our active membership today on the Conservative side of the house the representative for the Northwest Territories.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



COPPER AND ZINC-U.S. REPRESENTATIONS ON LIMITATION OF CANADIAN EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received any representations from the United States in regard to limiting our exports of copper and zinc?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As hon. members of the house are aware, the United States itself imposes import quotas on zinc. I thought I should say that so there would not be any misunderstanding about my answer to the question, which is in the negative; we have not received any representations with regard to limiting our exportation of copper and zinc to the United States.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I asked a question of the Minister of Defence Production, at which time I drew to his attention the report of the intention of the United States government to reduce defence orders in this country. May I ask him today, have his hopes of one week ago been realized in that he has been able to meet with United States officials on this important matter and, if so, has he reached the satisfactory solution to the problem which he mentioned in this house at that time?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, my hopes remain as high as ever. Unfortunately it will not be until next week that an opportunity will be presented to have a concrete discussion of the facts and problems at issue.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Perhaps it is one which the minister might like to take as notice. I would ask the minister whether he can indicate to the house the present standing of the inquiry

by the restrictive trade practices commission into the production, sale and distribution of raw fish, which has been delayed for so many years because of injunctions and other court proceedings.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is another question I will have to take as notice and reply to on Monday.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the question put by the hon. member for Skeena a moment ago had to do with the British Columbia fish case. If it had, I have the answer to his question here.
The proceedings were somewhat lengthy, but the court proceedings have now been concluded and the oral and documentary evidence is being reviewed in order to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in making the evidence available to the parties against whom the allegations are made in the statement of evidence. When this is done the commission will hear argument on the merits of the statement of evidence before making its report. Obviously, therefore, it will be some time before the commission is in a position to make its report.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) on May 28. His question was, what is the Department of Agriculture doing to prevent the spread of anthrax disease? His question was based on an article appearing in the Financial Post of May 25 this year which made reference to an outbreak in the Northwest Territories.
In July, 1962 an outbreak among buffalo in the Slave river area was uncovered. Measures to control and confine the disease were carried on jointly by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Veterinarians from the Department of Agriculture were dispatched to the area to conduct a survey and supervise the disposal of all buffalo carcasses. The Department of Agriculture established a quarantine area which prohibited the movement into or out of the area of all buffalo and parts of buffalo. The quarantine will remain in effect for this coming season at least. While no further cases have appeared, rigid surveillance of the area will be maintained.
More recently a case of anthrax was uncovered on a farm at Richmond, Fraser Valley,
Inquiries of the Ministry British Columbia, on May 4, 1963. Diagnosis of the disease was confirmed. The outbreak involved the loss of two cattle. Normal disposal, precautionary and quarantine measure were initiated, and no further cases have developed.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
As we have now received the C.N.R. annual report, can the minister tell us if it is his intention to call shortly a meeting of the sessional committee of railways, canals and telegraph lines?
(Text):


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not call a house committee, but I have every intention of referring the annual report of the railways to the committee as soon as it is set up.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport to clarify his reply. Is it his intention to refer the C.N.R. annual report to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, or is it the intention of the government to follow the usual practice of having a special sessional committee? In that case, I should like to ask the minister whether it is not the case that the motion setting up the committee is placed on the order paper at the government's initiative.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps we could sort out those questions. The most important one has to do with whether or not it is the intention of the government to refer the annual report to a special committee or to the standing committee. With the permission of the house I should like to have the leader of the house give an answer on that point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been having some discussion with hon. gentlemen opposite about the possibility of all transport matters being referred to one committee instead of having two committees, because of the multiplicity of committees we are bound to have in any case. So far we have not reached an understanding on that point, but I was hoping it might be possible to have another meeting tomorrow. Until we have ended these discussions it will not be possible to say what the government intends to propose, but I can assure the house that

Inquiries of the Ministry we intend to seek to do what hon. members would like to have us do in connection with this matter.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, or probably the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that several hundred unemployed coal miners who are residing in the Drumheller valley, namely in East Coulee, Nacmine, Midlandvale and Newcastle, are living on social welfare, would the present government reconsider its position and proceed to build the penitentiary at Drumheller so that these men who are unemployed can get other work and live with dignity with their families?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can answer that question, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with the program which was laid down by the previous government, my understanding is that the penitentiary in Drumheller was not to be built until 1966 or 1967; in any event not in 1963 and certainly not in 1964. But in view of the statement made by the hon. member I am sure that my officers, my colleagues and myself will be glad to take another look at the situation. However, I would not like to leave my hon. friend under the impression that the previous government had decided to proceed rapidly with the construction of that building.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the question asked by the hon. member for Bow River, I now find that the plans of the former government for the construction of a penitentiary in Drumheller did not call for the beginning of work until 1964-65.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question in view of that reply. Has the minister any information that work was already commenced under the previous government on this institution, and that the water has been laid from the city of Drumheller to the penitentiary site?



CONTINUATION OF SUBSIDY ON EXPORTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which

is directed to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is it the policy of the present government to continue paying subventions on anthracite coal from Canmore, so that the miners from that area of Alberta will continue to have full employment? That coal, as the minister knows, has been shipped to Japan under a trade agreement entered into by the previous government.


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will find an item in the estimates tabled for this year which refers to the normal subvention policy for a year ahead. With the qualification that I am not yet personally acquainted with the Canmore problem, I do not think there has been any change in the policy of putting these matters in the estimates.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I direct a question to my good friend and fellow Cape Bretoner, the Minister of Labour. Before doing so, may I wish him every success in his new post and a short tenure of office. Has the minister received a communication from Mr. Paul Emile Maillet, secretary treasurer of the prevailing rate employees district affiliate of the civil service federation at the Cape Breton Highlands national park, requesting an increase in wages and a reduction to a 40 hour week with the same take home pay? If so, what reply has been given?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do recall receiving a communication from the gentleman in question, a reply to which has, I am sure, been prepared and sent to him. But I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the subject matter of the request does not lie specifically within the responsibility of the Department of Labour.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In my constituency considerable construction is being carried out under the fine winter works program of the previous government. Under the terms of this program the federal government pays half the labour costs. In cases where there has

been some delay because of construction problems, is there any possibility of the deadline being extended in respect of federal payments past May 31?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This particular matter has been brought to my attention by others who are interested in similar problems in their municipalities, and my information is that the order in council establishes a deadline for May 31. It is not proposed to extend the time period at this time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of assurances which we have been given from the treasury benches that matters affecting civil servants such as pay increases, pension adjustments and collective bargaining are under active consideration, can we expect decisions on these matters before this government's first 60 days expire?


An hon. Member:: Twenty one days left.


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there are 21 days left as somebody has just said. We are working on these things, and I will give an answer as soon as I can, though I cannot be specific as to the date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister find out what is the hold up respecting pay increases to those who were not given increases effective last December 10?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: These matters are under consultation or discussion between the interested parties.



INQUIRY AS TO FREEZING OF CIVIL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to ask this question now that we have found the Secretary of State is on a sort of 24 hour rack. I asked him a question yesterday with regard to civil service postings and the end of austerity, as announced by one of his colleagues, and he said that he would consider a reply. I wonder whether he could give it now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is true that yesterday I asked for more time. I did that again today, but
Inquiries of the Ministry I think the Minister of Finance, who is the proper minister to answer the question, is ready to answer it now.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the freeze on recruitment in the civil service is under review. It is under discussion by the government, but it is only one of the many features that are being taken into account in reviewing expenditures. I should like to assure the hon. gentleman that I am not on a 24 hour rack or even an 18 hour rack, but I will get on to this as fast as I can.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether any appointments, either permanent or ad hoc, have been made to the Canadian pensions commission since April 21 this year?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Velerans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are some under way but perhaps I could answer this question on Monday.



STATEMENT ON PENSION ENTITLEMENT OF SERGEANT LEJA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West asked this question:
Does the very brave Sergeant Leja, who was seriously wounded as a result of the unfortunate bombing incident in Montreal recently, qualify for a pension under the Canadian Pension Act?
Mr. Speaker, the answer to that, of course, is yes, he will qualify. May I add that he is being treated now by the medical officers of the Department of National Defence? At a later date when he has been released from service in the Canadian army he will be eligible as a world war II veteran for all the benefits and allowances of the veterans charter. It will then also be possible to determine the extent of his permanent injuries and the Canadian pension commission will then review his medical history and rule on the amount of pension to be paid.
(Translation):



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF FRENCH NAME ON AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Transport. Could he tell us now whether the words "Air-Canada" will figure before long on the aircraft of that crown corporation to prove to the world that Canada is a bilingual country?
(Text):


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked a question on this subject some days ago, and I fear that what appears in Hansard is somewhat different from what I heard through the translation system. I will get him an answer to this question and put it on record.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister because it involves more than one department. My question is based upon a court decision rendered yesterday by Chief Justice McRuer of Ontario to the effect that the ancient hunting rights of Indians in Canada, as guaranteed by King George Ill's proclamation of 1763, were upheld. I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister if steps will be taken to acquaint the various departments of the federal government, and perhaps by way of communication the provincial governments, with this decision in order to prevent any future infringement of these rights, as has been the case over the past number of years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that, and to do what I can to ensure that the commitments entered into by King George III are maintained.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister move with the same speed to make sure the commitments which he made are brought into being?



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Having contained myself for a while, at the minister's suggestion, may I now ask her if the government's legislation respecting contributory and portable pensions will be on the order paper of this House of Commons within the government's first 60 days?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: May I ask the hon. and charming member to continue for just a while to contain himself?



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
["Order. It\nbeing six o'clock I have to advise the house that the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired."]
Walter Lockhart Gordon: That a sum not exceeding $1,430,259,968.45, being the aggregate of-
(a)	four twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $1,282,100,552.00;
(b)	an additional five twelfths of the amount of loans, investments and advances item L20, $416,666.67;
(c)	an additional four twelfths of the amounts of fisheries item 45, northern affairs and national resources item 10, public works item 190 of the said estimates, $737,333.34;
(d)	an additional three twelfths of the amounts of atomic energy item 5, mines and technical surveys item 45, northern affairs and national resources item 5 of the said estimates, $307,025.00;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amounts
of agriculture item 100, external affairs item 78, mines and technical surveys item 80, public works items 20,	135 and 195 of the said estimates,
$2,376,416.67;
(f)	an additional one twelfth of the amounts of external affairs items 60 and 65, fisheries items 30 and 85, forestry items 15, 25 and 35, legislation items 40 and 45, mines and technical surveys items 30, 35, 40, 50, 70, 100, 105, 125 and 130, national research council item 1, national revenue item 25, public works items 125 and 185, trade and commerce items 15, 20 and 28, transport item 222, of the said estimates, $11,626,316.77;
(g)	four twelfths of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates (A), for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1964, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $110,163,277.67;
(h)	an additional seven twelfths of the amounts of external affairs item 96a, loans, investments and advances item L,63a, $15,665,416.67;
(i) an additional five twelfths of the amounts of northern affairs and national resources item 110a, loans, investments and advances item L13a, $5,841,005.42;
(j) an additional one twelfth of the amounts of fisheries item 30a, public works items 20a and 135a, transport item 222a, $1,025,958.34;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964;
Provided the amounts hereby authorized to be paid and applied in respect to these items shall be deemed to include and not be in addition to the amounts authorized for such items by the special warrants issued by the Governor General pursuant to orders of the governor in council of April 1, 1963 (P.C. 1963-546) and of May 2, 1963 (P.C. 1963-702).
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Every political party in this house received a copy of what you just read. We received it in English only and not in both languages as it should be.

Furthermore, I note that on several occasions since the beginning of the session, the one who occupies the seat of the Speaker or of the chairman of the committees, first proceeds to read a statement in English and when the time comes to read it in French, someone says: "Dispense". Thus the Speaker or the chairman is dispensed from reading his statement in French.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I submit that if this practice goes on and on, before long, the reading will be done in English only and the French language will not come into the picture when the Speaker or the chairman has something to read in this house. That is why I raise the question of privilege on that matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I reply to the question of privilege just raised by the hon. member for Lapointe.
I think it would take too much time to read all over in French a statement like the one the deputy chairman of the house read in English a few moments ago.
In order to uphold the rights of the French language, I suggest that alternately, in such circumstances, the statement be read in French or in English, and vice versa, so that it could not be said that one language has preference over the other.
I think that even in some other circumstances, it would be possible to proceed in the same manner without encroaching upon the rights of one language or the other. It seems to me this suggestion should receive the approval of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, again on a question of privilege, may I say that I think the suggestion of the Minister of Justice is a very good one, just like the implied suggestion made by the federal government when the speech from the throne was read one paragraph in English, another one in French and so on.
I think this suggestion is acceptable to the members of this house. But when we get copies of documents from the Department of Finance, we should get them in both languages.
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to apologize to the hon. member for Lapointe if copies of the resolution were not sent to him in both languages. I will try to see that this is done in the future.
The amounts of the appropriations requested in this resolution are intended to cover the amounts authorized by Governor General's warrants for the months of April
Interim Supply
and May and the amounts needed to provide for anticipated expenditures in the months of June and July. Broadly speaking, the government is asking for approximately four twelfths of the proposed expenditures for the year. In some cases the authority asked for is less than four twelfths, while in other cases it is more than that percentage. This is based on the time of year in which the proposed expenditures are normally made.
The bill that will be presented will be essentially in the same form as other interim supply bills submitted to the house on previous occasions. There will be a few changes which, of course, I will bring to the attention of the house when the bill is being discussed in detail. For the most part these changes are necessary because the expenditures for the months of April and May were authorized by Governor General's warrants.
Naturally, Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure hon. members that the passing of this interim supply bill will affect in no way the rights and privileges of hon. members to discuss or criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for review in committee of supply. I should like also to add that it is the intention of this government to bring forward supply motions at an early date in order that the departmental estimates may be fully discussed.
I should like to mention also, Mr. Chairman, that the bill will include authority to borrow an additional amount of one billion five hundred million dollars if and when the necessity arises, for public works and general purposes. I shall be pleased to do my very best to answer any questions that may be raised by hon. members in connection with this resolution or later in connection with the bill.
The only other thing I think I should say at this time is that the request for interim supply at this stage of the session is, I believe, a customary one. I had thought of asking for only one month's interim supply plus the two months authorized by Governor General's warrants, but if I were to do this it would mean coming back to the house in June with a request for an additional month's supply. It seemed to me that this would be an inefficient way of doing things and an unnecessary imposition on the time of hon. members. I should perhaps make it clear that if, as some hon. members hope, it will be possible for the house to adjourn for a few weeks this summer before all the estimates have been passed, it will be necessary for me to introduce another interim supply bill some time during the month of July. There are a lot of things to be done in the meantime, however, and that matter can perhaps best be dealt with when the time comes.

Interim Supply
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, I shall do my best to answer any questions that hon. members may wish to ask respecting this resolution.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity to formally congratulate the Minister of Finance upon the high office which he now holds as the minister responsible for the financial administration of this country. I was very glad to hear him say this morning that he was not one who was on the rack. If he is not on the rack now I think he will be before he finishes financing all the programs which his colleagues have brought before the House of Commons in the speech from the throne. In any event I want to congratulate him on the appointment he has received, and to wish him very well in the very onerous task which he has to carry out.
He is very fortunate in having a department which is well staffed, as I know from my own experience in that department. I was sorry to read in the press the other day that one of the senior civil servants of the government of Canada, the deputy minister of this department, is going to be relieved from the onerous load which he has carried for a good many years. I am not sure whether the position to which he is going is a lighter one, but I rather think it will be a difficult one since he is to be the adviser to the Prime Minister on university grants. In any event, I know the minister will miss the services of the present deputy minister, and he is fortunate in having a widely experienced civil servant, now secretary to the cabinet, coming in as the new deputy minister. I presume that will ensure a warmth of welcome on the part of other officials of the Department of Finance who will welcome this stranger coming in to take over the office of deputy minister.
As the minister said the other day, these estimates were prepared by the preceding minister of finance and approved by treasury board, and are tabled exactly as they were prepared at that time. I was rather intrigued the other night when listening to a television commentator speaking about these estimates, one of these wise boys who know all the answers. In commenting on the estimates he said that they contained an additional $5 million for the C.B.C. over what had been provided the previous year so obviously these estimates had been prepared by the present government rather than the Tories, who never would have given the C.B.C. any additional money. That just shows how much attention one should pay to statements made by such commentators and sometimes politicians as well.
Those estimates, as we know, were based on substantially reduced estimates which we revised last summer. They were slashed very substantially following the foreign exchange crisis of last year, and the revised estimates which we prepared reduced the original ones by something over $200 million, I believe. The estimates tabled yesterday, which were the ones that we had prepared, show an increase of only $85 million over the slashed estimates which we tabled in July or August. When you look at the estimates and see that the statutory increases under health and welfare, for instance, amount to something like $100 million you can understand why I then wanted and again want now to express my appreciation to my then colleagues and the officials of treasury board for the way they co-operated in effecting a reduction in those estimates. I know there are some who thought it would be impossible to get the estimates down to the level we did, but I do not think we interfered in any way with the efficiency of the public service, and we did achieve a very substantial reduction which is now before us. Of course there already are supplementary estimates and there probably will be further supplementaries which we will deal with from time to time.
We did that, Mr. Chairman, because, as we said in the speech from the throne, we were working toward a balanced budget. It will probably be remembered that the present government, in statements made from time to time prior to the election, stated that they too would work toward a balanced budget. I do not see any reference to that in the speech from the throne, and I suspect that is one of the decisions which is not going to come down in the first 60 days of decision. As a matter of fact, if the program set forth in the speech from the throne is carried out at all, and I presume efforts will be made to that end, we are going to be a long, long way from a balanced budget unless the Minister of Finance adopts the policy of increasing taxation to a substantial degree.
We have heard a great deal about the economy of the country. I know the minister is probably looking forward to increased taxation revenue, though perhaps not increased rates of taxation, due to the expanding economy of the nation. The prime reason the economy is expanding, of course, is the fact that we have now and have had for the past year a realistically valued dollar. When the dollar was pegged at the level it now holds this accomplished a tremendous amount and was a tremendous service from the point of view of the economy of the country.
I will speak more about that in a moment. The exchange fund today is stronger than it

has ever been before. Dollars have been flowing in, and we are now in a very comfortable position so far as balances in the exchange fund are concerned. But as is obvious from the speech from the throne and certainly from private business plans thoughout the nation, if the government of Canada does not have to do so certainly Canadians generally and probably provincial and municipal governments will have to borrow very substantial amounts in the United States during the coming year which will result in a further flow of money into our country.
In this regard there is a very interesting situation developing. The United States rate is going up and our rate has been going down, and at the moment there is a very noticeable though not substantial reduction in the spread between the rate prevailing in the United States and the rate prevailing in Canada. If that situation should develop a little further, we may find it most difficult to attract additional moneys into Canada, because the encouragement which has heretofore been provided by the rate may not be as great as it has been in the past.
Therefore I think it behooves the government to watch its expenditures very carefully and to work toward a balanced budget. I know this cannot be done overnight. I know it cannot be done in one or two years, but we will have to attract money into this country and we will have to keep a firm, stable dollar at the present rate. I do not think that will be a very easy task if we continue to run substantial deficits. Instead of the deficits being reduced, as was our intention, they might very easily be increased, and as every hon. member knows-and no one knows it better than the minister-it is absolutely essential to maintain the present exchange rate and maintain a firm exchange balance.
I think some problems may arise for the minister in that connection. As I have said, extravagant and excessive borrowings can make the task of the minister very difficult indeed in view of the interesting situation prevailing today so far as rates in both Canada and United States are concerned. I think it is necessary, of course, to narrow the gap between the two. I suspect there are very great pressures on other dollars than the Canadian dollar, as everyone knows who looks at the figures at all, and if that differential is not narrowed I think it might be very difficult always to get co-operation from the country to the south because it is having its own difficulties in that connection.
The minister said the other day that he thought there were two ways in which expenditures could be controlled. One was to deal with individual items, and he suggested
Interim Supply
that was perhaps not the best way of doing it. The other one was to review government policies as a whole and their correlation. I quite agree with him that it is very difficult to go any further in dealing with individual items and individual departments than he has done in bringing forward these estimates which are now before us. As I said, we checked the departments very carefully. I had the co-operation of every one of my cabinet colleagues, treasury board and the then prime minister and I do not think it would be possible to go further. I saw an editorial this morning to the effect that a halfhearted effort had been made to reduce expenditures. I should like the writer of that editorial to have the responsibility of dealing with these estimates because, as I have said, the statutory increases alone in one department are greater than the total increase in the estimates this year. That is indicative of the problem.
As the minister says, probably the easier and better way to do it is to review the relationship department to department in the government as a whole. I would point out to him that the Glassco commission has made a very careful study of this problem. It has brought down report after report, which I think gives the present government the background of the needs in dealing with the relationships of the various departments and possibly achieving savings.
Part of the Glassco commission report would not have been accepted by our government when we were sitting where hon. gentlemen opposite are, on the treasury benches. I am sure the whole of it will not be accepted by the present government; but so far as the general principle, the general plan and the general picture deals with the relationships between departments, I think it is a blueprint which can be very advantageously followed by the minister and his colleagues.
He says he is having a study made by the treasury board, and I know the officials of the treasury board will give consideration to all these problems, but do not think good results will come from any study by the treasury board per se except possibly in emphasizing and applying the recommendations which have already been made by the Glassco commission. The minister referred to this the other day, which was the first time I heard it mentioned since parliament opened. I may say I was very glad to hear it mentioned, and I suggest to the minister that he give this very careful consideration.
In the very brief and practically formal statement he made this morning, the conventional statement made on these occasions,

Interim Supply
the minister did not refer to the estimates which have been brought down for the year 1962-63, which have expired. From time to time we have heard that none of those estimates were passed. Mr. Chairman, I am conscious of the fact that we are on interim supply. I do not intend to speak on this matter at any great length on this occasion, but I simply give my hon. friends opposite a due word of caution that if I hear any more talk about the slowness of the previous government in dealing with its estimates or failing to bring them forward, or referring to its lack of leadership in the House of Commons, then perhaps we may duplicate the role the then opposition played during interim supply when we introduced it, and there may not be as much progress made.
We all remember the record on last year's interim supply. I am not going to dwell on that now, but I do suggest to the minister that some steps be taken to validate the estimates which were tabled and the moneys, all of which have been spent, partially on Governor General's warrants and largely on the votes in interim supply. I know the same situation has happened in the house before, and the Minister of Finance would bring in a motion showing what had been spent and a resolution would be introduced validating those expenditures. So far as we are concerned we would expect legislation would be brought in, some form of resolution or legislation, at an early date, validating the expenditures made under the estimates laid before the house by my predecessor the former hon. member for Eglinton. That is all I have to say about those past estimates.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal about the expansion of the economy, and we have heard a great deal about the benefits which are accruing from the realistically revalued dollar. I think everyone realizes that the economy is expanding at a fairly rapid rate. The figures have been put on the record. I shall not go into those in detail at this time, but the result is largely due to the revalued dollar which was established about a year ago.
The minister says he was one of the first to urge such a revaluation. I think he mentioned it in the book he once wrote, but his voice was singularly quiet on that matter when all his associates were predicting last year that Canada was heading for bankruptcy because of the action we had taken. There was almost a wave of hysteria on the part of hon. gentlemen then in opposition, and if the Minister of Finance did not take part in that chorus at least, as I have said, he was singularly quiet when others were doing so.

It is very refreshing now to hear him say it is the responsibility of each hon. member of the house to support the revalued dollar. I quite agree with him; it is essential, and I can assure him that hon. members of the official opposition support the value of the dollar were it stands today. But I would remind the house that my right hon. friend, the then prime minister, was nearly defeated last June because of the malicious, false and hysterical attacks made on the revalued dollar. If there ever was an example of brainwashing since Joe Stalin first introduced it in Russia, then that was an example which will always be cited by historians in the future as the greatest example of brainwashing the world has ever known. Mr. Chairman, we hear a great deal about getting the economy rolling again, and getting the economy moving again. Hon. gentlemen opposite said it was in stagnation, but my hon. friend the Minister of Finance loves to quote from the London Economist, and I would refer him to the last issue of that bible which he quotes so often, in which it says the present government does not have to worry about getting the economy moving again because it was moving at a very rapid rate when this government came into office.
We have also heard a great deal about the relationships of the previous government with other nations. In fact I heard one commentator say the other night that our relationships with the government of the United States had been at their worst since the Fenian raids. I asked him when the Fenian raids took place and he did not know. Then I asked him to spell "Fenian" and he could not; he thought it was some country in the Pacific. It was just another example of the authenticity, sometimes, of television commentators.
In any event, as the right hon. Prime Minister said in a speech he delivered some time ago, the day has long since past when relationships between this country and the United States would be easy and automatic. I am sure that is true. There cannot be an easy or automatic relationship with any country today, particularly where our trading relationships are so confused and intermingled. I only hope the present government can maintain the same good relationships in the days that lie ahead in dealing with zinc, lead, plywood, gas and all the other millions and millions of dollars worth of exports which we have flowing into the United States.
We have a very, very involved economy and we have to maintain good relationships. We were able to do that, and we were able to keep the economy moving ahead at the greatest rate of expansion since the second

world war. I only hope in the years ahead the present minister and government will be able to do as well as we did during the last few years.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to talk at any great length at the moment, but I would recall that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam congratulated the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and referred to the charm and grace of that gracious lady. You know, sometimes from where I sit here, when my eyes hit the scene immediately in front of me it is rather boring and disappointing. But then, Mr. Chairman, I can lift my eyes up to the back row and see the graciousness there. It reminds me of the quotation which says "I shall lift up mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my salvation."


Lester Bowles Pearson: We can do that too.


George Clyde Nowlan: But despite the graciousness, the charm and the efficiency with which the address in reply was moved, I think I read into it a certain suggestion recommending more and more controls and a regulated economy. This is an attitude which we on this side are going to watch very carefully. I heard a radio commentator this morning- as a matter of fact it was the editor of the Ottawa Citizen-speaking about legislation which the government proposes to bring in this week. He said-I am paraphrasing it, and very roughly-that they were not going to pay much lip service to orthodox free enterprise. That was the statement he made. That commentator very often seems to speak for this government with some authority. I would hope that prediction is not true. There is no question that we have never had, of course, an absolutely free economy in this nation; everyone realizes that. Even back in the days of 1867 and thereafter, when the C.P.R. was built it could only be built with government assistance at that time. We were struggling colonies; we merged, and Canada developed.
I think we have a unique record of public and private ownership. We are probably the only nation in the world with a great transcontinental railway system owned by the public and with, at the same time, another great transcontinental railway system operating in competition to it which is privately owned. We have a great publicly owned transcontinental radio and television system embracing this nation. We also have a series, and now a network, of privately owned stations. We have merged and combined in a unique way the benefits of public ownership and private enterprise. But essentially and fundamentally this has been and still is a
Interim Supply
private enterprise economy. I want it to remain that way and I am sure the great majority of Canadian people want it to remain that way. This is not the time to discuss legislation which will be coming down within the next few days, but that is only one aspect of this matter.
We will watch the legislation with a very critical eye because we do not want to see this type of control, whether it is in the national economic development board which we brought forward, and the legislation for which was in committee when the house dissolved, or any other measure. The national economic development board was not designed to bring about a controlled economy; it would have provided indicative planning rather than controlled planning. The whole system of free enterprise is, I think, one which should be safeguarded in this country. It should be subject to the safeguards we now have and the modifications of the two systems which have prevailed throughout all our history and which are part of Canadian tradition and Canadian pride.
That is all I intend to say at the moment, Mr. Chairman. I know there will be questions and discussion later during the day and we will deal with the individual matters as they arise.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like first of all to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) on his appointment to such a high office in the Canadian government.
As many others of my colleagues, I have just heard a rather quick description of what took place during the last few years under the previous government. It is perhaps the general feeling in the house that our economy last year and the year before was quite sound, that public finances had been improved and that the country had emerged from its state of depression.
When we consider the present situation, not in this house, but in the various areas of the country, in the different ridings represented here, in the commercial firms, families, homes, then we notice that the economy is not so healthy after all.
In fact, I believe that certain people who deal with financial matters suffer from some sort of disease: they have figures in front of them and imagine that all is well, while actually, all is not so well.
Mr. Chairman, when we look at the estimates brought down at this time, we cannot help but notice one thing: from the financial,

Interim Supply
economic and budgetary points oi view, the country is presently experiencing a set-back, while it should be expanding. In fact, according to the estimates now before us, we see that we are going through a sharp recession, and I am going to explain why.
Mr. Chairman, when you add up the main and the supplementary estimates, you notice that the total of the estimates for the 1963-64 fiscal year is approximately $6,314,000,000, while last year it was $6,229,000,000, which is an increase of $85 million.
The estimates to be voted are therefore up by $85 million, but on the other hand, when you look at one single item in the estimates now before us, you notice an increase of a little more than $92 million for 1963-64, as compared with 1962-63. This increase of $92 million covers interest on the public debt, which means that if $92 million more are paid as interest, while we are asked to approve additional expenses amounting to $85 million, we are going to spend $7 million less on the administration of the country during the coming year.
This is therefore, to my way of thinking, a set-back in what the government intends to do during the coming year as compared with last year.
If we take a look at the total expenses provided for by the government, we notice that if an additional amount of a little more than $92 million is needed for interest during the current year, while last year the interest on the public debt amounted to $788 million, we shall have to pay $881 million this year.
This is where our present system has led us: our country is sinking deeper and deeper into debt each year and we have to increase the amount of money collected from the taxpayers to pay interest on our debt.
Mr. Chairman, I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) say the other day: we have cut off the 25-cent subsidy per hundred pounds of milk powder to save $6 million to the Canadian taxpayers.
But today, Mr. Chairman, it can be seen that $92 million are being added to the taxpayers' burden just to pay the interest on the debt, which will give him absolutely nothing. That will add neither to the progress nor to the wealth of the country; on the contrary, the country and the taxpayers will become the poorer.
[Mr. Gregoire.l
In my opinion, the outstanding feature of the estimates is this: a total increase of expenditures due to an increase of $92 million in the interest on the national debt, which means that the total amount spent on the country's business is down by $7 million. That is why I say that right now we are losing ground.
Mr. Chairman, I see a partial explanation for all that. First, I notice that in general, compared to last year, expenditures remain almost the same in all departments, except for a few increases.
I find that the government is becoming more and more a government of bureaucrats where there is a lot of paper work, telephone calls and telegrams. The biggest increase goes for telephones and telegrams; $45 million will be spent instead of $36 million.
On the other hand, the biggest decrease in all the estimates is found under "construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land"; this is the vote covering construction, perhaps, of buildings, post offices and others. As a matter of fact, I find that, last year, $325 million were allocated whereas at the present time the amount to be spent is set at $269 million for the coming year, which means a decrease of $56 million with regard to the construction of public buildings. That is the biggest decrease, whereas the biggest increase, excluding the interest on the debt, of course, is for telephones and telegrams.
I find also increases in the items for stationery, supplies, equipment and office furniture, as well as for materials and supplies.
But there is also another decrease, Mr. Chairman, and I was going to make the tremendous mistake of overlooking it-which is in fact one of the most important, apart from those mentioned in the item "construction, acquisition and buildings"; I am talking about the item respecting "contributions, allowances and subsidies", whether it is in the agricultural or in another field, when, last year, allowances, contributions and subsidies paid to help society at its various levels, amounted to $664 million. This year, it is intended to provide only $582 million, as far as that item is concerned, or a decrease of $82 million.
In the case of allowances, subsidies, contributions, etc., I note a decrease of $82 million; for the acquisition of buildings, a decrease of $56 million. On the other hand,

expenses for stationery, telephone calls, telegrams, and office furniture are higher.
Mr. Chairman, this proves but one thing: the present government intends to favour the inroads of bureaucracy and red tape, instead of directing the affairs of the country towards development and progress.
Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Finance tabled the estimates, the other day, he stated that they had been prepared by the previous administration because the present government had not had the time to make all necessary adjustments but that changes could be made as the estimates of the various departments were examined by the house.
My reason for bringing those figures and those examples to the attention of the minister this morning is to remind him of his statement that the estimates have been prepared by the previous government. My point is this. When the estimates of a particular department are before the house, then it will be possible to suggest changes as the Minister of Finance stated himself. We are in favour of certain adjustments. We hope that the minister will find time to make the necessary adjustments so that the house may take them into consideration when it examines departmental estimates.
Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the estimates of the Department of Finance reach $1,302 million, which includes interest amounting to $881 million-this is one of the largest items with the exception of the national defence item-I should like to make a suggestion to the minister and ask him to give it due consideration.
I have enough confidence in his ability as an accountant to feel sure that he will find a way to put my suggestion into effect.
1 suggest that the present federal administration should be financed anew, that is, the debt should be re-financed by the Bank of Canada. If he could find means of having that debt financed every year by the Bank of Canada, as he is doing this year, the Minister of Finance could save $881 million.
If the Bank of Canada re-finances the debt for the Minister of Finance, the latter will come to us with a big smile and say: "My friends, we have balanced the budget as we have been promising for several years and we have thus saved $881 million." And nobody 28902-5-33
Interim Supply
will ask him if that was accomplished thanks to a suggestion from a member of the Social Credit party.
Mr. Chairman, one wonders how it would be possible to re-finance the national debt in order to save $881 million in interest. We all know how desirable that would be, especially when it is realized that most of those $881 million go to the chartered banks which loaned the money in the first place without even having it on hand.
Now, we have heard a lot about agriculture since the beginning of this session, and we are told that eastern farmers are being neglected while those in the western provinces still have not got all they need.
I notice, as regards agricultural grants, that the sums granted by the Department of Agriculture come to a total of $171 million, which means that some $171 million are expended for the benefit of the farmers of our country, whereas $881 million are required to pay the interest on the country's debt.
When we take into consideration the
amount of money allocated to the C.B.C._______
and I wish to mention it now as the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) is with us- and which comes up to $87 million that is a bit more than half the amount granted the Department of Agriculture, we come to the conclusion that the farmers in this country do not get even twice as much as C.B.C.
The Secretary of State said a moment ago that for the sound administration of a corporation such as the C.B.C., qualified directors should be appointed and then we should rely on the president. Well, if those who are responsible for certain programs do not have enough judgment to make necessary changes from time to time, this means that the president of this corporation does not have any more judgment than the fellow he appointed to that position.
As the minister wanted to assume responsibility, he must learn that we are putting the full responsibility on his doorstep.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock? (Text):
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
['Mr. Chairman, I should like first of all to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) on his appointment to such a high office in the Canadian government.\nAs many others of my colleagues, I have just heard a rather quick description of what took place during the last few years under the previous government. It is perhaps the general feeling in the house that our economy last year and the year before was quite sound, that public finances had been improved and that the country had emerged from its state of depression.\nWhen we consider the present situation, not in this house, but in the various areas of the country, in the different ridings represented here, in the commercial firms, families, homes, then we notice that the economy is not so healthy after all.\nIn fact, I believe that certain people who deal with financial matters suffer from some sort of disease: they have figures in front of them and imagine that all is well, while actually, all is not so well.\nMr. Chairman, when we look at the estimates brought down at this time, we cannot help but notice one thing: from the financial,', 'Interim Supply\neconomic and budgetary points oi view, the country is presently experiencing a set-back, while it should be expanding. In fact, according to the estimates now before us, we see that we are going through a sharp recession, and I am going to explain why.\nMr. Chairman, when you add up the main and the supplementary estimates, you notice that the total of the estimates for the 1963-64 fiscal year is approximately $6,314,000,000, while last year it was $6,229,000,000, which is an increase of $85 million.\nThe estimates to be voted are therefore up by $85 million, but on the other hand, when you look at one single item in the estimates now before us, you notice an increase of a little more than $92 million for 1963-64, as compared with 1962-63. This increase of $92 million covers interest on the public debt, which means that if $92 million more are paid as interest, while we are asked to approve additional expenses amounting to $85 million, we are going to spend $7 million less on the administration of the country during the coming year.\nThis is therefore, to my way of thinking, a set-back in what the government intends to do during the coming year as compared with last year.\nIf we take a look at the total expenses provided for by the government, we notice that if an additional amount of a little more than $92 million is needed for interest during the current year, while last year the interest on the public debt amounted to $788 million, we shall have to pay $881 million this year.\nThis is where our present system has led us: our country is sinking deeper and deeper into debt each year and we have to increase the amount of money collected from the taxpayers to pay interest on our debt.\nMr. Chairman, I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) say the other day: we have cut off the 25-cent subsidy per hundred pounds of milk powder to save $6 million to the Canadian taxpayers.\nBut today, Mr. Chairman, it can be seen that $92 million are being added to the taxpayers\' burden just to pay the interest on the debt, which will give him absolutely nothing. That will add neither to the progress nor to the wealth of the country; on the contrary, the country and the taxpayers will become the poorer.\n[Mr. Gregoire.l\nIn my opinion, the outstanding feature of the estimates is this: a total increase of expenditures due to an increase of $92 million in the interest on the national debt, which means that the total amount spent on the country\'s business is down by $7 million. That is why I say that right now we are losing ground.\nMr. Chairman, I see a partial explanation for all that. First, I notice that in general, compared to last year, expenditures remain almost the same in all departments, except for a few increases.\nI find that the government is becoming more and more a government of bureaucrats where there is a lot of paper work, telephone calls and telegrams. The biggest increase goes for telephones and telegrams; $45 million will be spent instead of $36 million.\nOn the other hand, the biggest decrease in all the estimates is found under "construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land"; this is the vote covering construction, perhaps, of buildings, post offices and others. As a matter of fact, I find that, last year, $325 million were allocated whereas at the present time the amount to be spent is set at $269 million for the coming year, which means a decrease of $56 million with regard to the construction of public buildings. That is the biggest decrease, whereas the biggest increase, excluding the interest on the debt, of course, is for telephones and telegrams.\nI find also increases in the items for stationery, supplies, equipment and office furniture, as well as for materials and supplies.\nBut there is also another decrease, Mr. Chairman, and I was going to make the tremendous mistake of overlooking it-which is in fact one of the most important, apart from those mentioned in the item "construction, acquisition and buildings"; I am talking about the item respecting "contributions, allowances and subsidies", whether it is in the agricultural or in another field, when, last year, allowances, contributions and subsidies paid to help society at its various levels, amounted to $664 million. This year, it is intended to provide only $582 million, as far as that item is concerned, or a decrease of $82 million.\nIn the case of allowances, subsidies, contributions, etc., I note a decrease of $82 million; for the acquisition of buildings, a decrease of $56 million. On the other hand,\n\nexpenses for stationery, telephone calls, telegrams, and office furniture are higher.\nMr. Chairman, this proves but one thing: the present government intends to favour the inroads of bureaucracy and red tape, instead of directing the affairs of the country towards development and progress.\nMr. Chairman, when the Minister of Finance tabled the estimates, the other day, he stated that they had been prepared by the previous administration because the present government had not had the time to make all necessary adjustments but that changes could be made as the estimates of the various departments were examined by the house.\nMy reason for bringing those figures and those examples to the attention of the minister this morning is to remind him of his statement that the estimates have been prepared by the previous government. My point is this. When the estimates of a particular department are before the house, then it will be possible to suggest changes as the Minister of Finance stated himself. We are in favour of certain adjustments. We hope that the minister will find time to make the necessary adjustments so that the house may take them into consideration when it examines departmental estimates.\nMr. Chairman, inasmuch as the estimates of the Department of Finance reach $1,302 million, which includes interest amounting to $881 million-this is one of the largest items with the exception of the national defence item-I should like to make a suggestion to the minister and ask him to give it due consideration.\nI have enough confidence in his ability as an accountant to feel sure that he will find a way to put my suggestion into effect.\n1 suggest that the present federal administration should be financed anew, that is, the debt should be re-financed by the Bank of Canada. If he could find means of having that debt financed every year by the Bank of Canada, as he is doing this year, the Minister of Finance could save $881 million.\nIf the Bank of Canada re-finances the debt for the Minister of Finance, the latter will come to us with a big smile and say: "My friends, we have balanced the budget as we have been promising for several years and we have thus saved $881 million." And nobody 28902-5-33\nInterim Supply\nwill ask him if that was accomplished thanks to a suggestion from a member of the Social Credit party.\nMr. Chairman, one wonders how it would be possible to re-finance the national debt in order to save $881 million in interest. We all know how desirable that would be, especially when it is realized that most of those $881 million go to the chartered banks which loaned the money in the first place without even having it on hand.\nNow, we have heard a lot about agriculture since the beginning of this session, and we are told that eastern farmers are being neglected while those in the western provinces still have not got all they need.\nI notice, as regards agricultural grants, that the sums granted by the Department of Agriculture come to a total of $171 million, which means that some $171 million are expended for the benefit of the farmers of our country, whereas $881 million are required to pay the interest on the country\'s debt.\nWhen we take into consideration the\namount of money allocated to the C.B.C._______\nand I wish to mention it now as the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) is with us- and which comes up to $87 million that is a bit more than half the amount granted the Department of Agriculture, we come to the conclusion that the farmers in this country do not get even twice as much as C.B.C.\nThe Secretary of State said a moment ago that for the sound administration of a corporation such as the C.B.C., qualified directors should be appointed and then we should rely on the president. Well, if those who are responsible for certain programs do not have enough judgment to make necessary changes from time to time, this means that the president of this corporation does not have any more judgment than the fellow he appointed to that position.\nAs the minister wanted to assume responsibility, he must learn that we are putting the full responsibility on his doorstep.\nMr. Chairman, may I call it one o\'clock? (Text):\nAt one o\'clock the committee took recess.']
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, this morning figures taken from the estimates brought

Interim Supply
forward this week by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) enabled me to show that one item puts an especially heavy burden on the budget. I refer to debt charges, or the sum that the Minister of Finance has to spend each year to pay, not the debt itself, but interest on the country's debt, that is $881 million. It should be understood that we do not wish merely to criticize. Above all, we have suggestions to make to the Minister of Finance. I was saying this morning that, in my opinion, the Minister of Finance could rid himself of that budget deficit by having Canada's debt re-financed by the Bank of Canada.
Obviously, if the debt is of about $14 billion and each year there is outstanding interest of $881 million that has got to be paid. On the other hand, if somebody buys government bonds, through a chartered bank, saving bonds, treasury bills, he expects to be paid back, which seems perfectly normal to me. So, I feel it is up to the Bank of Canada to re-finance the debt, and here is how.
Today, we realize that for each $100 of credit in circulation in Canada, there is a real backing of only $8. So if we were to give a real backing to the remaining 92 per cent of the money supply in circulation, the Bank of Canada would have to create new credit equivalent to 92 per cent of the money supply, in order to give the money supply a real backing of 100 per cent.
You might object that increasing the money in circulation by 92 per cent would create inflation. The point is not to put more of it in circulation but simply to give a solid basis or backing to the credit already in circulation. In other words, when a chartered bank makes loans for $100, there is only $8 in the legal reserve or on deposit. If the Bank of Canada created new credit for 92 per cent in loans, it is with that new credit that it would buy back those bonds and that the Canadian debt would be re-financed. That new credit would not go into circulation, would not go back into the hands of the public but would simply act as a cover, as a 100 per cent legal reserve. It would be added in the bank safes and vaults to the other 8 per cent the banks keep at present. That money would not go into circulation. It would serve as a cover, since at present the law provides for an 8 per cent legal cover.
[Mr. Gregolre.l
Let us amend the act to provide for a 100 per cent legal cover and the 92 per cent of new credit affected to the payment of the debt would be returned to the vaults of our chartered banks, and that would give our total currency in circulation a legal cover of 100 per cent.
In fact, it would be a simple monetary transaction, just like the transactions which take place now when the government borrows from a chartered bank. When the government borrows money, it is just a matter of a book entry. The reconversion of the public debt, which would be accompanied by an amendment of the act so as to compel the banks to keep a 100 per cent legal cover, it would amount to a mere accounting operation, which would not increase the volume of money in circulation at this time.
At that time, we will be able to say that the banks no longer lend what they have not, but only what they have. This is quite simple, Mr. Chairman, and I trust that if the Minister of Finance wants to take the trouble of analysing the full implication of such a suggestion he will realize that it is possible, and even to his advantage, to free himself of the interest charges he is now paying and, in so doing, to refinance the basis of the federal administration through the Bank of Canada, according to our suggestion today.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks, there is a subject I would like to mention and which I find very relevant in this discussion of the estimates. Later on a budget will be submitted which will show us how that money is to be levied. It would be well for the Minister of Finance to keep in mind the fact that, as from April 1, 1964, the ultimatum delivered by the province of Quebec demands-an ultimatum always demands- the return to the province of 25 per cent of the personal income tax, 25 per cent of the corporation income tax and 100 per cent of succession duties. If the province of Quebec receives those sources of revenue, we must expect that the other provinces will demand the same, which is, indeed, perfectly normal. So the present Minister of Finance should keep in mind that, as from April 1, 1964, there will be several hundred million dollars upon which he will not be able to rely to balance his budget.
He should think about it right now, because there are only ten months left, as the date

mentioned is the 31st of March 1964. On the other hand, we think that the terms of that ultimatum can be met, and very easily too, because we should not forget that, while claiming those sources of revenue, the province of Quebec wants, at the same time, the federal government to retire from joint programs in fields which are under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
During the general election, the party now in power mentioned a total of 10,000 scholarships for students. I am very pleased to note that this program was not included in the speech from the throne as scholarships, as well as all matters relating to the education field, do not come under the federal jurisdiction but come under the provincial jurisdiction.
The speech from the throne indicates a plan of municipal loans. Grants are equally mentioned. In my opinion, grants do not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, but I think that the government should take steps in order that the Bank of Canada may grant loans to municipalities. This would be easily acceptable and practical since the Bank of Canada is not the bank of the central government only but of the provincial governments as well.
The province wants the federal government to withdraw from certain fields such as highways, hospitalization and education. Now, in delivering an ultimatum and in demanding its sources of revenue, the provincial government gives at the same time to the federal government the opportunity to withdraw from fields where it incurs expenses.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious ultimatum. At the beginning of the session I was wondering if they were serious, especially when on the very first day of the session I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) if they were aware of the ultimatum and we got the impression then that they had never heard about it.
In addition, I wondered whether the premier of the province of Quebec was serious when he served his ultimatum and whether he might have forgotten to send it to those it was intended for. On the other hand, the premier of Quebec was not the only one to send an ultimatum, several members of the cabinet did the same, together with many 28902-5-33J
Interim Supply
members from both parties in the legislative assembly of Quebec, and I believe that the province of Quebec today is expecting and will demand that the federal government return 25 per cent of her sources of income by April 1, 1964 and a larger percentage in the years to come until they are entirely returned to her.
Mr. Chairman, if I raise this matter when we are discussing supply, it is because in my opinion it is imperative that the Minister of Finance, when he hands down his estimates next year, should realize that he will not be able to rely on those sources of income because the provinces want them back right now and he has only ten months to consider the matter and find means to return to the provinces those sources of income. Therefore, now is the time to discuss this problem.
Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that at the present time there is an upheaval in the province of Quebec which is justified to some extent if not to a large extent. The first claim of French Canadians is the return to the province of her sources of income because they want to be able within the ambit of government administration to govern themselves, to decide by themselves where they are going and what their aims will be according to their own culture and ideals.


An hon. Member:: That goes for Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: It goes for Quebec but let us not forget that confederation is comprised of 10 provinces and that when one province accepted to join the others in a confederation, it was understood that the direct taxation field would be allocated to the provinces. As the central government deprived the provinces of their direct taxes, we readily understand why they refuse to accept the situation and require the return of what belongs to them by right under the terms of confederation. And it is only when all provinces have recovered their rights that we will be able to say that we have returned to the spirit of confederation.
Mr. Chairman, we consider this ultimatum as serious and we ask the present administration to do the same because it is the main claim of French Canadians in confederation.
As for us, we cannot but accept the interim supply bill. No other such bill will be submitted before the end of July because the money provided under this one will last until then.

Interim Supply
We hope that the government will consider some of the comments we made in order that it may during the detailed consideration of departmental estimates make changes, for instance under public works, under farm assistance or in the fields where changes are most needed, and I mean as far as the basic social cell of our country is concerned, the individual and the family, so that we may see in the budget increased family allowances, old age pensions and farm assistance, together with a large program of public works to put our unemployed back on the job.
(Text):


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, we in this group believe the major problems facing Canada today are economic. Canadians need work and Canada's economy needs to grow at a steady rate. We believe that to achieve this the government must play an increasing role in assuring these objectives. We welcome the statements by government ministers that they intend to participate in a good deal more planning than governments have in the past.
I must say, however, that the people of Winnipeg are bitterly disappointed in the statements which have been made by the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister with regard to the projected move of the repair shops of T.C.A. from Winnipeg to Montreal. During the election campaign we had a good deal of what I might call political auctioneering in Winnipeg on this issue. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, then the minister of veterans affairs, got a commitment from the cabinet at that time that a cabinet committee would be set up to study the whole question.
The Liberal candidates were certainly not remiss in protesting the move to Montreal. The hon. member for St. Boniface, now Minister of Veterans Affairs, made it clear that he opposed the move from Winnipeg to Montreal. The candidate for Winnipeg South, now the member, pledged to work against the removal of the T.C.A. operation from Winnipeg. The candidate for Winnipeg South Centre, Dr. Douglas, capped it all. He obtained a wire from the leader of the Liberal party, now the Prime Minister, dated March 30 in which the Prime Minister said:
The Liberal party is committed to a policy of -decentralized, regional industrial and economic development. This policy requires the growth of strong regional air centres in Canada. The Liberal party believes that it is in the national interest

that Winnipeg should be such a centre and that T.C.A. operations should contribute to this end. A clear statement of policy must now be made to end years of government evasion and indecision with respect to this matter. It is not enough on the eve of an election to vote merely for another study to be made. A new Liberal government will immediately clarify the position of T.C.A. in the light of the full facts-facts which up to now the government has obscured or suppressed. The proper location of T C.A.'s facilities and services will be determined in a manner which will be fair and equitable to the city of Winnipeg.
L.B. Pearson.
Then, the Liberal candidate added this:
This commitment will be honoured by the new Liberal government and assures that T.C.A. will continue in Winnipeg.
The statement continues ad nauseam. The Winnipeg Free Press, than which there could be no more partisan Liberal with a large "1" and Conservative with both a small and large "c", had an editorial on March 4, 1963, headed "commitment". I quote:
The commitment given last week by Mr. Pearson on what a Liberal government at Ottawa will do about T.C.A.'s maintenance and overhaul base in Winnipeg is the best news T.C.A. employees have had for some time.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, what the Free Press is going to write this week, after the statement by the Minister of Transport that the decision to move the base would be continued by this government. It is a sad tale to be told to the people of Winnipeg. The Prime Minister, of course, has said we will have a statement soon. How does soon compare with "immediate"? I will leave that to the Prime Minister and the people of Winnipeg.
My purpose in rising today is to raise an issue which we in this group think is becoming increasingly important. I refer to the issue of the threat to the democratic rights of the people of Canada, the right to express themselves, whether it be on radio, T.V. or in the press or through organizations and voluntary societies and to promote every objective which they believe to be legitimate. We look with a great deal of concern, and that is putting it mildly, to the increasing and unwarranted interference in the rights of people who belong to organizations to say what they want to say, without surveillance of those organizations and of the people by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
We recognize the tremendous value of the work done by the R.C.M.P. as a police force across Canada, but we believe that in the

field of security the R.C.M.P. has been ineffective and has in fact harmed the democratic rights of many Canadians. I do not think the R.C.M.P. is entirely to blame for this. I think parliament is to blame in that in the past parliaments have refused to lay down the broad principles under which the R.C.M.P. are to work in the field of security. To that extent it is parliament that is responsible.
The complaints which have been made frequently and from many sources have been dismissed by the R.C.M.P. and their defenders and the various ministers of justice, and it seems to me from reading old Hansards that the more ministers of justice change the more they are the same, because as they change and take their portfolios they seem to be very well briefed by the R.C.M.P., so that whatever the R.C.M.P. does becomes right and proper. We in this group and many people who are not supporters of this political party disagree entirely with this kind of thinking.
The complaints which have been made have not been complaints of crackpots, have not been complaints of communists. Complaints have come from newspapers like the Liberal Vancouver Sun and the Liberal Toronto Star, from the trade unions and from academic circles. When the leader of this group rose on May 17 and suggested the appointment of a committee of the house to investigate the whole matter of the activities of the R.C.M.P., we were bitterly disappointed to learn that the government, and I take the word of the Minister of Justice who unfortunately is not in his seat, was not giving consideration to the appointment of such a committee. We were bitterly disappointed that this government, so heavily loaded with former professors, would so quickly ignore the requests and suggestions of organizations, and Canadian university professors, that such an inquiry and investigation be held.
If one looks through Hansard at the cases that have been raised in other years, if one looks at the representations that have been made to this government and the former government, if one looks at the articles that have appeared in newspapers and magazines, he can readily realize why people are so disturbed. Professor Lower, one of Canada's leading historians and a Liberal, I am told- I know with a small "1" but I am also told a Liberal with a big "L"-said in an article in Maclean's magazine as long ago as July, 1957, the title of which was "Is The R.C.M.P. A Threat To Liberty":
Here is a responsible branch collecting any and all types of hearsay and rumour from unidentified subsources, in other words, tittletattle passed on by irresponsible gossiping, and handing it over to the American secret police, whence it later turns up in congressional committees which, whatever their purpose, publicize it throughout the world.
Interim Supply
It is a well known and established fact that the R.C.M.P. sent a report to Washington in 1950 which informed the United States security agencies that it had received reports that Mr. Herbert Norman was a member of the Canadian communist party. It is true that later the R.C.M.P. informed the United States agencies that it had been a case of mistaken identity. I do not have to tell members of the house that by then the damage had been done. As so frequently happens in the United States, the charge was leaked to a congressional committee, with the tragic consequence of the suicide of Mr. Norman.
Professor Morton, head of the history department at the University of Manitoba and a Conservative by politics, had some extremely scathing things to say about the R.C.M.P. and its activities last year. In February of 1962 the Canadian association of university teachers asked the then minister of justice to discuss, and I quote from the letter to him, "the question of alleged R.C.M.P. activity at Canadian universities and colleges." On April 27, 1962 they sent a further letter to the then minister, and I quote again"
We have a special interest in (1) your department's general philosophy and policy concerning security in the university communities and (2) the techniques employed by the R C.M.P. in investigating members of the university communities in Canada.
A series of detailed questions was submitted to the minister, but as usual the minister indicated to them that it would be impossible to answer these questions because of security reasons. So the secrecy continues. Members know that no meeting was ever held. I understand that a request for such a meeting has gone to the present Minister of Justice and I hope he will not take as long to arrange a meeting as the former two ministers of justice did.
So concerned and upset are members of the Canadian association of university teachers that a motion has been proposed which I understand will be discussed and voted on at their June meeting. It reads as follows:
The Canadian association of university teachers expresses its disapproval of questions concerning the political or religious beliefs, activities or associations of students or colleagues. Members of the association are advised not to answer such questions even when they are part of the security investigation of persons seeking government employment.
Should this resolution pass, Mr. Chairman, and should members of the Canadian association of university teachers follow the intent of the resolution, we will have a situation in Canada where the university faculties will refuse to co-operate with the police in what may be very important investigations. The blame will not be that of the university staffs; the blame will fall on the government

Interim Supply
for their refusal to discuss with parliament or with responsible citizens, and in a free and democratic manner, the work of the security division of the R.C.M.P.
On January 21, 1963 the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of justice replied to a question put to him by the former member for Vancouver-Burrard. The text of the questions and answers is to be found on page 2920 of Hansard and reads as follows:
1.	Are members of the R.C.M.P. engaged In interviewing students and faculty members at Canadian universities about the political views and political activities of other students and faculty members-
2.	What government departments and officials have access to reports made by the R.C.M.P. in this connection?
3.	Are private persons and corporations supplied with any of the information obtained by the R.C.M P., or do they have access to any of the reports made by the R.C.M.P. in connection with these investigations and, if so, under what conditions?
This was the answer:
1. Members of the R.C.M.P. are not engaged in interviewing students and faculty members at Canadian universities about the political views and political activities of other students and faculty members.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a joke.


David Orlikow: Surely, Mr. Chairman, this reply did not square with the information discussed by the house in previous years, such as the affair at Laval University where students active in the nuclear disarmament club were questioned and attempts were made by R.C.M.P. officials to recruit students to spy on other students. This was documented in the French press at the time and I can bring that documentation here. I am sure the Lamb case in Winnipeg is well remembered by some hon. members of the house. In that incident a school student who had written a satirical letter to the newspapers was interrogated for a long time by R.C.M.P. officers, so much so that when it was brought to the attention of the minister of justice he apologized to the boy's family for the activities of the R.C.M.P.
Some of us thought we had made a new start as a result of the answers given to the questions which I quoted, but then Commissioner Harvison gave an interview to Mr. Roger McAfee, president of the Canadian University Press, which appeared in the University of Alberta publication Gateway on March 27, 1963, headed "Harvison defends investigation." In it he is quoted as follows:
University students are naturally curious. At this age one finds a great deal of idealism and a strong sense of social morality. There are certain abuses in our system which the student may think communism will cure, if he gets only one side of the picture.

I wonder where he thought they would only get one side of the picture? Is it at the University of Alberta? I did not know there were that many communists in Alberta, or on the staff of the university. Further on in the interview the commissioner said:
We are interested in all types of personal behavior, political or not, which would indicate that he is, or is not, a person who can be properly employed by a government under sensitive circumstances.
Once all possible inquiries have been made, the matter is reported to headquarters in Ottawa. The information on an individual is analysed by men with up to 30 and more years experience in this field.
This results in a factual and evaluated report being sent to the department of government concerned. It is the responsibility of that department to decide whether, on the facts presented, a person is suited to the type of employment involved.
Let me point out what the commissioner is saying. The department concerned gets from the R.C.M.P. only that information which the R.C.M.P. want to send along, and on that basis the department is expected to make a reasonable judgment on the suitability or otherwise of the proposed applicant. If I ever heard of a kangaroo court, that is what Commissioner Harvison is talking about, and that is all you can call it. Let me continue with some more gems from this interview:
Canada is a partner in collective defence pacts, such as NATO. In such arrangements, defence secrets of all countries are pooled and each member has access to all of them. Hence, a security leak in Canada could disclose the secret defence plans of every other member of the alliance.
Mr. Chairman, is the commissioner suggesting that Canada or any other member of NATO has all the military secrets of the United States? What nonsense, what poppycock. Further in the interview the commissioner said:
It is the job of the R.C.M.P. to know where subversion is, and attack espionage wherever it is found. If we think it is found on the university campuses we have to go there.
Some of the criticism comes from people who have a genuine interest in political freedom and who feel inquiries by the R.C.M.P. infringe on this freedom.
Some of the criticism arises from the fact that the communist party itself is very interested in promoting anti anti-communist feelings.
Indeed, the international communist conference in Prague last summer was key-noted by a speech on how to fight anti-communism from William Kashtan, a very prominent Canadian communist, in fact, a member of the national committee.
It was only a short time after his return that we began to see increased criticism aimed at the R.C.M.P.
The only inference I can draw from this assertion is that the criticism of this group, and I assume the criticism of this group, association of university teachers, and the criticisms in this article were inspired by communists. I want to refute that and say

it is unworthy of anybody, and certainly of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.
One more paragraph from the interview reads as follows:
I would suggest, however, that it is only those who have made a careful study of this problem, such as the various security services, that can differentiate between the radical or dissenter and the conspirator.
Mr. Chairman, I have been called a radical. I certainly am a dissenter, and I reject completely the suggestion that Commissioner Harvison or anybody else in the R.C.M.P. can decide whether I am a dissenter, a radical, or in fact a conspirator. If anybody is a conspirator, the place to prove that is not in the kangaroo courts of the R.C.M.P. but in the judicial courts of Canada.
It is time the government faced up to its responsibilities in this matter. It is clear from this interview I have quoted that the R.C.M.P. does make investigations, does evaluate the information it gets, does make judgments, does pass on the information to other departments and does pass on information to United States government agencies, all of which only see what the R.C.M.P. sends them.
I think this parliament has a right to ask who is making policy on these matters. Is it the elected representatives of the country, who apparently spoke through the parliamentary secretary in the last parliament when he said the investigations were not being made, or is it the R.C.M.P.? It seems to me this question strikes at the very heart of our democratic system.
Incidentally this interview of Commissioner Harvison brought a very violent reaction from 26 members of the staff of the University of Alberta. A list is appended to the article of those who took violent exception to the police activities in this connection. I do not have time to quote their names today, but hon. members will find the list very interesting.
Maclean's magazine is a very respectable, influential and thorough magazine, and one which we ought to look at very seriously, even though it supported the Liberal party in the last election. It carried a long article by Sidney Katz entitled "Inside Canada's secret police," and an editorial, in its issue of April 20, 1963. I believe Maclean's is a reputable magazine and when it publishes an article it deserves the consideration of the public of Canada, of parliament, and of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. Yet, after having read the article here is what the commissioner said in a letter which he sent to Mr. Katz, incidentally a letter which he released to the press before he sent it to Mr. Katz. I think the commissioner should take a look at
Interim Supply
his public relations and his ethics before he does that again. He said:
It is a matter of deep regret that my acceptance of your proposal has led to the publication of such an article as "Inside Canada's secret police". That article contains so many errors, untruths and half truths that some comment from me seems necessary.
Then he goes on to ignore nearly all the charges in the article, and I would like to read a few of the charges which Mr. Katz made. After quoting the statement of the parliamentary secretary, which I have read out, that investigations were not being made, Mr. Katz said:
The most recent was at Huntington college, in Sudbury, on February 22, 1963, 32 days after Mr. Bell's unequivocal denial.
Let me quote from the statement made by Dr. Newbery of that college. The R.C.M.P. officer questioned Dr. Newbery about the Canadian peace research institute, particularly about "any communist tendencies" in that organization. The article adds:
He questioned Dr. Newbery about "any communist tendencies" among the staff or student body of Huntington college.
Mr. Chairman, if I may digress for a moment, I think if the R.C.M.P. believe that the Canadian peace research institute is communist in any way, shape or form, then they know absolutely nothing about Canadian political life or about security. How anybody, let alone the kind of people the R.C.M.P. hires, with a grade 10 education could evaluate what communist tendencies are, I certainly do not know and neither does the R.C.M.P. Let me quote further.
The voice of women, a national organization opposed to nuclear weapons, whose honorary members include Mrs. John Labatt and Senator Muriel Fergusson, has complained that R.C.M.P. surveillance and hints of subversion have discouraged many people from joining their movement. Officials of the combined university campaign for nuclear disarmament, a student movement, are also alarmed.
I do not know whether it had anything to do with Mrs. Pearson retiring from that organization. It may have.
Last April, CUCND student members staged a peaceful demonstration in front of the parliament buildings in Regina. S & I agents obtained the names of some of the demonstrators. One was a young man living in Yorkton. Two days later, two R.C.M.P. plain clothesmen visited the lad's father and suggested that his son withdraw from CUCND. "It will get him in trouble", the father was told.
What right have any R.C.M.P. officers to suggest to anybody that they should get into or out of any organization? The article continues:
Then minister of justice Fulton later apologized for this unwarranted intrusion. "The R.C.M.P. went beyond their responsibility", he said.

Interim Supply
I have already talked about the Lamb case in Winnipeg. Let me continue with this article:


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if he has ever read Pickersgill's book.


David Orlikow: I wonder if Pickersgill has ever read it. I quote further from the article:
In April, 1962 at Laval University, two students- Miss Helene Senecal, the daughter of a Montreal lawyer, and Edward Smith, a social work student whose home is in Lynn, Mass.-edited a special section of the university newspaper, Le Carabin, in support of IVCND, the student ban-the-bomb movement. Miss Jacqueline Cyr, another student who was a friend of the two editors, was approached by a man called Plourde. He said that he was an S & I agent, investigating communism on the campus. Would Miss Cyr give him information about Miss Senecal and Smith and keep him posted on the activities of IVCND? Miss Cyr indignantly refused and told her two friends. They immediately visited the local R.C.M.P. offices and confirmed the fact that they were being investigated. Referring to the approach made to Miss Cyr, the R.C.M.P. officer said, "Next time, we'll try and find someone more reliable than Cyr."
That is a very commendable attitude on the part, not of the police in Canada but of the kind of police they had in nazi Germany or that they have in soviet Russia today. I would now like to quote another passage from this article:
There's the case of a mild and gentle 74 year old widow now living in Regina. Each year for the past twenty she's been visited by an R.C.M.P. security officer. The widow is a "Christian pacifist" by political and moral persuasion. No suggestion has ever been made that she's a communist or a dangerous character. "Each visit, the R.C.M.P. man asks me about my political views and about the books I've been reading", she says. "He seems to be embarrassed by the whole business". Last year, the questioning took a more sinister turn. The mountie asked her about the possible communist affiliations of a member of the Saskatchewan cabinet who was a long-time friend of the widow's late husband.
The commissioner has denied that there is such a case, although the leader of the New Democratic party has stated publicly that he knows this case and that he is prepared to bring this woman before a committee if such a committee should be established. I quote another case from Maclean's-


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I must inform him that his time has expired.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have another two minutes in order to finish.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that the hon. gentleman have additional time to finish?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Two minutes.


David Orlikow: I could go on listing case after case, Mr. Chairman, but I just want to sum up my remarks. We believe that the R.C.M.P. should not go out on fishing expeditions in the universities or any organization they may believe may harbour communists. They should only investigate when they have reasonable evidence that a subversive act has been committed. They should not be censors, as they were in the Lamb case. People are being harmed by the R.C.M.P. investigations. Where the information gathered may


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: They are not.


David Orlikow: Somebody says, "They are not". 1 ask the hon. member to think of the Norman case and say that Mr. Norman was not harmed by the R.C.M.P. investigation, which was passed along to the F.B.I. Where the information gathered is used by the R.C.M.P. and is given to another agency, government, private or anything else, the person involved has the right, I would assume, under the British system of justice, to be given an opportunity first to clear himself before the information is passed on. Surely that is an elementary right under our system of justice. We believe that this cannot be done by the R.C.M.P. and that probably another separate agency is required.
The questions I have raised are important. They need to be discussed. They can only be discussed by a parliamentary committee which would hear representations from the R.C.M.P., the Canadian association of university teachers, civil liberties groups, and organizations like the voice of women. It would hear from the editors of Maclean's, which magazine made a detailed survey of the whole question, who have offered to appear before such a committee. We hope the government will appoint such a committee. We believe it is long overdue.
I want to close my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by promising the Minister of Justice-although he is not in his seat at the moment-[DOT] that unless such a committee is set up, when this item is reached in his estimates we in this group guarantee that he will have a long, intensive period of questioning. Our questions will go on for a long, long time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, as I did not take part in the previous debate I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating you upon your appointment as Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you, sir, will be kind enough to convey to our new Speaker my congratulations on being appointed to his high office in this house.
Before I begin my introductory remarks, I was rather interested in listening to the last

speaker and I would like to say this as a member of the House of Commons. In my experience I have had a great deal of association with the R.C.M.P. and I think I can safely say-and I am sure most Canadians would agree with me-that they are one of the finest administrative police forces anywhere in the world. I say this because of the attack made on them this afternoon.
We are fortunate that we have in the House of Commons a former member of that force, the hon. member for Athabasca. If it is necessary for the R.C.M.P. or any other administrative officers in our democracy to hunt down and seek out communists in this country, provided they do it according to the law, because after all we are governed according to the rule of the law-


An hon. Member:: That is the point.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -then I hope they find them and seek them out wherever they are, whether they be in our universities, in our places of business or in our schools, because I say the most dangerous thing to any democracy is communism within its midst. They are our most dangerous enemies. We know that on the other side of the iron curtain there are communists, but if we have these people in our institutions, and important institutions like our universities, or in our schools, then we must have an administrative branch of officers seeking them out and finding them wherever they happen to be.


An hon. Member:: Are there any there?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know. The hon. member asked me if there are any there. I am not an administrative police officer. But he has a lot of data and if he has information, I suggest it be made public as is his duty as a Canadian; because not so long ago there was a communist in this house-he was a member of this house and he disappeared behind the iron curtain.
I would also like to congratulate the new Minister of Finance on his appointment to that office to take care of the economy of our country. We have heard of his work on commissions, and I understand he is a distinguished author. The other day I heard him answer a question by saying it was dangerous to interrogate a minister of finance or any other member of the treasury benches about the value of the dollar, because such questions were likely to shake confidence in the dollar not only inside Canada but outside Canada. I was amused to find the minister recommending that the dollar be pegged at a level near the level at which the previous government had pegged it. In the hon. gentleman's own book, "Troubled Canada" he had this to say as appears on page 103-but before I read it let me say that many of us on this side of 28902-5-34
Interim Supply
the house agree with the hon. gentleman with regard to many of these things. I only wish the previous minister of finance, Mr. Donald Fleming, had been in his seat on that occasion, when the Minister of Finance said we should not criticize the dollar or discuss its valuation because that would upset confidence in the dollar. This is what the hon. gentleman had to say in his book:
Since the primary purpose of government policy in the domestic field now must be greater economic growth and a high level of employment, financial, monetary and fiscal policies should be directed to reducing the spread between interest rates in Canada and elsewhere, particularly in the United States; to reducing the inflow of foreign capital and then to maintaining the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar at some appropriate discount below par.
I should like to read that last sentence again because I wish to found my argument upon it.
-to maintaining the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar at some appropriate discount below par.
I say that when the Conservative government was defeated this defeat did not take place in the last election. It took place in the election of June, 1962, because it was the song of the Liberal party at that time- I am not saying the present Minister of Finance joined in singing it-that the pegging of the dollar at 92 cents would bring nothing but disaster to Canada. It was the tune which went out on television from all the metropolitan centres. The leader of the opposition, as he was at that time, went from coast to coast saying this action by the government would mean a higher cost of living for all Canadians and less revenue to all the primary producers of this country. That was the song the Liberal party sung to the people, not in the last election but in the previous election, as a result of which the Conservative party was reduced to forming a minority government. The present Prime Minister, speaking as leader of the opposition in the previous parliament, pursued the same theme when he spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I say he carried that tune across Canada. That was the cry of the campaign of June, 1961, which effectively brought the Conservative party down.
There were 208 Conservative members of parliament in the House of Commons prior to that election and it was this song which brought about the downfall of the Conservative party, because members opposite and their supporters told the Canadian voters that because the dollar had been pegged at 92.50 cents-as recommended now by the Minister of Finance in his book "Troubled Canada" both our consumers and our manufacturers would suffer great hardship. That was the

Interim Supply
tune which brought about such a deterioration in the confidence of the Canadian people in their government in the days and weeks prior to the election before last, as a result of which we had a minority government. I say this was the election which brought about the downfall of that particular government. I say to this house: that was the greatest deceit ever perpetrated on the Canadian people by any political party.


An hon. Member:: Worse than the Pacific scandal?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member talks about the Pacific scandal. He knows more about scandals than I do. I know he is attached to the Toronto Telegram and I leave him to read some of the pages of the Toronto Telegram.
Now, if hon. members do not mind, I would like to discuss, on a regional basis, a problem which affects Alberta, and specifically the promised penitentiary and the training centre near the city of Drumheller whose construction was under consideration. I want to discuss this question on the basis, first of all, of the effect these projects would have on unemployment and, second, in terms of their value in the treatment of young offenders. At one time in the Drumheller valley, in 1950, to be precise, there were 26 mines in operation. By 1962 there were six in operation. In 1950, following the war, at least 1,860 people were employed in the mines. By 1963, that number had dropped to 187. Hon. members may ask: what happened in that community? Well, this is a coal valley in which they mine domestic fuel used to heat homes on farms and in urban centres on the prairies. When that industry got into competition with the petroleum and the natural gas industry, it found itself in serious difficulty. The committee may recall that when the Gordon commission investigated the supply of natural gas in Alberta it found there were 27.3 trillion cubic feet of gas in known reserve and approximately 30 trillion cubic feet which would be available in the foreseeable future. Consumption was estimated at ten billion cubic feet a year. This is the industry which is competing with the coal industry in Alberta, and this is why employment in that industry declined from 1,860 to 187.
For five years, ever since I have been a member of this house, I have brought this problem to the attention of the House of Commons. I have drawn it to the attention of this committee on occasions, asking that the government do something about it, because those men in the Drumheller valley are men who were left there after the war. During the war there was a demand for coal and

the former Liberal administration brought these men to the valley. As I have explained, the market deteriorated because of the competition from natural gas, and the men were left there. In 1957 and 1958, when I first campaigned in the Bow River riding, I went to see them. People talk about Alberta being the wealthiest province in Canada. Well, I invite the leader of the Social Credit party to take a trip to East Coulee and other towns in that neighbourhood. He will find there the worst poverty that there is to be found anywhere in Canada. However, maybe the hon. member has other duties which will keep him busy.
When this problem was placed before the Conservative government they took a sympathetic view of it. Two projects were selected for that area-a technical training school to cost $1,700,000, and a penitentiary for young offenders to cost approximately $4 million. This would give jobs to men out of work and who have been out of work for a long period of time. This institution is under construction, and after it is completed would need a staff, I would estimate, of 171 or more to maintain it.
I was happy to hear today the present Minister of Justice say that he would give a sympathetic hearing to the building of this penitentiary. First of all he corrected his figures. He said that the former administration said it would not be built until 1964 to 1966, and then he said 1964. Then I brought it to his attention that construction had already been started, the land purchased, the waterline from the city of Drumheller had been completed to the site, and that some land is now being levelled ready for the building of the institution itself. I hope that he gives it sympathetic consideration and that this project will be continued and built as planned in 1964. This will provide work for people who have been left unemployed because of the loss of the coal market and the closing of the coal mines, and will enable them to live with dignity with their families. These people are no longer receiving unemployment insurance benefits. They worked such a short period of time that the benefits provided by their unemployment stamps have run out and they are living on social welfare. Their need is great and I say that this is a disaster area.
The other point I want to make is that this penitentiary was not to be a penitentiary in the sense that we think of one. It was to be an institution for young offenders. I think the greatest resource in this country, as I am sure everyone will agree, is our young people. Naturally, sometimes they run into difficulty with the law and are confined to institutions. But those institutions should be the kind which reform those young people and give

them a chance to be rehabilitated in society. I say without reservation that the former minister of justice, as I know the present Minister of Justice would agree if he were in his seat, did more for penal reform-I am of course speaking of the Hon. Davie Fulton- than any minister of justice did during the last 25 years. He set up a special committee of which Mr. Allen J. MacLeod was a member.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to an article written by Mr. Allen J. MacLeod who was in charge of the inquiry. It is entitled: "Canada still sends Children to Penitentiary", and appeared in Weekend magazine for February 23, 1963. This is one other example I could cite in pressing my case to the present government as to why this institution should be built immediately. As I said, our young offenders should be placed in institutions which will tend to rehabilitate them so they can take their place in society, rather than be confined with hardened criminals. I want to read some extracts from this article, because this committee went from coast to coast interviewing children in various penitentiaries to examine the living conditions and what was being done to help them to become rehabilitated. Some of the evidence is shocking; it is certainly the most shocking thing I have ever drawn to the attention of this house, and the most shocking evidence I will ever read to this house. It says:
It was difficult for me to find anything wrong with this cheery classroom in St. Vincent de Paul, near Montreal. It was brightly lit, well ventilated, had a good collection of books and educational aids for both public and high school courses and was presided over by a man anybody would have been proud to have had as a teacher.
The only thing wrong was that the children in this classroom, some of them no more than 14, were penitentiary inmates.
The federal training centre, an institution for offenders below the age of 25 which forms part of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, often gets 14 and 15 year olds as inmates.
Most have been convicted of theft, breaking and entering and automobile stealing. All have been sentenced to two years or more.
You see children in prison uniforms carrying history and geography books and arithmetic tables and you know they may be finishing their homework in their cells.
It was here that the Hon. Davie Fulton, under the former government, began penal reform in this country, to bring to light these conditions existing in our penitentiaries.
We are putting more children in penitentiaries today than we were ten years ago. Last year we put away almost three times as many as we did in 1952.
It was alarm over figures like these (and statistics showing general penitentiary population increases) that sent a five member justice department team out across the country last year for an examination of the whole field of delinquency in Canada.
The committee on juvenile delinquency, organized by former justice minister Donald M. Fleming, took a year to complete its travels.
28902-5-34J
Interim Supply
It criss-crossed the country on a unique factfinding assignment to assess the extent of delinquency and get official and lay opinions on what is being and what can be done.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the things they found. Reference is made in the article to one child in the penitentiary:
Henri (who was later released and has apparently been keeping out of trouble) was a polite, wholly co-operative child who responded well to the sympathetic guards.
The guards liked him so well that they chipped in to a fund to buy him a scooter, a toy construction set and a fleet of toy trucks.
"It was quite a sight," one of the guards told me, "to see the boy pushing his way around the prison yard on his scooter."
But St. Pierre thinks the saddest incident of all was the day he took Henri into his office.
"The boy had one request and I couldn't grant it," he recalls. "He asked me if it would be all right for him to go out and play in the streets until supper time."
Naturally the warden, as it was pointed out in the article, had to refuse.
Then there are other illustrations.
"They cry at night and it breaks my heart. They have no right to put children in penitentiaries."
The right, of course, is granted by the Criminal Code which says that a seven-year-old child can be imprisoned if convicted of a criminal offence.
The only stipulation: that he be "competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong."
In 1959, the latest year for which these statistics are available, 11,686 youngsters between seven and fifteen were adjudged delinquent in Canada.
Then the article goes on to describe how one fellow was so small that when he was placed in one of these institutions the warden was scared that he might be able to slip through the bars. So I say again that the former administration, under Davie Fulton, did more for penal reform than anyone to-bring this to light. We read in history about John Howard and prison reform. If John Howard were alive today and went across this country and saw conditions like that, he would probably be more shocked than he was when he compiled his material in which he recommended the reforms which later came in Great Britain.
Mr. Chairman, let me repeat there are two points I want to make. First of all, men are unemployed in Drumheller. Men are living in poverty in Drumheller valley. There are men ready to build this institution. There are men ready to man and look after this institution when it is built, in conjunction with the new vocational training school. We have a chance to assist the children of Canada, when they run afoul of the law, by seeing that an institution is built which is not like the prisons which we read about in books, but is a place where these children can be educated and rehabilitated and returned to society. I see the Minister of Justice is now in the house. I would ask him to give this matter serious

Interim Supply
consideration. A lot of work has gone into this budget. The united mine workers of America, to which the coal miners belong, got up a petition containing almost 2,000 names and presented it to the former government. The chamber of commerce held various meetings and worked with the community so as to get the proper data before the former government. I could name names, such as Mr. Joe Shearlaw of the chamber of commerce in Drumheller, and the president of the united mine workers of America. All of them in their turn did a great deal, and I would ask that this institution be proceeded with forthwith.
With regard to the question of whether or not this institution was on the drawing boards this year, I should like to read this editorial into the record. It was written after there had been some cutbacks in the public works programs by the previous government in June, 1962. The article is contained in the Calgary Herald of July, 1962, and reads:
Cutbacks won't hit pen work.
Cutbacks in government spending announced last week will not affect the decision to proceed with the $4 million Drumheller penitentiary, the Herald learned today.
An Ottawa source close to justice minister Davie Fulton said the Drumheller penitentiary and other new institutions are "fairly urgent business" because of crowded conditions in other Canadian prisons.
"We don't anticipate any major cutback in penitentiary construction, at all," the informant said.
According to the estimates there is to be $30 millions spent in building penitentiaries. I take it that we are going to build penitentiaries of the same kind as we have in other cities in Canada. I do urge the government, in all sincerity, to build institutions for these young offenders of a type that will enable them to be given proper care, proper education and proper comfort so that they will be enabled to take their place in society like other boys and girls. When you go into these penitentiaries you find that many of these boys and girls are from broken homes in this country. Their environment has been such that they never had a chance to take their place in society like other boys and girls who go to high schools or university.
This morning the Minister of Justice told me, when he was asked a question on orders of the day, that he would give this matter his serious consideration. I ask that this institution be proceeded with forthwith for two reasons: First, so that the men and women living in that valley can live and work with their families and, second, so that the young offenders will not be placed in institutions which are not only unfit for men and women but certainly unfit for children. This is my plea this afternoon, that the government will give it serious consideration.

(Translation)


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have many questions to ask with regard to the site of the Canadian universal exhibition which will be held in Montreal in 1967.
I had given the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) notice of my intention to ask those questions. Moreover, I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) just left the house. I would have very much liked them to be present but, in their absence, I shall invite the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon)-if he is unable to answer himself- to ask the Minister of Public Works to do so in the next few days.
In order to clear up some misunderstanding among the public with regard to the decision and the measures taken by the government regarding the site of the universal exhibition in Canada in 1967, I would like more detailed information on the following points, which are very important at this time, as the reputation of Canada as a nation is at stake in that vast undertaking: Is it true that, on Thursday, May 9, the minister announced that the government would postpone the official confirmation of the site as long as it did not have the technical reports, which means quite late in June, whereas, on Saturday, May 11, he stated that the official approval of the government had been given. If that is the case, what reports had been received between those two dates?
Did the government receive a technical report, reassuring for the Canadian people with regard to the following problems which might arise, if the suggested site on St. Helen's island were chosen:	increased
danger for ships entering the St. Lawrence seaway, caused by new countercurrents at the entrance of the seaway; a possibility of greater pressure on the seaway dike as a result of the development of 12 million square feet of land and the subsequent erection of high apartment buildings on that site, which would exert pressure against the dike?
The dangers resulting from the possible filling up to a depth of up to 25 feet, at the proposed site. How will the population of Canada be protected against the danger of a cave-in or possible settling?
The danger from the increased speed of the St. Mary's current, which is already dangerous, and the increased problems for foreign ships docking at Montreal.
The technical studies and the security measures that are needed with regard to the construction of bridges from Jacques Cartier bridge, which belongs to the crown, and

Victoria bridge, of the C.N.R., to Notre Dame island, which is part of the project.
The studies and technical reports needed for the construction of a low level bridge between Pointe St. Charles and St. Helen's island as is proposed in the plan.
The increased danger of ice-jams in the basin of St. Helen's island.
An increased danger for the town of Verdun, with the possible flooding of the La Prairie basin, brought about by an unpredictable freezing or ice-jam.
The fact that, according to some government employees, and particularly to Mr. Glen Bannerman, the laying-out of the site might cost up to $80 million, and that the federal government might be called upon to pay part of that amount.
Are we fully aware of the terms and demands of the international joint commission and the migratory birds convention?
Has the federal government received official approval of Quebec hydro, concerning the impact of the project upon water resources?
According to the act passed by the House of Commons, the Canadian world exhibition is to be held in 1967 on the island of Montreal. Any subsequent and unofficial endorsement given to the project by the former government was subject to the terms of a revised law and to the approval of engineers and expert technicians. Is it not, therefore, tantamount to assuming the rights of the house than to approve officially and definitely a site which does not fulfil all the terms of the law passed by the Commons, and which has not yet met the technical standards set by the former administration, before any changes are made in the law which specifies that the exhibition will be held on the island of Montreal?
In view of the capital importance of site selection and the possible consequences of an error of judgment on the prestige of Canada, not to mention possible damage to property and loss of life in case of catastrophe, would it be possible to table in the house the correspondence and reports that were exchanged in respect to this site between the government and the following authorities which will be interested or have something at stake in the situation:
International joint commission; St. Lawrence seaway administration (U.S. and Can-
Interim Supply
ada); St. Lawrence pilots association; national harbours board; Canadian National Railways; Quebec hydro; town of Verdun; Canadian association for bird protection; Department of Transport; town of St. Lambert; government of the province of Quebec; Canadian world exhibition, 1967.
Can the minister who is responsible for the world fair claim that he has been authorized by the house to confirm the choice of that location, considering that the latter is contrary to the provisions of the act which was adopted by parliament in that respect? Can he say that there will be no floods, no ice-jams nor any other sort of dangers, that there will be no risk in the mooring of ships or in the use of the St. Lawrence or of the seaway, that there will be no danger of damage to the seaway and that all the technical studies and reports have been received and approved concerning the five new bridges or ramps which will be fully or partially built over the St. Lawrence in order that the proposed site can be put to use?
I might add that even if that location were technically safe, the important thing is that it should conform with the act adopted by this house. Since the proposed site goes against the law, the government should take all necessary precautions to ensure that it is technically safe before approving it.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to call the attention of the house to these very important matters for the good reputation of our country, and if the Minister of Finance cannot answer all those specific questions right now, I would ask one of those responsible for the world fair to give us the necessary details so as to enlighten the Canadian people and to meet the official requests which have been made in this regard. These matters have a bearing on the national and international prestige of our country, and I hope that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets), who is responsible for the world fair, or another minister will be able to enlighten us in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with another subject for a few minutes, namely the Glassco commission report and, more particularly, the Therrien minority report. I hope that the government shall implement as soon as possible most of the recommendations contained in the Glassco report and all the recommendations of the Therrien report. It is all very well to talk about a royal

Interim Supply
commission of inquiry on biculturalism. I am all for it in principle but, in practice, the facts are well known.
The Glassco commission, through the Therrien minority report, has shown us the deficiencies which have existed for a long time in the federal administration, and if the government is logical, it will realize the urgent necessity of implementing those recommendations.
The government has the facts before it. It is all very well to conduct inquiries which last four, five or six years, but if the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. La-montagne) and his colleagues are logical, let them implement as soon as possible the Therrien minority report.
In this respect, let me give you an example of what has been going on since the present government assumed office. On Wednesday, May 29, 1963, La Presse published an item entitled:
Is this bilingualism?
A short time ago, the Department of External Affairs sent an account to a Montrealer of French origin who had to seek help from that department in order to return to France. It will be noted that this account, dated May 17, 1963, bears the signature of a French speaking official, Mr. Brisson, but those are the only French words on the document. We all know that this department is headed, since the April 8 election, by Mr. Paul Martin, a "bilingual" minister.
Mr. Chairman, I have here a photostat of this account addressed to a French Canadian from Montreal. It is written in English only and was forwarded by a French speaking official. I cannot for the life of me understand the attitude of the government and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There is much talk about a royal commission on biculturalism when in fact a citizen, a French speaking taxpayer is denied the right to receive a bill in his own language. Now I refer to the Glassco commission report in which the Department of External Affairs was blamed for some happenings. I understand that today's minister might have inherited that attitude from his leader who, when he was secretary of state for external affairs, may not have done much to improve the situation. In fact, the Glassco commission members noted that the working language was English and that the environment where French speaking civil servants had to work and live was English.
Mr. Chairman, it is a pressing necessity for the external affairs civil servants and those who will be employed there in the future to have at least a knowledge of French and English, in order to assert, not only at the national level but also at the international level, the bilingual and bi-ethnical character of our nation.

Mr. Chairman, if we really want to maintain our national unity and if the government is really conscious of its responsibilities- without minimizing the importance of a royal commission on biculturalism when it is a well known fact that the main responsibility rests with the provinces, since education comes under provincial jurisdiction-I call upon the government to keep the undertaking they made during the last election and to implement the minority Therrien report in order to fill the gaps which have always existed and which are detrimental to national unity. That is how we will judge the sincerity of the government, how we will see if they are consistent and really in favour of national unity.
(Text):


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say only a few words with respect to what has taken place in the committee so far, and I should like to make an appeal to all hon. members to take a long, hard look at what has been happening. I think we have begun to take these interim supply motions and blow them up into a full scale grievance period. I might say that the Liberal party was as guilty of this as any party during the last session. Furthermore, I do not even exclude my own party from having done this. But I would think it would be well for members to take another look at this trend, reassess the situation and perhaps realize we are making a mistake in doing it.
We are going to have supply motions and every one of the departments is going to be opened. There will be opportunities for the raising of grievances, whether they be individual constituency grievances or grievances of a larger nature such as some of those that have been discussed today. I say this, Mr. Chairman, because I think that by taking a great deal of time on grievances at this stage we are actually holding up resolutions and bills that are apparently ready to be brought in by the government. If these measures were proceeded with we could get on with some of the things that are anticipated in these resolutions and bills and with regard to which many members of the opposition have been asking for immediate action.
While I have absolutely no objection to the raising of grievances, and in fact believe it is quite valid to do so at the proper time, I think it is a mistake to pre-empt time at

this stage, when we should be using that time to deal with new legislation and amendments to other legislation, the result of which could be in line with some of the action members are demanding. I think it is a mistake to take a lot of time at this stage simply to speak to Hansard, and through Hansard to one's constituents, on these grievances. After all there are such avenues as letters to editors and letters directly to ministers if you have problems.
For example, I have what I think is a rather serious grievance to raise with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I see he is in the house but I am going to pass up this opportunity because I think it is the wrong time to do so. As I said before, there will be opportunities, and I do want to get on with the discussion and passage of the items under government orders on the order paper.
Finally, may I say that I would be the last one to deny hon. members of this house their rights and privileges but I think opposition members also have to co-operate in exercising their rights and pass the legislation and estimates that are necessary for the administration of the country.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few words to what my colleague from Winnipeg had to say just now with regard to some of the activities of the R.C.M.P., and I do so because two cases were brought to my attention in my own constituency that I think should have public airing.
The day after the last election I was called on the telephone by a lady in my constituency who said she and her husband wished to have a conversation with me about a matter they had not wished to bring up during the campaign, but wanted to talk to me about it after the election. I saw her and got from her a most extraordinary story. This lady and her husband-I am sure they would not object to my describing them as such-are very simple people. Her husband is a logger, a native born Canadian who happens to have a central European name, and that is important in the story I am going to tell.
She was interviewed without any warning, by an officer of the R.C.M.P. special investigations branch who called on her after having ascertained by telephone that she was alone in the house, with a proposition that she should undertake to spy on her neighbours, and that her husband should undertake to do precisely the same job among his fellow workers in the logging camp in which he was employed.
Interim Supply
This sergeant of the R.C.M.P. informed her that one of the reasons they had selected this couple was because of their name, and because they thought quite possibly people bearing that name might have some knowledge of subversive activities in the area. This couple, as I have said, are a very plain, very simple couple, and they were literally terrified. They were afraid to give a brusque refusal to a course of conduct they found repellant for fear they would be tagged as communists. Her husband was particularly uneasy, because this sergeant of the R.C.M.P. had informed him that the police have their agents in every logging camp in B.C., and there was more than a hint that if they did not co-operate he might have great difficulty in maintaining his job.
Mr. Chairman, I think no one disputes the fact that our R.C.M.P. force has a duty to keep an eye on genuinely subversive elements within the community, although I might say they do not seem to have been very successful in a neighbouring province recently. But my protest is this, that if the R.C.M.P. is going to undertake such work, then it should engage men in the process who are not complete political ignoramuses. In this connection I can only conclude that this man was a complete political ignoramus because he went on to tell this couple that he had informed himself of the fact that they were supporters of the New Democratic party, and therefore obviously would be very close to the communist party, and therefore they could quite easily slide in to the communist party and be welcomed with open arms.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Colin Cameron: I hear somebody applaud. I am very glad the hon. gentleman did, because I am going to suggest this: no one but a complete political ignoramus would have that view, and to send people out on this supposedly very critical, dangerous enterprise of riding herd on subversives in Canada, people who are complete ignoramuses, is to my mind disgraceful.
I have another case of a young man in my constituency, and I may say this house has not heard the last of this unless I get it cleared up. This young man enlisted in the navy. He came to the naval station in eastern Canada. He was in the navy for two months. He got excellent reports for his ability and his character. Then suddenly he was called in one day and told he was being released from the navy and being sent back home, with no explanation. He was assured there was no

Interim Supply
reflection on his character or his ability; the navy had just got tired of him and they were sending him home.
The boy had to go back to his home under this cloud, and when anybody asked him why he left the navy he had no explanation. His father wrote to me about it, and as soon as I saw the signature of the father I guessed what the trouble was. I wrote to the then associate minister of national defence in Ottawa, brought this case to his attention, and I told him I thought if he would investigate he would find it was a case of mistaken identity. I got a letter back from the associate minister saying it was thoroughly investigated and was not a case of mistaken identity.
I came to Ottawa last fall and again brought the matter up with the department. Again I got this unsatisfactory answer, and finally I was allowed to see this young man's file. The first document showed I had been quite right in my assumption that this was a case of mistaken identity.
This young lad had the same name as a man who had run against me as a communist candidate in 1953, and who lives in the same general area of Vancouver riding; but unfortunately for this highly intelligent intelligence service, I happened to know more about that communist candidate than they did, because his father had been in the same platoon as myself in the first world war, and I remember quite distinctly his marriage to a woman of Luxembourg, and the birth of their son. There was no connection whatsoever between these two families of the same name, yet this was the basis on which the highly intelligent intelligence service of this country sent this boy back from the navy, under a cloud that is still hanging over him.
Can you imagine what is going to happen to him when he applies for a job and is asked why he left the navy, and he replies they did not tell him and that he does not know? The implication right away is that there is something wrong with his moral character; and he has no means of refuting it.
Again this is a case of thorough incompetence on the part of those who are supposed to be protecting whatever secrets we are supposed to have in Canada, and I suggest the government will be well advised to have a complete overhaul of the operations of the R.C.M.P. in this regard. If the R.C.M.P. is to be entrusted with this sort of work, then it must recruit people of sufficiently average intelligence and sufficiently advanced educational qualifications so that their opinions will be of some value when they are submitted to others.
Right now the situation is nothing short of a disgrace, and I for one propose, in this one instance I have spoken of, not to allow this

young man to remain under a cloud for the rest of his life, or a considerable period of it at any rate, if there is anything I can do to expose the thorough incompetence, and I would say also, the complete lack of responsibility on the part of this supposedly intelligent intelligence service.


Mr. Chatterton:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be part of any designed delay in approving interim supply, such as the Liberal party opposition engaged in in the twenty fifth parliament, but for certain reasons I gave up my opportunity to speak in the throne speech debate, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to make a few brief remarks. Since this is my first address to the twenty sixth parliament I would like to extend my congratulations to you sir, the deputy chairman of committees and to the Speaker of the house on your election to the offices you hold.
I have three observations to make and the first is completely non-contentious and concerns the conditions under which members of parliament are required to work. I am sure that if our constituents back home realized some of the difficulties under which we have to work, they would be most sympathetic. I am convinced from my own experience in working in the government that in most cases even a junior officer of some department is treated better than members of parliament. Our constituents would be surprised to know, for instance, that a member of parliament is not entitled to a private office, that he shares it with his stenographer and in many cases has to share it with another member and his stenographer. It almost seems that it is thought members of parliament act as such only while the house is in session. For example, we have no stenographic help between sessions. I for one-and I am sure most hon. members are in the same position-receive more correspondence on certain occasions outside of the sessions of the house than I receive when the house is sitting. We all know what long hours we are required to sit sometimes, particularly when the committee meetings start, and sometimes the only occasion we have to deal with our routine correspondence is Saturdays and Sundays. If we had, for instance, a dictating device it would be of great help to us and our stenographers.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I would refer to visits to our constituencies. We all agree that there is no substitute for personal contact with our constituents in order to know the problems which exist in the constituency. In many cases this is not, of course, a real problem, but I travel 3,000 miles to my riding and have to cross the straits of Georgia to get there. My train pass is of no value to me; it takes me eight days back and forth in the train. I am

supposed to visit my riding twice and I receive two tickets to enable me to do so. This is not right. I was very pleased to note that in the speech from the throne there was a reference to a committee on procedure. I hope the government will give these matters some consideration so that members of parliament may be better equipped to represent their constituents and to represent the interests of the parliament of Canada.
The second observation I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, concerns the general impression that is created in my mind by the speech from the throne which was concerned mainly, it seems to me, with a trend toward centralization of power and authority. Having had experience not only in the civil service but in other levels of government, I have clearly seen a continuing tendency, which is inherent in government, to centralize and to concentrate power at a higher level. To my mind this makes for less efficient service to the people of Canada. I know from personal experience that most civil servants are not only capable of greater responsibility but are anxious to take such additional responsibility. But I know that many civil servants have quit in disgust because they have to go to Ottawa to obtain approval for every little thing they do. This natural tendency exists anywhere, and I think it requires positive and conscious action by the government to reverse that tendency.
However, it seems to me that the present government is encouraging that tendency by its own actions. It seems to me the government is itself proliferating this tendency by creating more departments, more bureaux, more commissions, and even splitting departments. I think it is not insignificant that there was no particular reference in the speech from the throne or by any members of the cabinet to the Glassco commission on government organization. I had hoped that this government, as did the previous one, would have appointed one minister to be responsible for the over-all implementation of some of the recommendations of that commission. I wanted to make that observation, Mr. Chairman, and I for one will closely watch this trend. I think it requires positive action by the government to reverse it.
The third observation I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is with regard to the economic condition of Canada. Hon. members can relax, because I am not going to quote a series of statistics; that has been done sufficiently in this house to date. I refer more particularly to tactics apparently being adopted by the government to deceive the people as to the economic conditions which existed at the time they took office. I think it is well to point out that at the time the
Interim Supply
Conservative government took office in 1957 and 1958 we were in a period of a descending level of economic activity, whereas when the Liberal government took office it was a period of ascending or accelerating economic activity. Yet this government adopted, by design it seems, the slogan that we must get Canada's economy rolling. I am amused by quite frequent references in the press to the fact that we in the House of Commons should stop reliving previous elections. I am not going to relive those elections but I want to make these points to show that some of the tactics the Liberals adopted in previous elections make them suspect. This is certainly the case with regard to their last slogan of getting the economy rolling. I refer first of all to the 1962 election. Other hon. members have referred to the revaluation and the pegging of the dollar. I was very pleased and interested to hear the Minister of Finance say, in answer to a question a day or two ago, that he had always advocated the revaluation and the pegging of the dollar. In 1962 the propaganda campaign carried on by the Liberals with regard to the revaluation of the dollar was, in my opinion, the biggest single factor which caused the reduction of the number of members of the Conservative party. The hon. member who is now representing Victoria, British Columbia, put out a pamphlet in which he said that our once sound dollar had been devalued. The reason I mention this point is to again remind the people that some of the slogans the Liberals are using today are suspect.
Then I come to last year's election, when the Liberals promised certain things which they now seem to have no intention of carrying out. I refer to a full page advertisement in the Victoria Daily Colonist of March 31, which is headed, "The policies of the Liberal party". This is apparently a complete run down of what they were going to do. One of the major items in this full page advertisement refers to health care. I will not take the time of this committee by reading the whole of that part of their advertisement, but any person who read it would automatically and logically assume that the Liberals would, as soon as they were elected, institute a health insurance plan. To date I have heard no suggestion from hon. members opposite that such will be done. Again I mention this because I think the people of Canada should be made aware that this current slogan of the Liberals, of getting the economy rolling, is false.
I am not going to quote statistics because statistics can be confusing to a great many people, as they often are to me. But I want to make two points to illustrate that in my

Interim Supply
riding, at any rate, economic conditions are at a very high level. For instance, the small fruits and cane fruits industry is the major industry in my riding. Last year the whole of the berry crop was sold before it was harvested, mainly because of the policies instituted by the Conservative government. This year the loganberry growers-and we have close to 300 of them-for instance, are concerned that they cannot meet the demands of the market. I quote one other factor in my riding, and that is the level of construction. In a riding such as mine, where there is very little industry and which is more or less a dormitory area, the level of construction is a good criterion of economic conditions. Nineteen sixty two was, I think, an almost record year of construction in my area. So far this year, in the first four calendar months of 1963 construction in the municipality of Saanich, which makes up the greater portion of my riding, has increased by close to 70 per cent over what it was in 1962. Certainly the people should be cautioned about the present tactics of the Liberal government, and the slogan which they use of "getting the economy rolling" should truly be to "keep the economy rolling."


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: In rising for the first time in this parliament to make some remarks, my first words will be to congratulate you, sir, on being elected to this important position as deputy chairman of committees. I would be pleased if you would convey my congratulations to the chairman of committees and to the Speaker. I also wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his appointment to the important portfolio he now holds. I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in the house at the moment, but that is understandable; I know he will be right back. I hope he will read my congratulations to him in Hansard if he is not within earshot at the present time.
Having said that, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee, and I think this is the proper time to do so, the fact that we feel at this time, when we are starting not only a new session but a new parliament, great concern as to the efficiency of our organization. It is not enough to have excellent officials and officers of the house. It is not enough for the government to place legislation on the order paper. It is not even enough to extend hours of sitting and take measures of that sort if we neglect some other key considerations. I now wish to talk for a little while about a selection which has been made, presumably by the Prime Minister; a selection which I consider to be extremely unfortunate. I want it to be clearly understood that I approach this with no bitterness or
[Mr. Chatterton.J
malice and without making any reflection on the capabilities of the hon. gentleman concerned, especially as I number him among my friends. I consider him as one of my friends, at least within the limitations which the idio-syncracies of his character impose. I refer, of course, to the Secretary of State in his position as leader of the house. I think this is a very important position-a key position as far as the progress of the business of the house is concerned. I am not making any personal reflection on this hon. gentleman. As I have already said, he is a friend of mine. I recognize his great abilities. But I do feel that due mostly to the role he carried out in the last parliament, in an unofficial capacity, no doubt, on behalf of his party, he is completely unsuitable for the present position as leader of the house in which he is cast. I say he is a round peg in a square hole. He may be a very fine round peg, but he is in a completely square hole and completely unsuitable to his present position in the present state of affairs.
We had a situation at times during the last parliament when tension was high. It is possible that this situation may arise again. During the last five years this hon. gentleman has given over much of the ability of his very fertile mind to finding methods, admittedly completely within the rules, of slowing down and prolonging the conduct of the business of parliament. This is unfortunate in the light of what the responsibilities and duties of the leader of the house are. These duties are not very clearly defined, but there is a quotation which I may perhaps be allowed to read into the record. This is what Beauchesne has to say about some of the responsibilities of the house leader:
It is his task in the name of the government and the party in office to distribute over the session the program of legislation announced in the King's speech and to advocate it in the house. He assumes the duty of proposing all such motions concerning the agenda of the house as are deemed advisable by the government and is their spokesman in the debate thereon ... With regard to every development project, the leader is the final authority as to its general progress, as to the time to be given to its different stages and as to any application of the closure or other available method of shortening debate and bringing matters to a conclusion.
The quotation continues, but I shall not take up the time of the committee by reading further.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question about that question? Was that not in the days when the house leader, the real house leader, and who is still the real house leader, was always the prime minister? I think it was before the

time the humble functions I perform had been assigned to another member in this chamber.


John Angus MacLean: I see some improvement in the hon. member already. He is expressing some modesty which, on other occasions, was not his custom. But as I understand it, and I may be wrong, the leader of the house does not entirely appropriate all of the responsibilities of the Prime Minister, although some of them he does; these particular responsibilities of the Prime Minister are delegated to the leader of the house.
I make these remarks only as a caution to the Prime Minister. I recognize from the start that it is a caution which will probably not be heeded. I doubt that any attention will be paid to it whatever. Yet I consider it my duty, because of a feeling of moral obligation, to point this situation out to the Prime Minister.
Many members of the opposition, maybe in all three parties, look upon the Secretary of State in his new role as house leader as virtually an affront to the opposition. In case after case in the last parliament he, by various methods, delayed or elongated certain stages of legislation and so on, so that they would not be completed until, perhaps, a certain day, or so that the government *would be embarrassed by the tremendously long time taken to get needed interim supply through the house or something of that sort. Now the hon. gentleman is in the position of being the one who has been chosen to ask the opposition to co-operate with the government.
This sort of attitude stems, as far as I can determine, from a colossal conceit on the part of the party now in power. It is a most unfortunate situation for us in this parliament to face at the beginning of a new session. In this connection, certain parties in this house may be under a disadvantage. I say this in no critical way, but two of the parties in this house have never had responsibilities of office. They are, therefore, perhaps not fully aware of the pressures and responsibilities and obligations which a party in power has to support and carry out on behalf of all the Canadian people. I say this in no critical sense, but it is something fully appreciated only by those who have been in that position.
On the other hand, I am a member of a party which, I believe, as a party feels it has no God-given right to be in power all the time. It assumes that the duty of an opposition is an honourable one and that it is not only good for a party to be in office on occasions but that it is good for a party to have experience in opposition from time to
Interim Supply
time. Of course, it is bad for a party to be in opposition indefinitely, and even worse for it to be indefinitely in power.
We suffer from another difficulty, or did in the last parliament, and it is this. I do not think this is representative of the Liberal party as a whole but only of a small group, a sort of syndicate who look upon themselves as having almost a divine right to rule, and when they find themselves in opposition are so astonished by this turn of events that they begin to think that God is no longer in his heavens, and that something has gone wrong. Therefore their objective is to get back into power by any means available to them.
A party in opposition has responsibilities. It has responsibilities not to set precedents which will hamstring parliament for years ahead. A number of very unfortunate precedents were created in the last parliament. For instance, we had the example of this committee spending, speaking from memory, seven days on a 30-day interim supply motion. At this time the present government is asking, and properly so, for four months supply: two months retroactive, as it were, to regularize the spending of moneys provided by Governor General's warrants, and two months in advance. By this reasoning this debate would at the very least be a 14-day debate. If the Minister of Finance were bold enough to suggest, say, on the thirteenth day, that we had talked on this matter long enough, you would have the house leader in the position where, if he were to be consistent, he would have to leap to his feet and scream: "Closure. You cannot do this. You are curtailing the rights of the opposition to speak", and that sort of thing.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things which make me wonder, but what makes me wonder most is why the Prime Minister chose this particular colleague of his to fill this role. I think he could have chosen others of his colleagues who would be much more acceptable to the opposition and to the house generally when it comes to asking the house to co-operate and to save time, and to expedite the business of the house, as the house leader must do on occasion. The house leader himself took great exception when the previous house leader suggested that he thought enough time had been spent on any particular aspect of any particular measure, and the only reason I can see for his appointment is that the Prime Minister, because of his associations over a long period of time, finds himself in a situation where he is blinded to these difficulties-and very real difficulties they are. After all, if you look back you will find that at one time the present Secretary of State was in the prime minister's office. The present Prime Minister was

Interim Supply
found a safe seat and brought into parliament as a member of the government. There he established himself with a very excellent record as secretary of state for external affairs. Then you had the opposite event taking place, where the Secretary of State was secretary of the privy council at that time and was found a safe seat in another part of the country and brought into parliament as a cabinet minister.
The operation of this syndicate has continued over the years and is still continuing, because we have further examples of this sort of thing. I could refer to the case of the President of the Privy Council, for example, who came from the office of the then leader of the opposition, although it is immaterial whether he was performing that function or that of the prime minister. The Minister of Labour is in a somewhat different position because he already represented a constituency in this house, and went back to it and won it, which is to his credit. But he spent a period in his leader's office, which is the thing that gives him the key to progress and success, almost a guarantee of inclusion in the cabinet. At some time in some mysterious way he became a member of the syndicate.


George Clyde Nowlan: "The Establishment".


John Angus MacLean: It is suggested that he became a member of "The Establishment". I had intentionally avoided the use of that word in case it might be interpreted that I was poking fun at my good friend the Secretary of State in comparing him with one of the characters in that skit, and I am not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is all right; I did not see it.


John Angus MacLean: Hon. members who are new to this house may think that I am very sensitive and have a special revulsion toward this sort of situation, but that is not the case at all. I have been told that in the middle ages, when a victim was thrown into a dungeon, as the situation got worse and worse and the putrefaction increased the prisoner would be completely unaware of the atmosphere in which he was condemned to live, and that it was typical of these prisoners that they could never understand why anyone approaching that atmosphere would be nauseated. Perhaps this is the unfortunate position in which the Prime Minister finds himself, that he is completely unconscious of the atmosphere in which he operates at the moment.
Mr. Chairman, I feel, like the hon. member for Lethbridge, that the original procedure for dealing with interim supply, although the debate being carried on at this time is completely within the rules, has not been an

efficient way for parliament to carry on. I think the committee on rules, if it is set up, should give its attention to this matter. Most committees on rules try to do a good job, but frequently they cannot foresee a mind which operates like that of the Secretary of State, which is able to see all the loopholes whereby a perfectly good rule with a perfectly good intention behind it could be sort of prostituted to party purposes, as was so blatantly done in the last parliament by repeated long debates on interim supply.
I suggest that consideration should be given by the rules committee to the setting up of rules so that if the government introduced the estimates early enough and tabled them, and guaranteed a given number of days, perhaps 35, say, as a minimum-this is something which could be negotiated-and arrangements were made for time to be allotted to every department, and this was completed before the fiscal year commenced, then the supply bill could be passed on the last day before the fiscal year without any further debate. This would eliminate completely the necessity for interim supply.
Interim supply is a fruitless operation in a sense, because we have to go over the ground again when the main estimates are before the committee. No progress is made and no ground is gained; we just ensure by this operation that the civil servants of Canada, the armed forces and we ourselves will be paid. This is the main purpose of it.
The members of the three opposition parties, I think, have at least one common denominator. It is this, that we perhaps take the philosophical view of Kant, that a thing is either intrinsically right or it is intrinsically wrong; that the results that may accrue to the perpetrator of the thing have no bearing on whether it is right or wrong. We, in this party, feel it is wrong to misuse and abuse the rules, even if you are technically within them. We feel that deceit is a wrong thing for a member of parliament to carry out, regardless of what its political results may be. We feel that, therefore, there are certain things which responsible members of parliament should refrain from doing, even if it would be to their political advantage to do them. I do not believe that is too high a moral standard for the Canadian people to expect of their representatives.
However, regretfully, I find that in some segments of the Liberal party there is a very flexible conscience so far as this sort of thing is concerned. It stems, I think, from their overwhelming conceit, their colossal conceit, that they have some divine right to rule, and that if they are not in power Providence made a mistake, which they have to rectify

by hook or by crook. As an example of this sort of thing I recall that last winter, I think it was on December 5 as a matter of fact, in the course of the debate on the Atlantic provinces development board the Secretary of State referred to unemployment insurance for fishermen. I was sitting here at the time and I heard his remarks. He said that some people were under the apprehension that there was, in the minds of some hon. gentlemen on the government side, the notion that it should be scrapped. He was referring to unemployment insurance for fishermen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it not true that a committee appointed by the government to which the hon. gentleman belonged, recommended precisely that, and was that not a logical ground for that statement?


John Angus MacLean: No, I do not consider it was, and for two reasons. First, this was a commission making recommendations and, second, what they did recommend was that a form of unemployment insurance for fishermen should be administered by the Department of Fisheries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman, himself, does not want to misrepresent the facts. The Gill committee, and he can read the report, recommended that fishermen be taken off unemployment insurance and some other scheme altogether, not unemployment insurance, be provided instead. This was precisely what I was objecting to, and what I still object to. If that is deceit, it is a very curious definition of deceit.


John Angus MacLean: Well, I think it is definitely deceit for two reasons: One is that there was no definition, it was not even worked out, what this other scheme should be. Second, the recommendation of any commission is not government policy. Surely, the present government is not going to throw the recommendations of the commission in the wastebasket. It would be just as logical for me to say now that the present government is going to scrap unemployment insurance for fishermen.
I wondered why this remark was passed in the house, Mr. Chairman. It is a curious thing, but in parts of the country people can be led to believe that anything that is said in the House of Commons is a fact; that is what is going to happen. Hon. members seem to be regarded as oracles. When an hon. member predicts something is going to happen, that is what is going to happen.
Interim Supply
People believe that Hansard gives it some sanctity, and the program becomes definite.
I found as a fact that in almost every fishing area in the Atlantic provinces it was being said that if the Conservative government were returned to power there would be no unemployment insurance for fishermen. I found that this was an organized stratagem. I found that somebody, presumably from party headquarters, was going back to this statement in Hansard and quoting it as an authority, much in the manner of a dog going back to his vomit. This, Mr. Chairman, is contemptible. I have the highest regard for Canadian citizens and for parliament. I think that anyone or any party who cannot find a better reason than that for trying to persuade people to vote for them is rather barren of a forward looking program.
I have some few questions that I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, but I will dispense with them at the present time. I will refer to them on some later occasion. I do want to return to my original topic. If the Prime Minister actually wants this House of Commons to expedite business, then he should recognize the reasonable demands of the opposition; he should take some cognizance of the natural feelings of hon. members who served in the government and in the opposition during the last parliament. I suggest there are hon. members on the treasury benches who would be more acceptable in this particular role. I throw this suggestion out to the Prime Minister in all seriousness because, after all we could very easily, with aggravation, be tempted to revert to the position the official opposition took in the last parliament. We could spend seven days on a bill for one month's interim supply. I do not believe this sort of thing is good for the country. I do not believe it was good for the country then. I believe the trained observers in the press gallery will recognize this, although some newspapers across Canada have been saying that this is the magic time for parliament to reform. Parliament should not indulge in these tactics any longer. Although, for some mysterious reason, they were all right last year, they are not desirable this year. Now, the logic of that I cannot follow. If the misuse of the rules of parliament in a given way is not wrong for the country in one year, then it is not going to be wrong for the country in the next year.
I should like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the one thing that is saving the country from this sort of situation in the House of Commons, where the desire of certain groups might be to delay and frustrate the progress of parliament, is the sense of responsibility of the present opposition.

Interim Supply


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to hold up passage of interim supply but I do think the committee is entitled to some statement from the Minister of Justice regarding some of the matters raised by two of my colleagues, the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, with reference to the activities of the intelligence and security branch of the R.C.M.P. We regret taking up the time of the committee on this matter, although we are quite within our rights in doing so. But I would point out that on the 17th of May, the day after the house opened,
I put a question to the Minister of Justice asking him if, in view of the discussions that were held in the previous parliament, in view of the article which appeared in Maclean's magazine and in view of the very sweeping statements made by Commissioner Harvison of the R.C.M.P., he would facilitate the setting up of a special committee to look into the activities of the intelligence and security branch of the R.C.M.P. His argument as stated was very brief. He said:
So far as I am concerned, I must tell my hon. friend that at this time I am not disposed to recommend to the house the establishment of such a committee to look into the functions of the branch to which he has referred.
The minister, who is not disposed to recommend the setting up of such a committee, certainly has a duty to come before this committee and before parliament and give some accounting to parliament of the activities of the intelligence and security branch of the R.C.M.P. No one quarrels with the statement made by the hon. member for Bow River who says that the R.C.M.P. is a very fine police force. Of course it is. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have earned a reputation for efficiency and integrity of which every Canadian is proud.
There are times when, through no fault of their own, they have been used for strikebreaking and there are instances in our past history that no one wants to recall. But that is not the fault of the R.C.M.P., it is the fault of the civil authorities in the use they made of them. We are not quarrelling with the R.C.M.P. We are quarrelling with a branch that has been set up whose activities have in many instances been a threat to civil liberty in this country.
The hon. member for Bow River said that it is the duty of the police to search out communists in political organizations or any other kind of organizations, universities, schools or anywhere else. I am not sure that is a func-

tion of the police. The communist party is not an illegal organization in this country.
I have spent most of my adult life fighting against the communist party and the communist ideology because I agree neither with their political viewpoint nor with their basic philosophy. But in this country there is no law barring people from preaching communism or belonging to the communist party any more than to any other political party. What the police have a responsibility for doing is to seek out those who are guilty of subversion, those who are conspiring to overthrow the government by the use of violence or force, those who are guilty of treason or those who are seeking to betray secrets that will threaten the security of this country. No one questions their right to do that.
What we are questioning is the investigation into organizations which are legitimate organizations and which are protesting, to the best of their understanding and knowledge, against certain public policies. When one sees investigations into the voice of women, into the campaign for nuclear disarmament, into the Canadian peace research institute, this surely is far beyond the responsibility of the R.C.M.P. In many of these instances the claim is that the police have acted rather indiscreetly, but still the practice goes on. I should like to deal with a few of the cases but-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would permit me to interrupt him. It is almost five o'clock and we were rather hopeful that there might be a possibility of getting the resolution through. I would not ask to have the bill proceeded with. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said something about last December. Last October the combined opposition in the house gave the government the eighth month of interim supply in one day without a single item of the main estimate having been passed. We gave them the ninth month with two days debate. It was not until the tenth month was asked for and it was quite apparent that the government was never going to bring the main estimates before the house that there was a prolonged debate. I say that just because-


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I do not think the committee is interested in hearing the government and the opposition hurl accusations at one another. I would

suggest that the Secretary of State get on with what he was starting to say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I agree completely with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and I apologize to the leader of the N.D.P. for having been diverted by the interruption. I was going to say that I agree with him about the desirability of the Minister of Justice, who unfortunately was detained elsewhere and was not able to be here, to hear the speeches this afternoon, knowing what was said. But I am going to draw it to his attention and ask him if it would not be possible for him to make a statement on this matter on the bill. Under those circumstances I wonder whether there would be any possibility of having unanimous consent so that the committee could go on long enough to complete the resolution stage and have the bill introduced, which could then be taken up on Monday.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I know that the Secretary of State can be very persuasive, but I have had one or two experiences in the house of agreeing to co-operate in allowing resolutions to pass and then finding that I was unduly restricted in what I wanted to say when we came to the bill. I happen to have a couple of matters which should be of particular concern to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries with which I should like to deal, and I feel I can only do so properly at the resolution stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I was suggesting was that we go on with the resolution stage for the next hour or whatever part of it is required in order to complete it. I was not suggesting that we go off the resolution stage. This, of course, could only be done if there was unanimous consent.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Does the committee give unanimous consent to continuing with the debate on the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not hear unanimous consent. I therefore declare it to be five o'clock so that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills.
31.	1963	531
Broadcasting Act BROADCASTING ACT



Herbert Wilfred Herridge: the second reading of Bill No. C-4, to amend the Broadcasting Act (human rights abuses remedied).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill again I consider I am once more striking a blow for freedom. While members of this group have a definite economic philosophy of life and social philosophy of life, we believe in preserving the rights of the individual in every aspect and sphere of his activities. It is on that account I again introduce this bill.
I am not going to talk at length, because when speaking on the bill on March 16, 1962, I fully outlined the circumstances surrounding it, and anyone who is interested in the detailed history of the background of the bill will find what I have to say, recorded on page 1900 of Hansard for that date.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the first time I had occasion to raise this question in the house was on November 18, 1960. I did so as the result of a conversation I had held with the editor of a local weekly newspaper in my district, with respect to his being denied the right to advertise on the local radio station. Then I discussed the matter with other businessmen in the town of Nelson, and they were most indignant about what they considered this transgression of the bill of rights and the rights of the individual.
As a result of those discussions I agreed to discuss the matter with various legal gentlemen, and finally I discussed it with the learned counsel who advises members of parliament with respect to private bills and other matters. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I discussed this question with the chairman of the board of broadcast governors, with officials of the C.B.C. and with the minister of justice, who had the matter investigated and later informed me that he did not consider he would take any action on the legislation under which this type of complaint would be lodged.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the weekly newspaper editor in question had been advertising the date of the issue of his weekly paper, and giving some details as to the leading articles, and so forth, on station CKLN, which is licensed under the authority of the Broadcasting Act. Suddenly he was denied this right by the manager of the station, and I will just read the letter in question:

Broadcasting Act
Mr. M. Carlton 490 Baker Street Nelson, B.C.
Dear Mr. Carlton:
We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma these days, a dilemma which must be obvious to everyone. Now that your paper is establishing itself as a regular advertising media, seeking its business from the same customers as ourselves, it is not reasonable that we should be defeating ourselves by building up in any way the success of a business competitor. We therefore, are invoking section 7 of our contract. As of today's date we are serving you with ten days notice of cancellation of your advertising contract No. 726. I would further bring to your attention items 4 and 6 of the conditions of contract.
Yours sincerely,
A. R. Ramsden, Manager
This weekly newspaper was obtaining advertising that in some cases might have gone to the local radio station, but it was obtaining a greater amount of advertising that would have gone to the Nelson Daily News, and they denied the editor of this weekly paper the right to advertise on this station because he was a competitor. I think those are very unsound grounds indeed, and so did many other business people in the community, and other persons. It is for that reason I enter this bill again this session.
I might explain the weekly newspaper has gone out of business. I might also explain it contained material I was not particularly interested in, and in many cases strongly disagreed with; but that is not my business. That is the business of the public, to refuse to buy something they do not appreciate; but it is my business to protest as a member of parliament, and particularly as a member of this group which never wishes to deny free speech or anything of that sort to anyone.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote briefly from the explanatory note in connection with the bill, because it is a rather unusual bill to meet unusual circumstances. I have introduced this bill to provide that a licence to a radio broadcasting station is conditional upon observation of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The explanatory notes read:
Both the English common law and the French civil law recognize the doctrine that the right of the businessman or industrialist to do business only with persons of his choice is subject to restrictions based on reasons of good morals or public order: such is the case where the state takes exclusive control of a commercial field and grants a special privilege or licence in that field to the businessman or industrialist to sell, under monopoly or quasi-monopoly, to the public; the licensee then assumes definite obligations, including the obligation to sell to anyone who is ready to pay the regular price.
Those are quotations from various decisions of the supreme court.
The Canadian parliament, for public convenience, interest and necessity, has by the Radio Act

allowed the crown to grant monopolies by licence to individuals and corporations to operate broadcasting stations for private gain. Under the common law and civil law, therefore, such stations must sell advertising time without discrimination. In 1960, parliament confirmed this law by statute. Section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights applies to provide that the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act shall not be so used as to violate the rights or freedoms of any citizen: e.g., freedom of speech or freedom of press. Presumably, the governor in council might make regulations to control such excesses or the Minister of Transport arbitrarily remedy violations by revocation or suspension of licence. However, for the semblance of impartiality, the seemly method is that parliament decree the means and manner of enforcement. This bill, therefore, so provides.
Clause 1: For clarity, and emphasis of notice to the licensee, this clause provides, generally, that a licence is conditional upon observance of the Canadian Bill of Rights; and, specifically, that there shall be no discrimination by a licensee in providing commercial services to competitor applicants- e.g., freedom of the press includes liberty of circulation and distribution, as well as publication-
-and liberty of circulation and distribution includes the right to compete for advertising space on a government-licensed advertising media -without discrimination because the applicant competes in the newspaper field with the broadcasting monopolist.
I think that is a very sound principle. I continue:
Subsection 6(a) (i) is an adaptation of provincial public utility anti-discrimination law. Subsection (6) (b) follows the procedure in section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights in appointing the Minister of Justice to be the deputy of parliament to determine whether a licensee has violated the Canadian Bill of Rights. Upon a violation, the Minister of Transport revokes the licence. The licensee has a right of appeal on any question of law to the exchequer court which may suspend the revocation until the appeal is determined.
Mr. Speaker, I have explained the reason for the introduction of the bill, the purpose of the bill. It is, that after lengthy discussions with persons well informed in the law it was decided that I should introduce this bill to amend the Broadcasting Act, the subtitle of which is "human rights abuses remedied." I want to say, in fairness, that I think this action on the part of the manager of the station was impulsive, because he is a very nice person; so is the editor of the local paper. I am quite sure they regret having taken this action at the time. The paper in question, the competitor, has now ceased to exist but the principle is still followed. It is to make certain that no one will be denied their rights in this way in the future that I introduce this bill and urge the support of hon. members of the house.
Now for the principle of the bill. If any hon. members believe they can suggest an improved bill or amendments to the bill which will make it more effective, I shall be only too pleased to listen. I think we are

on very sound ground in protecting the rights of the individual in this field by the introduction of this bill.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) I want to compliment him on his interest in this one individual who was running this paper which has now gone bankrupt. There is from time to time in this house a suggestion that we should have an ombudsman. I suggest that if members of parliament were doing their jobs we would not need an ombudsman, because where small people have been hurt by government or by regulation, members of parliament in doing their job can correct such injustices.
As the hon. member has said, and as the record in previous Hansards will show, the Kootenay Graphic News, which was located in his riding and was a small weekly paper, started up as a very vigorous little paper. This paper endeavoured to obtain and was obtaining advertising on radio station CKLN in Nelson. This station, as the record will show-this is for the benefit of new members-is owned by the News Publishing Co. Ltd., which also owns the Nelson Daily News, as the hon. member pointed out. These two news media, radio station CKLN and the Nelson Daily News, are in effect owned and managed by the same company and the same people. They disliked the thought of the competing newspaper, the Kootenay Graphic News, advertising on the air waves of their radio station and, as the hon. member pointed out, they cancelled his advertising contract. I had hoped that the advertising and the publicity the hon. member's actions would create on behalf of the Kootenay Graphic News would have meant that they would be doing better than if they had continued getting the radio advertising. I am very sorry to hear today that the paper has gone out of business. This is somewhat tragic. I thought that possibly the action of the hon. member in this house and in his constituency would have resulted in the paper doing even better.
In speaking to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out three criticisms of it. I have first a general criticism, arising from remedies often suggested by hon. members of the party to which the hon. member belongs. They will see an injustice, a social ill, a wrong, and they will suggest a remedy, the remedy often being worse than the wrong. In certain respects this bill is in that class. I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay West feels he is making a fight on behalf of the little man fighting the big man, and I always admire anyone who is prepared to do this. I think that in protecting the rights of
Broadcasting Act
the little man against the big man we must be very careful that we are not depriving anyone of his proper rights, his due process of law, to which surely he is entitled whether he be a big man or a little man.
I should like to read to the house and put on the record section 6 (a) (i) of this bill:
-will not-
That is, the licensee, the person holding the licence from the government, the radio station:
-will not discriminate or delay, upon reasonable notice given, in furnishing suitable commercial service of the type furnished by the licensee, to any person who may apply therefor and be reasonably entitled thereto and to whom such service reasonably can be supplied by the licensee, for reason only that the person so applying carries on a business that competes with a business in which the licensee has an interest:
With regard to the last part of that clause, which reads, "for reason only that the person so applying carries on a business that competes with a business in which the licensee has an interest", the hon. member for Kootenay West is concerned about a newspaper which is endeavouring to advertise on a radio station. The wording of that clause would also apply to a radio station endeavouring to obtain advertising on a competing radio station. It would seem that under the wording of the bill the competing radio station would be entitled to demand advertising time on his competitor's station. I am not convinced that this would be a particularly healthy situation in the broadcasting business. I am not convinced that it would contribute at all to the health of our broadcasting industry. I am not convinced that it would contribute to the raising of the standards of radio broadcasting across the country.
I would agree with the hon. member that a newspaper, no matter by whom it is owned, should be entitled to advertise on a radio station, and similarly that a radio station should be entitled to advertise in a newspaper. But I am not convinced yet-and the hon. member for Kootenay West is going to have to convince me-that it would be healthy for the broadcasting industry, from the point of view of the public, to allow one radio station to advertise on another. But, more particularly, there is in this bill provision for the Minister of Justice to examine the situation and make a report to the Minister of Transport, and then the Minister of Transport has power to revoke the licence.
I suggest that unless the bill is a little more carefully worded than it is at present, we could have the situation where a competitive radio station in one district would apply for advertising on another station in that district, and if that were refused they could endeavour to have their competitor's licence revoked.

Broadcasting Act
In my city we have at the moment a very competitive radio station and I would think that unless this bill is carefully re-worded, these radio stations, some of which at the moment are not doing too well, would use every etfort to see that the licences of competitors were revoked, not to protect any human rights which had been taken away but simply in an effort to get competitors out of business. I think that is the real danger attaching to this bill and one which should be corrected by redrafting.
In the second place, and this is to me a very serious matter, I feel that the difficulty about solutions recommended by the New Democratic party is that they are so often worse than the problems they are trying to solve. In this bill there is no provision made for a licensee to appeal. Surely, the owner of a radio licence, whether he is big or small, should be entitled to notice, entitled to an appeal and entitled to a hearing. It is elementary justice that such a man should be entitled, before he loses his licence, to make representations to the Minister of Justice or to the Minister of Transport or whoever has power to revoke it. Surely he is entitled to receive notice that his licence may be revoked and to explain, if he wishes, why he took certain action, in the hope that his licence will not in fact be taken away. This is an elementary right which every Canadian should have. Here the only rights the licensee has are set out in subsection (6) (b), and really they provide no rights at all. It says:
The Minister of Justice shall, upon any complaint thereof, ascertain whether a licensee has breached in any particular the condition set out in paragraph (a) and he shall report thereon to the Minister of Transport forthwith and to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
Nowhere in that procedure is a right given for the licensee who is in danger of losing his licence to be heard. I think that is the real flaw in this bill. Later in the measure it is provided that a licensee who has had his licence revoked may go to the exchequer court and have the matter inquired into. But surely it is not fair to give him rights only after he has lost his licence. Surely we should not put a licensee into a position where only after losing his licence can he resort to this procedure. If, for some reason, he was entitled to refuse advertising, surely we are not going to force him to hire lawyers and follow the complicated procedure of appearing before the exchequer court to have his case heard. It would be much better, I think all hon. members would agree, to allow him to make representations either to the

Minister of Justice or to the Minister of Transport before the licence is lost.
A third matter concerns the way the bill is worded. It is my contention that there is far too much discretion given to the ministers involved. I have great confidence in the ministers of this government and I think we are entitled to have a good deal of confidence in the administrative ability of most ministers, but I think the house should be most careful regarding the discretionary powers it gives to ministers. There are some situations in which this is the only way to deal with some governmental or administrative problem, but I think members of parliament should always be on guard to see that these discretionary powers are kept to a minimum, and where such power is granted it should be spelled out very carefully and the area in which such discretion can be exercised should be clearly defined.
The present bill uses the words "the licensee. . .will not discriminate or delay, upon reasonable notice given-". Surely, it would not be difficult to spell out in the legislation what "reasonable notice" is, whether it be two days, or eight days, or eight weeks. Later on, the text uses the words "in furnishing suitable commercial service" and so on. I have no idea what "suitable commercial service" might be. Further on appears the phrase "to any person who may apply therefor and be reasonably entitled thereto". Surely it would be possible to establish by legislation who is entitled to advertise, because who is to be the judge of whether a man is reasonably entitled to advertise or not? I believe the bill should spell out the right of access to this radio time. Another phrase which occurs in the bill is "to whom such service reasonably can be supplied". This again, is a loose phrase which is bound to give rise to difficulty of interpretation.
All this creates a dangerous situation and one which we must watch, because in this clause we would be giving a minister the power to deprive someone of a licence-a licence which has probably cost him, or the shareholders in the enterprise, a great deal of money. Presumably, too, the station is supplying a service needed by the community to which it is broadcasting; if it is not doing so there are ways of remedying the situation. But we are giving the minister power to take this licence away under a loosely worded statute and we are creating a situation where it would be difficult to argue whether or not a minister had acted rightly in doing so, because of this same looseness of phraseology.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is to be complimented on the vigour with which he has raised this question and endeavoured to protect the rights of the owner

and editor of the Kootenay Graphic News, but in making one correction for the editor [DOT]of that newspaper he is asking us in this particular piece of legislation to take away the rights of others by creating a situation where ministerial discretion could be exercised under the terms of a very loosely worded statute, and then by denying a licensee the right to appeal.
I assume this has not occurred to the hon. member, but his bill would also give rise to a situation which might create havoc in the radio business, inasmuch as it could lead to one radio station advertising on another. I know the hon. member is concerned with a newspaper advertising on a radio station, but I think the situation I have mentioned is one we should bear in mind. As I said at the outset, I believe that a newspaper should certainly have the right to advertise on radio, if it has not already. It would seem to me that to refuse this right of advertising is an action in restraint of trade and should be so declared.
I would think that the hon. member's correct course of action, rather than try to change the Broadcasting Act which deals only with radio, is to endeavour to change the Combines Investigation Act to provide that newspapers can advertise on the radio and that radio stations can advertise in newspapers, regardless of who the owners might be and whether or not they are the same, so that they may advertise in either media.


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support my hon. friend, the last speaker, in his view that while there may appear to be some individual wrongs to be righted, rather than a collective wrong, the bill in its essence is really determining private rights between two individuals, either corporate or sole. There is very little here of a public nature. It is an attempt, which possibly our friends in the New Democratic party lean to-we all have our faults and this is possibly their fault-to try to interfere with the course of conduct of human beings; to try to over-regulate, to over-legis-late, and to determine how everyone shall act at any given moment. This is probably the great danger of socialism in all its aspects and thinking-that there will be over-regulation and a concomitant loss of individual freedoms. Here we are dealing essentially with a business relationship between two parties.
Mr. Speaker, our friends in the New Democratic party love to put themselves up as the champions of the little man and as defenders of the little man. I think it can be said that we on this side have found there
Broadcasting Act
are no little men but that all Canadian citizens are big men of equal stature; that their rights must be determined by law and that there is not one set of laws or regulations for the little man and another for the big. Every individual is capable of doing some things in a better fashion than others, but the Almighty in some way evens things up and enables us all to do something well. In my humble circumstances my wife is a lot better carpenter than I, and this is one instance of how these things even up. When work is to be done on our storm windows or our kitchen cupboards she does it, because I am not very good with my hands. That is why I say that there are no little men or big men, that each of us can do something better than others, no matter how humble the circumstances. I suggest that the importance of legislation is not to distinguish or to take sides between the little man and the big man, but to make sure that all are equal before the law and that equal justice is done, irrespective of whether we think people are little or big.
This bill tries to do two things, I suggest. When we read the explanatory notes of the bill we find an attempt to interfere in private lives of individual citizens either corporate or sole. It concerns a business matter. In order to try to present this individual business problem which exists between two of his constituents, my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), in his attempt to right what he feels is an economic wrong-I do not question his motives; I know he is trying to right what he feels is a wrong and is trying hard to draw the bill in such a way as to make it a popular one-has dressed the bill in the very lofty garb of the bill of rights. I suggest, with respect, that if we take a lady of the street and dress her in a Schiaparelli gown, the Schiaparelli gown does not change in any way what is inside the dress. In order to dress this economic problem between two constituents in an attractive garb, the hon. member has brought in the bill of rights. I fail to see, with respect, what the bill of rights has to do with this question in any way, shape or form. For some reason or other the hon. member for Kootenay West, in his explanatory notes, cites the bill of rights of William and Mary, 1688. Whether he does not recognize the more recent bill of rights propounded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) I do not know. He appears to go back 300 years rather than accept anything which was conceived or concocted by the Leader of the Opposition, and in this he might get considerable support from this side of the house.

Broadcasting Act
In the bill of rights as presently constituted in the 1960 Statutes of Canada, it is quite conceivable that this situation in its loftier aspects is already covered. I do not think there is any hon. member of this house who would oppose any bill which was conceived on the premise that there should be no discrimination in the use of a public licence when it came to race, religion, colour, or such essential freedoms inherent in the bill of rights. But this other economic aspect is a fish of a different fry. I suggest the question of discrimination on proper grounds, such as race, colour or creed, is already dealt with in the bill of rights. I quote from section 2 of the bill of rights:
Every law of Canada shall, unless It is expressly declared by an act of the parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to
(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detentionet cetera. I will not take up the time of the house by reading the whole section.
Mr. Speaker, I now refer to the definition section in Part II. Section 5(2) says:
The expression "law of Canada" in Part I means an act of the parliament of Canada enacted before or after the coming into force of this act, any order, rule or regulation thereunder, and any law in force in Canada or in any part of Canada at the commencement of this act that is subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that from reading sections 2 and 5 of the bill of rights together, a licence granted under the statute passed by this house, or a regulation under such statute, is clearly within the bill of rights; so that if, shall we say, someone was refused radio time on the ground that he was a coloured person, or on the ground of his religion not meeting with the approval of the owner of the radio station, the proper legal proceedings could be taken by mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, or under a petition of right to force that owner to grant permission for the use of radio time, under the bill of rights as it now exists. No legislation whatever is needed; we already have it. We have the appropriate remedy to enforce those rights that are given to a person under the bill of rights. With the greatest respect therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the application of the bill of rights to this particular economic problem is just window dressing and has no applicability to the real wrong the hon. member seeks to remedy. It is purely an economic wrong.
Having cleared the air of some of the window dressing concerning the bill of rights,

Mr. Speaker, we approach the question of the right of a newspaper to advertise on a radio station owned by a rival newspaper. This is really the essence of this bill. I concur most wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Kootenay West in his indignation that any licensee should be able to hold a licence to protect his own position and deny other persons the use of a station which is held under a licence from the people of Canada. I may say that, along with the hon. member who spoke before me, some of the provisions of the bill itself disturb me somewhat. Generally speaking the authority in the bill, without taking the time of the house to actually read the clauses, is that any person will be permitted to use the station who may be reasonably entitled so to do. Alternatively, the licence may be arbitrarily cancelled by the Minister of Justice.
I believe the key words of this bill, and I am sure that this is not the intention of the hon. member, are those words, "who may be reasonably entitled thereto". Who decides whether or not he is reasonably entitled to use the station? Actually, it is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) who has the discretion to cancel the licence. He has to determine whether or not this person who is seeking cancellation of the licence was reasonably entitled to use the station. These are very arbitrary words, Mr. Speaker. I should like to refer you briefly to the judicial interpretation of this wide discretion contained in the word, "reasonable", to demonstrate to this house that this could give the Minister of Justice unfettered, unlimited, arbitrary and absolute powers over all licensees.
While we know that at the present time this power would not be abused, there might be other individuals at some future date who would abuse such a power. I do not believe this house ever should grant such arbitrary powers to any individual as my hon. friend seeks to do in this bill. On that score, I would refer hon. members to Stroud's judicial dictionary, third edition, at page 2462, where various judicial interpretations of the word, "reasonable" are given. This will indicate the very broad powers which the use of this word would give.
The word "reasonable" has in law the prima facie meaning of "reasonable" in regard to those circumstances of which the actor called on to act reasonably knows or ought to know. However, it would be unreasonable-
This is really the meat of the situation.
-to expect an exact definition of the word reasonable. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncracies of the individual-
Again, it is conceivable that we would have a minister of justice in the future whose

idiosyncracies were peculiar; that has happened in the past and it could occur again.
-and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reason of other days, with classic logic, sounds now like the jingling of a child's toy. Mankind must be satisfied with the reasonableness within reach, and in a case not covered by authority the verdict of the jury usually determines what is reasonable in each particular case?
In other words, according to the bill the Minister of Justice would, in each case, determine what is reasonable. I think I can cite to my hon. friend the leading authority on the interpretation of this word "reasonable" which I think will shock him to the point where he would be loath to give any one this type of authority. The leading case on the interpretation of the word "reasonable" is the case of Liveridge v. Sir John Anderson, reported in appeal cases, 1942. It is a house of lords decision. Perhaps I should outline to this house very briefly the facts in this case. There was a wartime regulation under which the home secretary could incarcerate someone if he had reasonable grounds to do so. The gist of this case is that the home secretary imprisoned someone and kept him incarcerated for some time. No court, no judicial body, could go behind his actions to see whether or not they were well founded. As long as the home secretary deemed the grounds to be reasonable that was all that mattered.
Well, this bill attempts to give some ex post facto right of appeal. You can appeal after your licence has been cancelled. I think my hon. friend dealt with that aspect of it. However, you could not go behind this decision of the Minister of Justice. If he deemed the grounds reasonable, that would be the end of it. He would have the arbitrary power to withdraw the licence. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this points out the grave danger of trying to legislate perfection into human beings. I think the strength of the party on this side of the house is that we do not expect human beings to be perfect. We do not expect everything to be perfect in this most perfect of all possible worlds. We try to leave as much freedom to the individual as we can to determine his own destiny. At the same time we try, by our legislation, to guarantee that the game will be a fair one and that one person, group or even the government itself, shall not have a great advantage over the individual citizen. When we try to legislate morals and propriety into every aspect of human behaviour, every little corner of business, sometimes we create a wrong that is far greater than the situation we are trying to correct. In this case I suggest that by granting this kind of power to any individual, which could be abused and could create great wrong economically and otherwise if abused,
Broadcasting Act
the wrong we would create would be greater than the good we would do in remedying this individual situation. I think that my friend's desire to remedy this wrong can be met otherwise than by creating this new, pervasive and greater wrong that we would be doing if we gave this kind of power to any minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say one or two things about the bill and in opening I should like to say to the hon. member who introduced the bill that it is indeed an unfortunate situation that prompted him to do so. On the other hand, I think a word or two should be said about the point that this is not something that is happening to any great extent across Canada. As a matter of fact, I have been told that this is the only case that has been drawn to the attention of the Department of Justice where such a serious violation of what we all consider to be rights has taken place.
I simply want to point out that most of the radio and television stations and other commercial advertising forms with which I have had to deal from time to time have leaned over backwards to try to be fair to all of their advertising accounts. They do this primarily, of course, for the sake of their own public relations, I am sure, and with a view to keeping all of their accounts happy in the future.
In this case I know that the situation was different because the person concerned was dealing with one of his competitors. The hon. member has raised a problem, but I can see some serious weaknesses in the bill from the point of view of actually effecting a solution of it. As has been pointed out by the previous speaker, there is the matter of the words "reasonably entitled" and the interpretation that is going to be placed on them. I know, for example, that a person may be reasonably entitled to something, but then the next matter that may come up is how much is he reasonably entitled to.
If the provisions of this bill were applied and the radio station accepted a very limited amount of advertising at an hour that was inappropriate or not conducive to having a reasonably large audience, the radio station could in fact comply with the regulations anticipated in the bill while at the same time almost denying the account the effectiveness desired from the advertising.
I simply want to say I do not believe this is a common practice. It certainly is not in those areas where I have had contact with radio stations. As the previous speaker pointed out, by passing this legislation we would be imposing more regulations to deal with an isolated problem even though it is a

Broadcasting Act
serious one to the man involved and I do not think we should do so until we And that there are a greater number of violations of human rights. I am sympathetic with regard to the situation which has been raised by the hon. member who introduced the bill. At the same time, since it is not a common thing maybe we should have another look at it.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill came up in an earlier parliament on March 16, 1962, the then member for Lapointe, Mr. Brassard, said, as found on page 1906 of Hansard:
I believe all hon. members are aware of the sense of justice and social sense which characterize the hon. member for Kootenay West, and I am not surprised to hear him take up the defence of anyone who seems to be victimized.
We are not talking out this measure for the sake of talking it out. In spite of the fact that on the facts it would appear that a licensee granted a licence from a federal authority appears to be limiting the service of that right, we earnestly think that there are certain real weaknesses in the bill which we would ask the good member for Kootenay West to consider.
In the first place, the bill by its terms purports to wipe out a vested right granted by licence by means of the exercise of ministerial discretion without a hearing. Under the terms of the bill no hearing is provided as to the facts. As we go on we find there is provision for an appeal to the exchequer court, not as to the facts but on a question of law alone. That means that there is a limited type of appeal. It means that the facts of the case will never have been heard adequately from the standpoint of the licensee.
When we consider the number of limiting and inhibiting factors at the present time which tend to constrict the kind of broadcasting that there is in Canada, we realize that this measure would create a very difficult situation for people in this particular media. On the face of the matter it appears as though there has been an injustice done in this one riding in Canada. I too have tried to make a careful examination of how frequently such a thing has occurred and I am assured by the B.B.G. that this is the only case in all Canada.
The active member for Kootenay West, who so valiantly champions his riding and has done so on many occasions, brought this matter to the attention of the House of Commons on November 18, 1960, by way of a question which was answered by the then minister of national revenue. Then he went on to explore the various possibilities in order to see whether there was any chance

of obtaining any assistance in this particular case under the combines legislation. I think he found it was impossible. When we consider that a broadcaster is being asked under this bill to accept material of his competitor that would in fact worsen his business position, we have to ask the member to consider that what the bill really means is that the C.B.C. could be compelled to advertise programs of the private broadcasters. Do we really want to go that far? Is this what the bill means? We appreciate that there are limitations on private rights, and there must be. The analogy that the distinguished member for Kootenay West-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It
being six o'clock I have to advise the house that the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether the house leader would indicate to a very co-operative house what the business is for next week?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to take at its face value, which of course I do, the suggestion of the hon. gentleman opposite that the house will be co-operative next week. It is in that spirit that I express the hope that we will be able to deal with interim supply with almost as much dispatch as it was dealt with in late September or early October of last year. As soon as that is completed, of course, we will go on with the debate on the committee on defence, and I would also express the hope that that might be disposed of on Monday. After that we will go ahead with the resolution to precede the bill respecting the economic council.
We also hope next week to take the bill respecting the department of industry, the bill respecting the Department of Agriculture and the resolutions preceding them and, if it can be arranged, the resolution and the bill respecting the municipal development and loan board. I wish I could indicate clearly the order in which those measures will be taken but one or two of my colleagues have made certain commitments which force them to be out of Ottawa on public business on one or two days next week, and I regretfully have to admit that this will have to be arranged as the week goes on, but I hope to give as much notice as possible of the order in which these last three measures will be taken. The first three items, barring an act of God, will be interim supply until completed, then the defence committee until it is completed, the resolution stage of the economic council, and we hope to take the bill next day after the resolution.


George Clyde Nowlan: You would take the bill on that before the next resolution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would depend on the time of day. If we finish the economic council resolution in the middle of the day we cannot take the bill immediately afterwards, under the rules, and we would not ask to have them waived because hon. members should have a chance to read the bill. If the economic
Business of the House council resolution stage finished in the middle of the day, then we would take one of the other resolutions that day, and come back later to the bill. It is a little complicated, but I hope all hon. members understand these matters.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 3, 1963