1963-12-16

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of an atomic energy agreement with India, the nature of which has already been indicated to the house, which is being signed in New Delhi today.


BANKING AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
Thirteenth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace).

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

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Which NATO allies insist on a house to house check of neighbours before individuals have access to NATO information?
2.	Does Canada make similar demands of our NATO allies before non-Canadian NATO personnel are given access to Canadian information and, if so, which NATO allies?
3.	When adverse information is received about an individual from any source, is an opportunity given to that individual to refute or explain the circumstances before a decision is reached?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1 and 2. All parties to the north Atlantic treaty subscribe to a security agreement which requires them to protect each other's classified information. A common minimum standard of security procedures, methods and techniques has been established and adopted by all parties to the treaty. Each party is responsible for the security clearance of its own nationals irrespective of where they may be employed. Details of these arrangements which Canada has with its allies are matters of confidential agreement which it would not be in the public interest to disclose.
3.	In some cases, when adverse information about an employee is received from sources which are secret and sensitively placed, it is impossible to discuss the information with him in order that he be given an opportunity 28902-5-377
to refute or explain it, either before or after a decision is reached. The reason, of course, is that divulging the information would jeopardize the source and his continuing ability to provide information essential both to the process of determining the degree of confidence which can be placed in employees being appointed to sensitive positions, and to obtaining continuing and accurate information about subversive organizations in Canada. In the majority of cases, however, where the source or sources of the adverse information are either public or capable of being adequately protected, the employee will be interviewed and given an opportunity to explain or refute the adverse information.


REDISTRIBUTION
Mr. Mather: What is the situation respecting redistribution of electoral constituencies in line with population?


Mr. Pickersgill:: This question is being dealt with by legislation on the order paper.


REPATRIATION OF CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): 1.	Has the government any plans for the early repatriation of Canada's constitution?
2.	Have any negotiations been initiated with a view to repatriating the constitution?
3.	What, if any, are the obstacles delaying the immediate repatriation of the Canadian constitution?
4.	Is Canada recognized as a fully sovereign and independent nation at the United Nations?
5.	What steps would be necessary to achieve the recognition in the U.N. of the Prime Minister as head of state?
Answer: 1, 2 and 3. As the Minister of Justice announced in Banff, on September 6, 1963 and at Quebec city on October 19, 1963, it is the intention of the government to convene a federal-provincial conference next year to seek agreement on an amendment to the British North America Act under which all amendments to the constitution may be made in Canada, and such further amendments as are necessary to meet the needs of today and to reflect the new concept of cooperative federalism. Agreement with the provinces to an amendment to the British North America Act is required to accomplish these objectives.
4.	Yes.
5.	It is not possible to have the United Nations recognize the Canadian Prime Minister as head of state because he is head of government.

Questions


C.N.R. STATION REVENUE, ALMA, ONT.
Mr. Howe (Wellington-: Huron):
What was the total revenue earned by the Canadian National Railways station at Alma, Ontario, for the years 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Information which is currently available is contained in application to remove the agent at Alma, which was filed on October 17 with the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, as follows: August 1961 to December 1961, $8,644; January 1962 to December 1962, $15,208; January 1963 to July 1963, $4,960.
Information for other years is not immediately available.


EXTENSION OF C.B.C. SERVICES IN NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Rheaume: 1.	Have representations been received by the government to have the C.B.C. extend the following services in the N.W.T.: (a) radio station at Cambridge Bay (b) radio station at Fort Simpson (c) television station at Yellowknife?
2.	If so, by whom were these representations made, when were they received, and what action if any has been taken on these requests?
3.	If not, will the government ask the C.B.C. to look into the possibility of extending the services referred to in part 1 (a), (b), and (c)?


Mr. Laing:: 1 and 2. (a) No.
(b)	Yes. Letter addressed to me from G. Hamilton, acting secretary of the Fort Simpson community club dated September 25, 1963, asking that my department supply a full time manager. This request was referred to the C.B.C. as the agency primarily concerned with broadcasting in the north, as throughout Canada.
(c)	Yes. Oral representations were made to me last summer by Mr. Pike of United Keno Hill Mines and Mr. Colthorpe of Con-Rycon (Gold) Mine, Yellowknife, N.W.T. This request was also referred to the C.B.C., as the government agency primarily concerned with the problem involved.
3.	N/A.


FRENCH PROPOSAL FOR CO-OPERATIVE ATTACK ON CANCER
Mr. Mather: Is the government aware of the proposal being studied by the French government under which France, Britain, the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. would co-operate in an attack on cancer by pooling one half of 1 per cent of their military budgets to that end and, if so, will the government give consideration to Canadian participation in such a project?


Miss LaMarsh:: The government is fully aware of the proposal made by a group of French scientists and other leading citizens that France, the United States, the United

Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. devote one half of 1 per cent of their military budgets to international cancer research.
No formal request for Canadian participation has been received but such a request would receive careful consideration by the government.


PAUL PELLETIER
Mr. Fisher: 1.	When was Paul Pelletier transferred to the post of deputy minister of veterans affairs?
2.	What was his salary at the civil service commission and his salary on assuming the new post?
3.	In brief, what were the reasons, leading to this transfer?
4.	How long was Mr. Pelletier a civil service commissioner?
5.	How many recommendations were made by Mr. Pelletier during his term as commissioner that non-bilingual positions be reclassified in order that they be made bilingual positions through departmental competitions?
6.	How many such recommendations were made on the initiative of the other commissioners?
7.	What were the names and classifications of each position, if any, and in which departments were they?
8.	In any of these reclassifications, were any appeals received against the re-classification and, if so, how many, and what was their result?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. On September 19, 1963.
2.	$18,000 and $20,000.
3.	I am informed by the Prime Minister's office that the position of deputy minister of veterans affairs was vacant, and Mr. Pelletier was appointed as one well qualified to fill it.
4.	From August 1, 1957 until September 19, 1963.
5.	From time to time during his term as commissioner, Mr. Pelletier as well as the other commissioners and officers of the civil service commission, discussed with various officials of government departments the bilingual requirements of positions on departmental establishments to ensure a judicious application of the provisions of the Civil Service Act concerning the language requirements of positions. From the records of the commission it is not possible to trace back the individual contribution of the various parties to these discussions.
6.	See answer to question 5.
7.	From the records of the commission it is not possible to trace back the modifications in qualification requirements of positions which may have been made as the result of these discussions.
8.	No such appeals were received.


C.N.R. STATION, PRINCETON, ONT.  REVENUE
Mr. Nesbitt: What was the total revenue earned by the Canadian National Railways station at Princeton, Ontario, for the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962?


George James McIlraith: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Information which is currently available is contained in application to remove the agent at Princeton, which was filed on October 25 with the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, as follows: August 1961 to December 1961, $8,872; January 1962 to December 1962, $18,939; January 1963 to July 1963, $8,012.
Information for other years is not immediately available.


LITTLE ANSE, N.S., BREAKWATER
Mr. Douglas: Have representations been received concerning the harbour of Little Anse, Richmond county, N.S., and a breakwater to protect the fishing fleet and, if so, what is the nature of these representations and what consideration has been given to them?


Mr. Badanai:: Yes; the representations were of a general nature requesting that the harbour at Little Anse be improved. The department has since considered various possibilities including a second breakwater but, because the department maintains a satisfactory harbour at Petit de Grat only four miles away, it was considered the expenditure involved could not be justified at this time.


GRADE CROSSING, SCARBOROUGH TOWNSHIP
Mr. Scott: 1.	Has the government received any representations for action to be taken to remedy the dangerous situation of the grade crossing on St. Clair avenue east in Scarborough, Ontario, between Kennedy road and Midland avenue?
2.	If such representations have been received, who made such representations?
3.	Has the government any plans in this regard and, if so, what is the nature of such plans?
4.	To what extent does the board of transport commissioners take the initiative in these matters?


George James McIlraith: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1.	No. However, a complaint was received to the effect that traffic tie-ups occur at St. Clair avenue crossing as the result of the number of trains passing over the crossing during the rush hour.
2.	The complaint was made by Mr. J. R. Brash, Scarborough, Ontario.
The township of Scarborough suggested that further investigation be made into the operation of the gates at the crossing to ensure a free flow of highway traffic when the crossing is not being used by trains.
3.	St. Clair avenue crossing is protected by two flashing light signals, two short arm gates and one bell.
The board of transport commissioners has requested Canadian National Railways to place a time recorder in service at St. Clair avenue
28902-5-377J
Questions
crossing, in order to determine the number of delays to highway traffic at the crossing. Canadian National Railways advised that the recorder was in operation from 7 p.m. September 30 to 12 p.m. November 9. The recorder chart indicates that on some occasions the gates operated longer than necessary due to eastward extended approach being occupied while gates were being operated by some other train movements. The company advised that it is reviewing the operation of the circuits to determine the action necessary to reduce, as far as possible, the excessive operation of the protection.
4.	As soon as the board is made aware of any dangerous condition at a crossing, an investigation is made to determine the appropriate action to be taken for the protection, safety and convenience of the public at such crossing.


LIFE INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,731*-Mr. Moreau:
What is the breakdown of the total life insurance in force in each province expressed in percentage of the Canadian total?
Mr. Benson:: The distribution of life insurance in force by province for life insurance companies supervised by the federal department of insurance is shown on page 90A of volume I of the report of the superintendent of insurance for Canada for 1962. This represents about 95 per cent of the life insurance in force in Canada. The percentage distribution is as follows:
Province	Per cent
Newfoundland	.79
Prince Edward Island	.27
Nova Scotia	2.89
New Brunswick	2.05
Quebec	26.65
Ontario	53.36
Manitoba	4.29
Saskatchewan	3.22
Alberta	6.72
British Columbia	8.74


INVESTMENT OF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN BONDS AND MORTGAGES
Mr. Moreau: What is the breakdown, by provinces, of the investment of life insurance companies, in provincial and municipal bonds, and in mortgages, expressed in percentage of the total investment in these categories by life insurance companies in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: The percentage distribution, by province, of the investment of life insurance companies supervised by the federal department of insurance in provincial and municipal bonds and in mortgages is as shown in the following table.

Questions
In so far as the investments of British and foreign companies are concerned this information relates only to those assets on deposit for the protection of Canadian policyholders. The distribution of investments in municipal bonds is based on a sample of companies. The sample represents companies whose investment in municipal bonds represents approximately 85 per cent of the investment in this category by all registered companies.
Provincial Municipal Mortgages bonds as at bonds as at as at
Dec. 31/62 Dec. 31/62 Dec. 31/62 per cent per cent per cent			
Newfoundland Prince Edward	1.37	.02	.08Island	.54	.28	.04Nova Scotia	3.80	.65	.83New Brunswick 2.58	.64	.80Quebec	27.10	16.14	23.11Ontario	29.34	60.37	50.39Manitoba	8.30	6.78	4.25Saskatchewan	4.21	4.37	1.37Alberta British	4.57	2.84	9.49Columbia	18.19	7.91	9.64


RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN TAKE-OVERS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES
Mr. Moreau: Are there any restrictions against foreign takeovers of Canadian insurance companies and, if so, what are they?


Edgar John Benson: As respects insurance companies incorporated by parliament, there are no restrictions on the ownership of shares, but a majority of the directors must be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada.


FOREIGN CONTROL OF INSURANCE COMPANIES
Mr. Moreau: Have any Canadian (a) life insurance (b) fire and casualty companies, fallen under foreign control in the past ten years and, if so, which companies, and in what years?


Edgar John Benson: The following information relates only to companies supervised by the federal department of insurance.
(a) Canadian life insurance companies falling under foreign control in the last 10 years.
Company	Year
The Continental Life Insurance Co.	1955
The Western Life Assurance Co.	1956
The Commercial Life Assurance Co.	1956
The Dominion Life Assurance Co.	1957
The Fidelity Life Insurance Co.	1957
The Excelsior Life Insurance Co.	1960
The National Life Assurance Co.	1960
(b) Canadian fire and casualty companies falling under foreign control in the last 10
years.
Company	Year
The Stanstead & Sherbrooke Insurance Co.	1955
The Protective Association of Canada	1958
The Halifax Insurance Co.	1959
The British American Assurance Co.	1961
The Western Assurance Co.	1961
The British Canadian Insurance Co.	1961
The British Empire Assurance Co.	1961
The Imperial Guarantee & Accident
Insurance Company of Canada	1961
The Consolidated Fire & Casualty
Insurance Co.	1961
The Federal Fire Insurance Company of Canada	1961
The Wellington Fire Insurance Co.	1961
The Dominion Insurance Corporation	1961


INVESTMENT IN STOCKS BY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES
Mr. Moreau: What percentage of total assets is invested in Canadian common stocks by life insurance companies operating in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: As respects Canadian life insurance companies supervised by the federal department of insurance, the percentage of total assets invested in Canadian common stocks is 1.35.
As respects British and foreign life insurance companies operating in Canada the percentage of total assets on deposit for the protection of Canadian policyholders invested in Canadian common stocks is 2.87.


INVESTMENTS BY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES
Mr. Moreau: What is the breakdown by major categories (bonds, common stocks, mortgages) of investment by Canadian life insurance companies in percentages of their total assets?


Edgar John Benson: An analysis by major categories of investments by Canadian life insurance companies supervised by the federal department of insurance is published on pages xxii and xxiii of volume I of the report of the superintendent of insurance for 1962.


RESTRICTIONS ON SECURITY HOLDINGS OF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES
Mr. Moreau: Are there any federal limits placed on life insurance companies to the holding of each kind or category of security and, if so, what are they?


Edgar John Benson: The following information relates to limitations on certain categories of investment applying to companies supervised by the federal department of insurance.

(1)	Canadian companies, (a) The total book value of the investments of a company in real estate or leaseholds for the production of income shall not exceed 10 per cent of the book value of the total assets of the company, (b) The total book value of the investments of a company in common shares shall not exceed 15 per cent of the book value of the total assets of the company.
(2)	British and foreign companies. The above limitations apply to British and foreign companies transacting life insurance in Canada as respects assets placed on deposit or vested in trust in Canada for the protection of Canadian policyholders.


RESTRICTIONS ON STOCK HOLDINGS OF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES
Mr. Moreau: Are there any federal restrictions to life insurance companies holding common stocks and, if so, what are they?


Edgar John Benson: The following information relates to Canadian life insurance companies supervised by the federal department of insurance.
(a) The total book value of investments of a company in common shares shall not exceed 15 per cent of the book value of the total assets of the company; (b) not more than 30 per cent of the common shares and not more than 30 per cent of the total issue of the shares of any corporation shall be purchased by any company; (c) a company shall not invest in its own shares and shall not invest its life insurance funds in the shares of any company transacting the business of life insurance; (d) except as described in paragraph (e) shares eligible for investment must have had a record of a dividend payment amounting to at least 4 per cent of the average value at which the shares are carried in the capital stock account of the issuing corporation in each year for a period of seven years preceding the date of investment; (e) a company may invest in common shares not meeting the dividend requirements described in the preceding paragraph and in other investments not specifically authorized but the total so invested may not exceed 5 per cent of the book value of the total assets of the company.


RESTRICTIONS ON INSURANCE COMPANIES HOLDING INSURANCE STOCKS
Mr. Moreau: Are there any federal restrictions to Canadian insurance companies holding stock in other Canadian insurance companies and, if so, what are they?


Edgar John Benson: The following information relates to companies falling under the supervision of the federal department of insurance.
(a) A company registered to transact the business of life insurance may invest in com-
Questions
mon shares of other insurance companies subject to the limitations described in the answer to question No. 1,739 and to the further limitation that such a company may not invest its life insurance funds in the shares of a company transacting the business of life insurance; (b) a company, other than a company registered to transact the business of life insurance, may invest in the fully paid shares of any other company transacting the business of insurance but no such investment shall be made if, as a result thereof, the total amount invested in such shares would exceed 50 per cent of the surplus of the company as shown in the most recent annual statement deposited in the department. Such investment is exempt from the limitations described in the answer to question No. 1,739 except that the book value of the total investments of the company in common shares, including common shares of other insurance companies, may not exceed 15 per cent of the book value of the total assets of the company.


HOSPITAL GRANTS, METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Mr. Scott: 1.	Has the government received a communication from the chairman of the municipality of metropolitan Toronto pointing out that new hospital construction and expansion required to reduce the critical shortage of active treatment beds in metropolitan Toronto cannot proceed on the basis of the grants as they are now being made?
2.	If so, what plans does the government have in mind to increase the grants or to otherwise assist metropolitan Toronto to relieve such alleged conditions?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Yes.
2.	This matter is under active consideration.


SALARIES OF PERSONNEL, DREDGE NO. 21
Mr. Coales: What are the monthly salaries plus board and allowances, paid to the operator, engineer and assistant engineer, on dredge No. 21, operated by the Department of Public Works?


Hubert Badanai: Engineer (master), at a rate of $5,507 per annum during dredging season. Assistant engineer, at a rate of $4,577 per annum during dredging season. Operator (lever-man), $330 per month.
During the season the master of the dredge is allowed an additional $1.58 per day per man to purchase provisions for himself and his crew. In the off season months the ship's officers, engineer and assistant engineer, draw half pay.


DIVERSION OF SHIPS FROM MONTREAL
Mr. Bell: Have any ships been diverted in the last two years from Montreal to other ports because of the danger of low water and, if so (a) how many, and (b) to what ports were the diversions (c) were

Questions
any efforts made to effect the diversions to Halifax and Saint John and with what success?


George James McIlraith: The national harbours board advise, in so far as their board is concerned, as follows: some grain ships, the number is not known to the harbour authority, which would normally have been loaded at Montreal, are reported to have been loaded at other ports due to the vessel owner or agent diverting his ship to a port where there is sufficient depth of water to enable him to take on a larger cargo than was originally intended, and which he may consider would not be within the draught limits of his ship and the 35 foot water level of Montreal harbour. It is not known whether or not any diversions have been made to Halifax or Saint John as it is the prerogative of the vessel owner or agent to load his ship where he considers it will best suit his purposes.


BANK CREDIT
Mr. Laiulippe: What is the total bank credit (loans and investments, seasonally adjusted) in comparison to output of goods and services in Canada for the last two years?


Edgar John Benson: Chartered Bank Gross National Assets'1*	Product at
Market Prices (millions of dollars)
1961	13,110	37,4211962	14,085	40,401
ll) Average of month-end figures. Includes Bank of Canada notes and deposits, day-today loans, treasury bills, government of Canada direct and guaranteed bonds, net foreign assets, call and short loans, other loans, insured residential mortgages and other Canadian securities. Since figures are annual averages no seasonal adjustment is necessary. Details are available in the Bank of Canada statistical summary.


MORTGAGE DEBT
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	What is the increase, for each year since 1951, of mortgage debts in Canada?
2.	On the average, what is the payment per year for individual mortgage debt on homes, farm housing, apartment buildings?
Answer: 1 and 2. Reliable data are available only for mortgage debt held by governments, government agencies, lending institutions and other corporations in Canada. These data relate to mortgage debt on commercial and industrial property as well as mortgage debt on residential and farm property. Data on repayments of mortgage debt held by these lenders are available only in total, and not

in terms of the average amount of repayment per loan. The amounts are shown below:
Mortgage debt held by governments, government agencies, lending institutions and other corporate lenders ($ millions)
Net Repayments & increase other decreases
1951	357	2481952	256	2761953	340	2981954	494	3281955	712	4391956	742	5771957	498	5891958	920	6631959	1,096	7321960	830	8991961	959	9221962	1,180	1,195DEFENCE EXPENDITURES AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL	
Question No. 1,780-Mr. Matheson:		
Expressed as a	percentage of	total federal expenditures, what ]	moneys have been expended on	
defence each year commencing		1955?


Edgar John Benson: Year		per cent
1954-55		39.4
1955-56		39.9
1956-57		36.8
1957-58		33.2
1958-59		26.9
1959-60		26.9
1960-61		25.8
1961-62		25.3


*NARCOTIC CENTRE SEWER OUTLET, MATSQUI, B.C.
Mr. Herridge: 1.	Have representations been received by the government to the effect that the sewer from the narcotic centre, sponsored by the penitentiary branch of the Department of Justice at Matsqui, B.C., will empty into a lagoon, contained by a dike built on a sawdust base and with a sawdust core?
2.	If so, what action will be taken to ensure that, in the event the dike washes out, responsibility for contamination of valuable farm lands of Matsqui prairie can be easily established?


Hubert Badanai: 1. No such representations have been received by the Department of Public Works. The construction of this sewerage system is not the responsibility of the department as this service will be made available by the municipality.
2.	Not applicable.


PUGWASH, N.S., PILOTAGE AUTHORITY
Mr. Coales: Have the members of the Pugwash pilotage authority been dismissed from their positions and, if so, for what reasons?


George James McIlraith: Four members of the
Pugwash pilotage authority have been replaced because of political activities.
electrical system, quay wall, pictou, n.s.


Mr. MacEwan: Have tenders been called for an electrical service system for the quay wall at Pictou, N.S. and, if so (a) what were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of their tenders, and (b) to whom will the contract for the work be awarded?


Hubert Badanai: Yes; (a) Ferguson Industries Ltd., Pictou, N.S., $13,987; C. E. McCarthy, New Glasgow, N.S., $17,990. (b) The award of the contract to the low tenderer has been recommended.
mail contract, halifax-port hawkesbury,


Mr. MacEwan: Have tenders been called for a mail contract from Halifax, N.S., to Port Hawkesbury, N.S. and, if so (a) what were the names of the various tenderers and the amounts of their tenders, and (b) to whom will the contract be awarded?


Mr. Denis:: Yes. Tenders were receivable up to noon on Friday, 29th November 1963.
(a)	Moffat Bros. Refrigeration Service Ltd. (Douglas Moffatt) Box 731, Truro, $22,000; John R. Fletcher, 3344 Connaught Ave., Halifax, $22,800; John H. Maclean, 6243 Quin-pool Rd., Halifax, $23,650; Peter Werenka, 6330 Chebucto Rd., Halifax, $29,690.25; Edward J. Kelly, Box 1, R.R. 1, Irene Ave., Lower Sackville, $30,810; Donald Zinck, Gordon Zinck, Antigonish, $32,000; Douglas J. Dickson, Box 26, New Glasgow, $35,000.
Late tender: James Beck, P.O. Box 399, New Glasgow, was submitted too late to receive consideration, $28,800.
(b)	Following the usual inquiry, the contract would be awarded to the lowest competent tenderer who can offer sufficient security for the faithful performance of the service.


MAIL CONTRACT, NEW GLASGOW-ANTIGONISH, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: Have tenders been called for a mail contract from New Glasgow, N.S., to Antigonish, N.S. and, if so (a) what were the names of the various tenderers and the amounts of their tenders, and (b) to whom will the contract be awarded?


Azellus Denis: Yes. Tenders were receivable up to noon on Friday, 29th November 1963.
(a) Colin D. MacGillivray, R.R. 1, Avondale, $5,820; Donald Zinck, Gordon Zinck, Antigonish, $6,000; Douglas J. Dickson, Box 26, New Glasgow, $6,000; Malcolm MacDonald, Egerton, $7,200.
Late tender. James Beck, P.O. box 399, New Glasgow, $5,000, was submitted too late to receive consideration.
Questions
(b) Following the usual inquiry, the contract would be awarded to the lowest competent tenderer who can offer sufficient security for the faithful performance of the service.


CONTRACT FOR FLAT CARS, EASTERN CAR CO.
Mr. MacEwan: Has the Canadian National Railways awarded a contract for 100 steel flat cars to Hawker Siddeley group, Eastern Car Company division at Trenton, N.S. and, if not, when will this contract be awarded?


George James McIlraith: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Yes, on October 15 last.


REPLACEMENT OF RETAINING WALL, PARRSBORO, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Has the government, in its tender call for the rebuilding of the approach to the government wharf at Parrsboro, included in the work to be carried out the replacement of the wooden retaining wall which is in a state of disrepair?


Hubert Badanai: The reconstruction of the approach to the public wharf at Parrsboro, for which tenders are now being called, does not include replacement of the retaining wall.


* THREE RIVERS BRIDGE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	When was the legislation empowering the construction and operation of a bridge by a private corporation at Three Rivers, Quebec, introduced, passed by the Senate, by the house, given royal assent, and approved by order in council?
2.	Will the structure of the bridge and piers affect the St. Lawrence and, if so, what is the estimated cost to the government of protecting the present navigable and water level attributes of the river?
3.	When did the government receive this estimate of cost?
4.	Does the legislation or any other statutory provisions ensure that such estimated expenditures shall be borne or shared by the bridge corporation?
5.	Has the government any powers, given a decision that the cost of protecting the waters is too high for the government, to stop the construction?
6.	Is there any possibility the bridge structure may affect access or ease of traffic into the harbour of Three Rivers and, if so, in what ways?
7.	Has the government examined the plans of the bridge structure and, if so, has there been an acceptance of these plans as complete, adequate, and designed for this specific place and problem?


George James McIlraith: Chapter 71 of the statutes of 1956 which received royal assent on June 7, 1956; and chapter 65 of the statutes of 196061 which received royal assent on June 22, 1961, refer to the bridge corporation and bridge project. Orders in council P.C. 1963-368, March 4, 1963, deals with the matter of approval of plans for the bridge.
2. Yes. It has been estimated that remedial works in lake St. Pierre to protect against this could cost up to $60 million.

Questions
3.	Studies of protective works which might be required were developed during the past winter and the spring of this year.
4.	No.
5.	This question relates to a matter of legal interpretation.
6.	Yes, because of the number and location of piers. The St. Lawrence river pilots have also raised objections with regard to handling of ships in the river at this area which would result from the bridge construction.
7.	The order in council of March 4, 1963 had three different sets of plans attached. As previously indicated to this house, grave concern exists that any of these plans could cause serious problems relating to navigation, ice jamming, flood damage above and below the site of the bridge, impediment to harbour growth and other possible consequences which could only be resolved, and then perhaps only partly, by heavy federal expenditures on upstream protective works.


T.C.A. CONTRACT FOR DC-9 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Marcoux: Does the Minister of Transport intend to recommend that Trans-Canada Air Lines cancel their order for DC-9 aircraft until prototypes of the aircraft have been produced, tested and certified as meeting all safety requirements?


Mr. Caniin:: No.


*AGE LIMIT FOR PENITENTIARY GUARDS
Mr. Graffley: Are applications for the position of guard in federal penitentiaries accepted from persons 40 years of age or over and, if not (a) how long has this policy been followed (b) will the policy be reviewed in the light of the program of the Department of Labour to encourage the employment of persons over 40 years of age?


Mr. Macdonald:: No, except in the case of veterans with overseas service who meet the health and physical fitness requirements, (a) Since the 18th of October, 1960, when the age limit for employment as guard was raised from 35 years of age; (b) no, because of the agility and physical fitness required of the custodial staff of the penitentiaries.


* MONTREAL GRAIN ELEVATORS MANAGER
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Who is the manager of the Montreal grain elevators?
2.	Was he appointed following a civil service competition?
3.	What previous experience did he have in this field?
4.	Is he bilingual?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Mr. F. W. Moore, general superintendent of grain elevators, national harbours board, Montreal harbour.
2. No.

3.	Mr. Moore has served in various capacities in grain elevators since 1921, including positions as assistant superintendent in 1930 and elevator manager in 1958. He was appointed as general superintendent of grain elevators at Montreal harbour on April 1, 1963.
4.	No.


RECREATIONAL PARKS DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Was the subject of recreational parks discussed at the recent federal-provincial parks conference?
2.	Did the federal government propose a joint federal-provincial program of recreational parks development to meet the urgent needs for additional facilities of this kind and, if so, will this program supplement or supersede the federal-provincial camp grounds and picnic site program?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, in the context of possible measures to improve and extend park facilities across Canada to meet current and expected requirements.
2. Federal officials discussed with provincial officials the need to inventory all parks resources in Canada at the federal, provincial and municipal level. This was agreed and when the inventory has been concluded, it will be possible to determine what gaps exist in the present parks systems and what plans should be implemented to provide for future needs.


NATIONAL PARKS ZONING POLICY
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What are the basic features for the zoning policy for national parks announced last January?
2.	Has the policy been applied to any of Canada's national parks as yet?
3.	Is it intended that the policy shall apply to all national parks in Canada and, if not, what parks are excepted?


Arthur Laing: 1. In accordance with the principles of the National Parks Act and national parks purpose, most of the land area in each park is to be retained in a wilderness and near wilderness state. The act provides that these unique natural areas shall be preserved, yet at the same time they are to be made available for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the public. Reconciling these two objectives and solving the problem of a proper balance between character and intensity of public activity and the ability of various regions in a park to support such use without impairment of the natural resource is the crux of the planning objective.
The solution to this problem and the basis of long range planning is the zoning concept. The purpose of zoning is to give order to planning and development by delineating the most appropriate use for each area and setting forth policy objectives for each zone which will ensure protection of the primary

resource yet provide appropriate facilities for public activity, understanding and enjoyment of the attractions.
2.	A preliminary zoning plan has been worked out for the four contiguous mountain parks, Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay, showing ten wilderness zones encompassing about one third of the area. The remaining two thirds are classed as semi-wilderness. Present and planned facilities associated with access, accommodation and heavy use are contained within the semi-wilderness zones. While the preliminary zoning plan requires further development, current planning is proceeding on the basis of these principles.
3.	Yes, as far as it may be reasonably applicable to each park, considered individually. In the smaller parks, large wilderness zones will not be possible, but even these parks afford scope for setting apart natural areas managed and used for public enjoyment in much the same manner as the wilderness zones in the larger national parks.


* TEMPORARY POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Knowles: 1.	What authority set the rates of pay for temporary or casual employees of the Post Office Department for the 1963 Christmas period?
2.	Was any reference made to the Department of Labour to determine whether these rates were fair? If so, what was the reply of the Department of Labour?


Mr. McWilliam:: 1. The governor in council set the rates on recommendation of civil service commission in accordance with section 10 of Civil Service Act.
2. Not by Post Office Department.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Douglas: 1.	Is there a reorganization recently or currently underway in the Post Office Department and, if so (a) how many positions have been (i) downgraded (ii) upgraded (b) how many employees were involved in each case?
2.	Since January 1, 1959, how many new positions have been created in (a) administration generally (b) the methods and standards branch in the time and motion study and work measurement field?
3.	Since January 1, 1959, what increase, if any, has there been in operating staff (a) full time (b) part time?
4.	Since January 1, 1959, what increase, if any, has there been in (a) first class mail (b) second class mail (c) third class mail (d) fourth class mail?
5.	Has a time and motion study and work measurement program been carried out in the Post Office Department and, if so (a) what savings, if any, resulted from this survey in the 1959-60 fiscal year (b) what is the detailed breakdown, clearly indicating how the savings were computed
Orders for Returns
(c) are these net savings from which have been subtracted the total cost of the program including whatever additional supervisory positions that may have been added?
Return tabled.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION COMPETITION
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What was the gist of civil service commission information circular No. 63-654-management analysts-government departments, Ottawa?
2.	How many selection board meetings have been held to interview applicants for this competition and (a) who were the persons on each one of these selection boards (b) what departments did they represent (c) what was the grade and salary paid each member of the selection boards (d) what was the date and location for each meeting of selection boards and locations?
3.	Did the civil service commission or any other government department send a representative or representatives to Timmins, Toronto, Montreal and St. John's to request applicants to make applications for positions in this competition and, if so (a) what was the name of the department (b) the name and title of representative (c) the length of service with the department (d) the length of service with the civil service commission (e) his present salary range, and (f) the total expenses incurred by each representative to visit the centres referred to?
4.	How many selection boards went to Timmins to interview applicants in this competition and what was the name, title, and salary of each member of the particular selection boards, also from which department was each drawn?
5.	Was there any disciplinary action taken against any member or members of selection boards who went to Timmins and, if so (a) what was the nature of the disciplinary action taken (b) what was the name and title of each officer disciplined, and the department each represented (c) was any member of the selection board not disciplined and what was his department?
6.	(a) Did applicants in this competition from Timmins provide members of the selection board or boards with refreshments or entertainment (b) was preference given in the recommendation of personnel who are presently in government departments or the civil service commission by the selection boards?
7.	Has there been an eligible list established as a result of this competition?
8.	What is the name and salary of each applicant appointed from outside the federal public service as a result of this competition?
9.	(a) What is the name of department or departments to which each applicant from this competition has been assigned (b) what is the experience as management analysts of each candidate selected by name (c) what is the previous experience and qualifications of each candidate selected in this competition (degree from university, etc.)?
10.	What is the relationship between experience in mining management analysts and the duties of management analysts in federal government departments?
Return tabled.


CUSTOMS OFFICES, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Lalulippe: 1. What were the expenses incurred by the federal government customs offices in Compton-Frontenac during the past three years?

Inquiries of the Ministry
2.	What expenses were incurred for equipment?
3.	Where were purchases made and what was the amount in each case?
4.	Were tenders called for each purchase?
5.	What expenses were incurred for repairs?
6.	Where was the equipment and parts for such repairs purchased and what was the cost in each case?
7.	Were tenders called for each one of those purchases?
8.	Were there any transfers, changes, dismissals or promotions in the staff of the customs offices located in Compton-Frontenac and, if so, what were the reasons in each case?
9.	Does the government intend to open new customs offices in Compton-Frontenac and, if so, when, where, for what reasons?
Return tabled.


IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, COMMON MARKET
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What were the main imports from, and exports to the common market countries in the last five years and what was the value of such imports and exports?
2.	Are there any negotiations under way at the present time with these countries concerning the import or export of products?
3.	Has the Department of Trade and Commerce permanent representatives with the authorities of the common market and, if so, who are the representatives and what are their duties?
Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the orders of the day
are called there are one or two references I should like to make to questions that are still on the order paper, some of which have been there for a considerable period of time and to which we are most anxious to have replies. I am not going into particulars on this occasion except to say that question No. 1,374, by the hon. member for Acadia, asks how many leaders of parties are at present receiving the $4,000 provided for in Bill No. C-91 as assented to August 2, 1963. This question has been on the order paper since October 16. Then there is starred question No. 1,442 asked by the hon. member for Cumberland, which is along similar lines, and we are very anxious to obtain answers to these questions so the house will not be in the position of the hon. member for Red Deer the other day when he started to make a statement about something that had occurred, and to which the house and posterity will never have an answer.
I am sure these two questions could be answered. I am not going into particulars on the other questions to which I might make


reference, but I will do that on a later occasion unless the government sees fit, by tomorrow or the day after, to bring down answers to these questions. The fact that some of them are starred questions and have stood on the order paper for quite a while is not in keeping with that degree of co-operation desired in the house.
The other day the Secretary of State told us about the number of orders that had been returned and those that were still outstanding, and he said this was some kind of a record. I do not want to go into that, but I do point out there is a large number of interesting returns outstanding, and I hope that within the next 24 hours they might be brought down. We are very anxious to receive some of the information sought. For instance, there is correspondence respecting the world fair, which I do not think has been brought down. At least it had not as of December 10, even though the order was passed on July 3. Then the Minister of Finance, who I am sure is desirous at all times of giving the house full information, has not brought in the return relating to sales tax on building material and machinery, which was also ordered on July 3.
A further return which has not been made relates to C.N.R. financing, and the hon. member for Acadia was the mover of a motion seeking correspondence regarding rail line abandonment, which was made an order for return on June 19. I shall not go into further particulars, but we are very anxious to have these questions answered and these orders for returns brought down.
We are endeavouring to co-operate in every way, but we ask that the government on its part bring in the answers to these questions and the returns that were ordered by the house, some of them months ago, relating to matters which should not have required such a delay in giving the replies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman is perfectly correct that every effort should be made by every government at all times to supply the house with all the information required for its services, and I will endeavour to impress upon my colleagues, and through them all departments, the desirability of making every effort to facilitate business between now and the time the session terminates. Of course these returns go on for the life of the parliament, and even if there should be a prorogation this week they would still be an obligation on the government.
So far as the questions are concerned, I believe there has never been a session of parliament in the history of Canada when so many questions have been answered and asked, but I will endeavour to do everything I can to see that as many more as possible

are answered, even the most recent ones including, for example, question No. 1,890.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. This morning's press carries a report from the United Nations saying that under heavy pressure Canada has given up on an attempt to preserve a formal commonwealth role in the United Nations. It also says this has come as a result of the desire on the part of certain nations to eliminate the commonwealth seat in reorganizing the 11 nation security council. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the commonwealth is going to have a seat in the reorganized council, and what position the Canadian government proposes to take?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give my hon. friend a reply to that question. The debate in the United Nations assembly on the question of enlargement and equitable representation in United Nations councils is to end tomorrow, and when the Secretary of State for External Affairs returns he may wish to report more fully on the results of that debate.
Meanwhile I can say that the question of future representation on United Nations councils is not likely to be solved at this session of the assembly because the Soviet delegation indicated that it would not ratify the amendments to the charter which would permit enlargement of those councils, especially the security council, and that kind of enlargement would go a long way to ensure that the commonwealth would continue to be represented by commonwealth members on the council.
The Soviet delegation links this question to the representation of China, in what I consider to be an unjustifiable stand, and resolutions adopted by the general assembly may not succeed in providing the necessary additional seats for new members from Africa and Asia. In addition, at the present session 55 African-Asian delegations proposed an enlargement of the general committee of the assembly-if you like, the steering committee-from 21 to 24 members, but omitted reference to the commonwealth in that enlargement. As a result of that omission Australia, New Zealand and Canada decided to table an amendment in order to restore this reference to the commonwealth.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that considerable pressure was brought to bear on the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand delegations to withdraw this amendment, but that pressure was resisted. However, on Saturday
Inquiries of the Ministry last two African members of the commonwealth whose interests were designed to be maintained and protected by this amendment, Ghana and Nigeria, as well as other delegations, appealed during the debate for the withdrawal of this amendment, assuring the movers of the amendment both in the committee and behind the scenes that the commonwealth position would remain unchanged and that the commonwealth would continue to be represented on the general committee.
Under these circumstances Australia, New Zealand and Canada decided not to press the amendment to a vote, which I think was a very wise decision; because if there had been a vote on the resolution to protect the interests of the commonwealth, the commonwealth delegations themselves would have been divided on that vote.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that the Canadian representatives at the United Nations will continue to press for the commonwealth having a role on the reorganized security council and general committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I recall it, on November 28 when the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question on this matter, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that he did not expect there was any probability of the commonwealth losing its seat under the gentlemen's agreement that I think has been in effect for some 17 years.
I would ask the Prime Minister to say whether Australia and New Zealand suggested to Canada that this amendment should be withdrawn, or whether the suggestion came from the Canadian representative, the chairman of the Canadian delegation, the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart).


Lester Bowles Pearson: To the best of my information and knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the decision not to proceed with this amendment was made after consultation among the Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and other commonwealth delegations, Ghana and Nigeria for instance, who would not have been able to support it if it had been proceeded with.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Into which of the proposed geographical areas does Canada fit?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that question has not arisen and will not arise as long as there
5928	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry is an understanding that there should be a commonwealth seat on these councils. It that is abandoned-and I hope it will not be abandoned; we will do our best to prevent it being abandoned-I do not know into what geographical area we will fit.



CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO COST OF OPERATIONS IN MIDDLE EAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday morning the right hon. Leader of the Opposition inquired about arrangements for financing the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East. The day previous the budgetary committee of the United Nations had approved certain proposals for financing this force for 1964. I have the details here and it might save time if I put them on Hansard rather than read them into the record, if that is agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: Text of the document above referred to is as follows:]
On Saturday morning the Leader of the Opposition inquired about arrangements for financing the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East. He referred to the position of the Canadian delegation as regards a proposal then before the general assembly.
On Friday afternoon the fifth committee of the assembly approved (56-10 Soviet bloc -13) a resolution co-sponsored by Canada, three Scandinavian countries, India and Nigeria, which contained an agreed formula for financing UNEF during 1964. The formula provides that the 1964 costs of UNEF estimated at $17,750,000 will be shared as follows: the first $2 million will be assessed at the regular budget rate; the remainder will also be assessed at this rate, except that the less developed countries will be allowed a 57.5 per cent reduction in their shares. For the past several years, it has been recognized that the less developed countries, having a limited capacity to contribute toward the costs of peace keeping operations involving heavy expenditures, should be allowed reductions in their shares. The gap created by granting these reductions is filled by voluntary contributions from the developed states.
These financing arrangements apply as regards the less-developed countries and are not related to the problem arising from the refusal of the Soviet bloc and some other developed countries to pay their share of the costs. These countries are assessed at the regular scale and their arrears of payment have been accumulating.


At the fourth special session of the assembly last June, the formula for financing both UNEF and ONUC allowed 55 per cent reductions to the less developed countries. The Canadian delegation at the current session was instructed to urge the readoption of the June formula and, in fact, it was adopted for the Congo force. In relation to UNEF, however, the less developed countries pressed for a slightly larger reduction. The voluntary contribution expected of Canada to fill the current gap has not been finally determined but it is estimated to be about $80,000.
Because of the importance which Canada attaches to the role played by UNEF in the Middle East, the government considered it desirable to support the modified formula. In agreeing once more to an ad hoc arrangement, the government has continued to insist that financing arrangements for peace keeping operations must be placed on a long term basis incorporating the principle of collective financial responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was kind enough to give me this statement in advance. I would now like to ask him what the Canadian government is doing in the United Nations to assure that the nations that are in default in their contributions will be called upon to pay them. At present a few nations including Canada, are willing to assume more than their share, but I would like to ask are the provisions of the United Nations charter to be flagrantly disregarded without any action being taken against the defaulters?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows the steps that have been taken in recent years to do what can be done to ensure that all members of the United Nations discharge their financial responsibilities. The matter is under consideration at this assembly. I will have to look into the discussion and make a report to the right hon. gentleman later in the week.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES ROYAL COMMISSION    REPORTED REMARK BY CHAIRMAN RESPECTING JURISDICTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the statement made in Quebec city last Saturday by the co-chairman of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, Mr. Andre Laurendeau, to the effect that the

commission's terms of reference exceed the federal jurisdiction, and does he agree with it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that statement. I will be glad to look into it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary-question. If Mr. Laurendeau's statement is justified, will the provincial governments be able, within their jurisdiction, to prevent the commission from inquiring into fields which come under the provinces or the school boards?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not like to comment on that until I have seen the statement.



ROYAL COMMISSION INTERIM REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism. Has the Prime Minister received any report on the progress of the commission and, if so, does he not now feel that the membership of the commission should be increased by representatives of other ethnic groups as I have suggested to him on a number of occasions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not anticipated that we shall be receiving reports from time to time on the work of the commission, and this is in accordance with the normal practice with regard to royal commissions. We did receive a report some time ago from the commission, though I should like to check this, on how it proposes to organize its work. I will see if I can get a copy for the hon. member. But we do not anticipate receiving progress reports.
As far as the second part of the question is concerned, consideration was given to enlarging the membership of the commission but it was decided that this would not be advisable, at least at this time.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG MAINTENANCE BASE    INQUIRY AS TO MEETING WITH MANITOBA DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister now tell the house the time and place
Inquiries of the Ministry of the meeting tomorrow between a delegation from Manitoba and the federal government with regard to the T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base at Winnipeg? Can he also tell us whether he will be present, and whether it will now be possible for other hon. members from Manitoba to be in attendance also?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand the meeting is to take place at ten o'clock tomorrow in the west block, room 213. I expect to be present, together with my colleagues, and as I understand there is no objection by our visitors from Manitoba to the attendance of other members of parliament, they will be very welcome.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Prime Minister not agree, as a matter of fact, that instead of there being no objection, the Manitoba delegation would like us to be there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would like them to be there too, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall be there.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to direct this question either to the Minister of Transport or to the Minister of Public Works; I am not sure which of the two is the responsible minister in this case. What is the estimated cost of the remedial work to be done in the St. Lawrence river by the federal government in order to protect the world fair site in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: This question, it seems to me, should be placed on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF TAX ON BUILDING MATERIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Does the Prime Minister intend to implement the recommendations contained in the brief which the Montreal junior chamber of commerce submitted to the government last week, concerning the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials used for the world fair?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that so many

Inquiries of the Ministry of my hon. friend's questions are in a form that they cannot be answered on the orders of the day.



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister heard any reports about difficulties in the shipping of flour from Vancouver to Russia. If so, what can he report to the house on this matter?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard these reports, but I will inquire and let the hon. member have a reply as soon as possible.



CANADIAN PROTESTS RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. Can the minister give the house a report on the situation with regard to the bill before the United States congress pertaining to the stamping of lumber?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Forestry):: 1 cannot add anything to what was said by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce on Friday last on this subject, unless some news has come in within the last hour or so, in which case I would ask my colleague to supplement what I have to say. We believe that the bill which was approved by the Senate, particularly that aspect of it which deals with sawn lumber, is contrary to the obligations which the United States assumed under the GATT agreement. Representations to this effect have been made at the highest level in the United States, and we are still awaiting a report.



FOREST PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: May I take this opportunity to deal with a question which was asked on Thursday last by the hon. member for Dorchester. The hon. member referred on that date to some remarks I had made in San Francisco the previous day. He asked what the federal government was doing by way of helping the forest industries to take care of an expected increase in demand. That question covers a wide field, and to answer it would take some

considerable time. However, I have prepared an answer for the information of the hon. member and of others in the house, and I would be glad to file it. It is about two pages in length.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: Text of document referred to above is as follows:]
As the hon. member for Dorchester and the other members of the house are aware, the responsibility for managing the forest industries of the ten provinces and for the sale of forest products generally rests with the industries and the provinces. The responsibility of the federal Department of Forestry is largely in the research field. In so far as my department is concerned, its methods of assisting the forest industries fall into three general categories:
1.	We assist the forest industries directly through forest products research in our two well equipped and well staffed laboratories in Ottawa and Vancouver. The function of the two laboratories is to increase the industries' competitive ability through better wood products and the reduction and profitable utilization of primary waste materials.
2.	The department is currently reviewing its role as a co-ordinator of special forest economics information in an effort to become a more effective and useful partner with industry in this vital area. With its special understanding of the forest industries, the department has embarked on a program of supplying forest economic data to industry that will be of direct and immediate benefit in such matters as increased plant efficiency, marketing research and analyses to provide new uses for wood, the development and exploitation of new markets, and the expansion of existing markets.
3.	We also assist the provinces in securing and maintaining the resource itself through-
(a)	Research on the better production and management of trees and their protection from fire, insects and diseases;
(b)	Co-operative federal-provincial forestry agreements designed to improve access into the forests, fire suppression effectiveness, reforestation activities and various other projects proposed by the provinces which would assist in the preservation of the resource and its optimum utilization by industry. Millions of federal funds have been allocated to these activities over the last decade.
A specific recent example of practical assistance to industry is the $3 million being made available for the expansion of the



IB, 1963

[Stage Direction]
research facilities of the pulp and paper research institute of Canada, at Pointe Claire, Quebec.
Another example of our program for greater assistance is the construction at Victoria, B.C., at a cost of nearly $3,000,000 more, of what will be one of the finest forest research laboratories on the continent. This unit is intended to provide constant and up to date practical research information on forest protection and management to that province's great forest industries, as is being done through other departmental laboratories and establishments right across Canada.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I will direct this question to the Prime Minister. No doubt he, as well as other members, has read of the continuing adverse reaction of business circles to the budget proposals, and also of the effect upon American investment which is shown in the recent dominion bureau of statistics returns. Is there any probability of the government bringing in, before this session ends, legislation to end the present punitive and restrictive policies which follow the acceptance of the budget by this house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, without accepting for a moment the qualifying adjectives of my hon. friend, there is no intention of bringing in legislation during the remainder of this session on the matter to which he has referred.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot go as far ahead as the next budget, but is it intended, before the next budget comes in, to make a change in this regard in order to preserve foreign investment in Canada? Would the Prime Minister reply to that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows that these matters are dealt with as matters of government policy and are not dealt with on orders of the day. This is true especially with questions concerning the next budget.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, one which I deferred asking him the other day in his unavoidable absence. In view of the answer given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition regarding investment curbs, I wonder if the Minister of Finance is now in a position to comment on the statement made by the
Inquiries of the Ministry finance minister of Quebec to the effect that these curbs which have been imposed are harmful and should be removed at once.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I have no wish to enter into controversy, now, either with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings or with the gentleman to whom he has referred.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received an invitation from Premier Lloyd of Saskatchewan to attend the conference of provincial ministers from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to be held in Regina on Friday, December 20, to discuss the future water requirements of the prairie provinces. If so, has he accepted this invitation?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the conference that is to be held in Regina embracing officials of the three prairie provinces has to do with the studies on the Nelson-South Saskatchewan rivers. We have deemed it sufficiently important that it is my intention to show up, and I am going to be accompanied by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture. I am also taking my deputy, Mr. Cote, and Mr. Clark of the water resources branch.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if I might address a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture which bears on this same question. Will the Minister of Agriculture be taking along the director of P.F.R.A. to this meeting?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: We will be taking along the chairman of the prairie water board.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question related to one I asked on July 30 last, as to whether the government was prepared to accede to the request by the distributive trades advisory council to set up a marketing advisory council and to repeal section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act.



S932 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry At that time the minister said the matter was under consideration. I wonder if the minister can tell the house whether consideration has been given and whether a policy has been determined with respect to it.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to answer that question tomorrow.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Lamb (Victoria. Ont.):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister on a matter which is of great concern to us in eastern Canada. Has the right hon. gentleman given further consideration to the appointment of a minister of agriculture to represent eastern Canada, as I understand was promised during the election campaign?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter is still under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



SALES BY B.C. REFINING COMPANY AT LESS THAN WORLD PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the hon. gentleman say whether the British Columbia Sugar Refining Company sold sugar substantially below the world price and the eastern Canada price throughout the sugar crisis and, in fact, used its inventories to peg the price of sugar in western Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is
certainly one for the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temiscamingue):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister taken cognizance of a statement reported to have been made over the week end by Mr. Dirk Stikker, secretary general of NATO, to the effect that it might be wise to base the Canadian bombers somewhere else if President de Gaulle refuses to allow their nuclear warheads to be stored on French soil?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I heard that statement over television and I have also read it in the press. We shall be receiving a report on this statement, as well as on other matters, from my colleague the Minister of National Defence who is at present in France.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Has the Prime Minister himself any comment to make on this statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, except to say that the secretary general's statement was very guarded. He simply said that in certain circumstances it might be desirable in the future for these squadrons to be moved from France to Germany.



NUCLEAR WEAPONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the Minister of National Defence on November 20 in reference to nuclear weapons, I wonder if the Prime Minister has now been advised whether there are any nuclear weapons in any form stored on Canadian soil.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not been advised to that effect.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a supplementary question, what negotiations are the Prime Minister and the government engaging in to negotiate Canada out of nuclear weapons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That certainly is not a question to be answered on orders of the day.



SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN ALLOWANCES OF MILITARY ATTACHES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence or, in his absence, to the associate minister. Under his expenses reducing program, is it the intention of the minister to decrease the allowances granted the military attaches in our embassies who, on top of their salaries, have received an average of $8,600 for entertainment and other social expenses?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a question for the order paper.



STATEMENT ON GROUNDING OF CF-100 SQUADRONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday last the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) asked a question concerning the grounding of CF-100 aircraft. I am now in a position to answer it.
An investigation which was carried out subsequent to a recent accident involving a CF-100 aircraft revealed that the unsuccessful attempts by both crew members to eject were caused by a technical malfunction of the ejection seats. Similar problems were discovered in other CF-100 ejection seats. Consequently all CF-100 aircraft were grounded pending the successful conclusion of the investigation. At this time modifications to correct the malfunction have been designed and are in the process of being applied. It is expected that these modifications will be implemented and the CF-100 aircraft will commence flying within two days.



REQUEST FOR GRANT FOR 1966 QUEBEC FESTIVAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Following an excellent recommendation made by the national council on fitness and amateur sport, does the minister intend to make the $500,000 grant requested by the committee on interprovincial winter games? [Text]


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. On the advice of the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport, the Canadian sports federation was asked to carry out a study of the feasibility and desirability of holding a Canadian sports festival. As a result of this study, a recommendation, which has been endorsed by the national advisory council, was made to the federal government for the holding of a winter games festival in Quebec in 1966. A group in Quebec city is now working on this project and it is hoped that a successful games festival will result.
In projects of this kind the federal government ordinarily makes a grant to cover a proportion of the costs, subject to matching. If Quebec wished to hold the games, the proportion of federal backing would be subject to negotiation.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, does the minister intend to announce soon changes affecting the membership of the national council on fitness and amateur sport?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The 30 man national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport was appointed in January, 1962. Fifteen members were appointed for a three year period and 15 for two years, which appointments expire in January, 1964. Whether appointments were for a two or three year term was decided on an alphabetical basis. The question of appointments to the council is now under consideration.



INQUIRY AS TO SALARY INCREASES FOR INTERPRETERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. Will there be a Christmas present for the interpreters? Oh, I see the Secretary of State is out. I will put the question anyway; perhaps someone else will answer. In other words, does the minister expect a report from the civil service commission concerning the pay status of interpreters and a consequent betterment of conditions in this branch of the service in this house?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brefon South):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Now that the government is moving to increase the pay of the deputy ministers, what plans does the right hon. gentleman have in mind for increasing the pay of the civil servants in the lower categories?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Steps were taken to that end before the salaries of the deputy ministers were dealt with.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Does the minister intend to honour a commitment made by the last government to pay a third of the cost of an addition to the aquarium building in Vancouver?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: I am pleased to advise the hon. member that not only does the present government intend to honour the commitment made by the last government to pay one third of the

Inquiries of the Ministry cost of an addition to the aquarium building in Vancouver, but treasury board has already approved an amount of $250,000, subject to equal contributions being made by the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia. It is understood, of course, that parliamentary approval will have to be received for expenditure of this amount, as of other items in the estimates.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT OP FEDERAL POLICIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the federal government gave assurances to all or any of the provinces that their advice will be sought before federal decisions are reached affecting fiscal, monetary or tariff policies, all matters within the federal jurisdiction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no such assurances were given.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The premier of Quebec on "Inquiry" made this statement:
As far as that is concerned, I am satisfied with the reply, obtained from Mr. Gordon. It was agreed that there would be consultation and exchange of information on fiscal policies, monetary policies and even tariff policies.
Is that statement correct?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have said that the government would welcome suggestions or proposals on all aspects of policy from any interested people. During the course of the recent federal-provincial conference there was a committee of the conference established to discuss economic policy. We met all day on it. I would hope there will be similar discussions each year if this is the wish of the provinces. However, I made it perfectly clear at the time and I should like to repeat now that obviously final decisions in the areas of fiscal policy, monetary policy or tariff policy are the responsibility of the federal government and the federal government only.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. I ask the Minister of Finance this. Did he in reply to the premier of Quebec agree that there would be consultation and exchange of information on fiscal policies, monetary policies and even tariff policies, as asked for by the premier of Quebec on page 38 of his brief?
IMr. Robichaud.l


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I can add nothing to what I have already said, which seems to me a perfectly clear answer to the question asked.


John George Diefenbaker: It has all the clarity of evasion.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister did he agree with the premier of Quebec that before any fiscal, monetary or tariff policies were proceeded with by the government there would be consultation with the provinces? Surely he can answer yes or no.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: With great respect to the Leader of the Opposition


John George Diefenbaker: Yes or no?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -it is my responsibility to answer questions to the best of my ability but not to be subjected to cross-examination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The old idea of divine right.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. In view of what he said in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition, is the procedure followed now as enunciated by him any different from what it has been in the past?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would think very different, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: In what way?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the minister receive a brief from the Canadian association for retarded children, and what consideration and reply has she given to their request for a nominal grant of $62,000 for their work?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I did in fact receive such a brief. I have received a number of excellent representations from representatives of the retarded children, as well as from about seven members on this side of the house, for an increase in the grant from $5,000 to $62,000. I think the house will agree at once that this would be a very substantial increase in one of our

health grants, well above anything heretofore given to a similar organization.
I should like to say that members of the government have given a great deal of thought to the matter of retardation, and letters have gone out to the effect that during the calendar year 1964 a national conference on the subject of retardation may be held with the assistance of all the provinces and all other interested parties in order that a Canadawide program may be worked out. The association has been advised of the probability of such a meeting and the likelihood that a recommendation will be made to defer until another year approval of anything along the lines of the request that has been made.
Nothwithstanding that, I am very happy to inform the hon. member and those on this side of the house who have expressed such interest that a recommendation has been made to treble the present amount.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that mental retardation touches the lives of approximately two million Canadians, does the minister not think that a request for a grant of $62,000 for this purpose is reasonable, having regard to the fact that $600,000 was recently approved to deal with problems arising from cigarette smoking?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the $600,000 to be spent covers a five year period, and that it is a special amount which was recommended as the result of a considerable amount of study and a conference which brought together all interested individuals. I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that such a special grant for retarded children might well result from a special conference. Nothing I have said should be taken as indicating that the government is not alive to the problem, but rather that the size of the grant requested for this specific program could not be met out of the appropriations for next year.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State arising out of some remarks he made on the orders of the day on Friday. In view of the fact that the 1961 census shows that in Toronto there are 1,647 persons out of a population of 672,000 who speak French only, and in view of the need to meet the legitimate
Inquiries of the Ministry rights of these people to have radio programming in their own language, I wonder whether the minister would ask the C.B.C. to investigate the cost of a relay station of the Radio Canada network for this group as opposed to the conversion of station CJBC from an English speaking to a French speaking station.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very glad to draw the hon. gentleman's question to the attention of the C.B.C., but he could have done it equally well himself, of course.


Reid Scott: I think it might be a little more effective coming from the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I doubt it.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question supplementary to the one that has just been asked by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott). Would the Secretary of State have the same investigation undertaken as regards the English broadcasting stations in the cities of Quebec and Montreal, so as to have a comparison made afterwards between the population and the number of English broadcasting stations operated in French cities?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman's question will come to the attention of the C.B.C., even without my doing anything about it. However, I shall take great care that it does. I feel that the board of directors are well aware of all the statistics, and that in the discharge of their responsibilities, they must take all these into account. I believe we should remember that this task was given to the board of directors of the C.B.C.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, but as he is absent I will direct it to the Minister of Labour. Have the atomic energy commission scientists made known to the government any findings since the start of their investigation into the British American Oil Company process for the production of heavy water?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Industry has indicated in the house that he will be receiving a report later today.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the Minister of
Labour then indicate to the house why he was so optimistic in his remarks in Cape Breton over the week end?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, optimism is an attribute of this government.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is the only attribute you have.



FINDING OF GLASS IN SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last week I asked the Minister of Transport what progress had been made in an investigation into the quantities of glass which were found in Canadian wheat shipped to the Soviet union. I urged the minister to make a statement as soon as possible in the interests of protecting the good name of Canadian wheat abroad. I wonder if the minister has that report.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Saturday last the hon. member asked me a question on this subject with particular reference to the published report of a speech made by the Montreal port manager, Mr. Beaudet. There have been earlier questions on the subject. I think there was one arising out of my statement of December 2, a question by the Leader of the Opposition and another question by the hon. member for Calgary North, as well as one or two others. My answer, therefore, will be a little longer than would otherwise be the case.
An intensive investigation was made into this matter following the receipt of formal notification from the Soviet authorities that glass or bottles had been found in seven vessels going to the U.S.S.R. Two of these vessels had loaded at Montreal, one at Baie Comeau, two at West Saint John, one at Quebec and one took on cargo at both Montreal and Halifax. These vessels loaded during the period from October 12 to November 8.
I have read the reports of Mr. Beaudet's speech and have also spoken to the officials of the department who were present and heard the speech. In its references to this subject it seemed to accurately describe the situation. Reference was made in the speech to the fact that possibly only one hold in each of the seven cargoes had been found to contain glass. This statement was based on a verbal communication in Moscow to the chief inspector of the board of grain commissioners, which suggested that the contaminated grain was merely a part of the cargo and not the entire quantity contained on the seven vessels involved.

The investigation to which I referred earlier was conducted by an interdepartmental group consisting of representatives of the Departments of Agriculture, Transport, Trade and Commerce, and the board of grain commissioners and the national harbours board. Glass was discovered also in four railway carloads recently shipped from water and inland points in Ontario to port elevators.
I have come to the conclusion that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to determine at this time where and by what means the glass was introduced into the grain. I am of the opinion that the unfortunate incidents were the result of carelessness, perhaps arising in part out of the pressures involved in handling the very large movement. I consider therefore that our efforts now should be mainly concentrated on avoiding a recurrence.
In previous discussion in the house the question has been raised as to where responsibility lies in a matter of this kind. There is no one government agency with complete control or authority and, of course, commercial firms are also involved in the movement of grain. The board of grain commissioners, under the Minister of Agriculture, is responsible for the quality and condition of grain until it is discharged from a licensed elevator into an ocean carrier. The national harbours board, under the Minister of Transport, operates elevators which, like privately owned elevators, are covered by the regulations of the board of grain commissioners. Its responsibility ceases when the grain leaves its elevators. Any change in the quality or condition of grain, or responsibility for the introduction of extraneous material after loading on a vessel, rests with the commercial firms involved in the transactions. It is obvious, therefore, that a number of agencies and private interests are involved in grain handling.
I wish to refer now to steps which are being taken to avoid a recurrence. It must be recognized, first, that some government departments and agencies have staffs working in and around grain handling facilities and have some authority over bottle or glass material on government premises. The board of grain commissioners, the national harbours board and the departments of agriculture and transport have notified their staffs involved in grain handling that the government takes a very serious view of the matter, and that they are not permitted to have glass bottles in any areas where grain is handled. They have been informed what disciplinary action will be taken if employees are found responsible for causing extraneous material to enter grain handling or storage facilities or holds of ships. Additionally, steps are being taken

to prevent the removal of glass containers from canteens on property under government control where grain is handled.
I have also communicated with the commercial interests involved, namely the grain elevator operators, grain carriers, both water and land, shipping agents, stevedoring companies, maritime unions, independent port wardens and harbour commissioners, indicating the government's serious concern and pointing out the possible adverse effects on the economy. These people have been asked to take immediate steps to ensure that glass containers are not used in areas where grain is handled, and to advise the government of the action they are taking to ensure that no extraneous material is allowed to enter grain.
The board of grain commissioners is enacting a regulation, under the authority of the Canada Grain Act, making it an offence for any person wilfully or carelessly to cause or permit glass or other extraneous material to be introduced into or remain in grain, in any elevator or land carrier or in any vessel delivering grain to a destination in Canada.
As the minister to whom the responsibility for co-ordinating this matter has been given, I now appeal to everyone involved, both management and labour, government and private, to do everything possible to avoid careless or thoughtless actions which would damage the reputation of Canadian grain with serious consequent effects on our exports and on the economy as a whole. I am confident that the necessary co-operation will be forthcoming from all concerned. The high reputation and quality of Canadian grain are renowned throughout the world. I trust that with the measures now announced, and with the co-operation of all who are involved in the handling and movement of grain, Canada's record will be even better than in the past. I want to assure the house that this matter will be kept under close surveillance.
I must apologize to hon. members for taking a little longer than I would otherwise in answering this question, but I do believe the subject matter is of such importance to the grain trade and the economy of this country that I had a duty to answer the question fully.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the minister did not have to apologize for the length of his statement. It was an important one and, with unusual clarity, he placed the situation before us. I should like to ask him whether it is a fact, as reported in the press, that there were two shiploads of wheat in June or July in which glass was found, before this matter arose in connection with shipments to the U.S.S.R. If that be so, what investigation took place at that time? What action was
Inquiries of the Ministry taken in order to prevent the difficult position that arose recently to which he alluded?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is a fact, and it was referred to in my statement of December 2 in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, as appears at page 5320 of Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: What action was taken at that time?


George James McIlraith: At that time there was an investigation, through the board of grain commissioners and the harbour authorities only because the ships were identifiable as were the points at which they loaded. It was confined to that area. Now there has been an extensive investigation of the whole subject matter, with the results that I have indicated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the minister for his very complete answer, because this is a very important question affecting the good reputation which Canadian wheat has abroad. I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and ask him whether the Soviet union has filed any claim for reimbursement of money for the wheat alleged to have been contaminated.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): No, Mr. Speaker, no claims have been filed.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Public Works. I would like to ask him who was responsible for the discourtesy and indignity to our official Canadian flag, the red ensign, which was flown upside down at the Prime Minister's residence and on two other buildings on Friday, December 13.


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this was explained last week by the Prime Minister himself.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: As a supplementary question, what steps are being taken to correct this situation and make sure it does not occur again?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasfings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
5938	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Postmaster General. Is the Postmaster General aware that a number of persons who through the years have been employed as part time employees during the Christmas season, and are therefore well experienced in this type of work, are at a complete loss to know why they are being replaced in post offices this year?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, in some cases where we have new people employed during the Christmas period it is because those skilled people were not available. Sometimes these skilled people are available, and those who are in charge of the post offices know the ones who are experienced and I think they give special consideration to them.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: As a supplementary question, will the Postmaster General send out a directive to the postmasters that they choose them, and not defeated Liberal candidates?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) asked me about the resources of the unemployment insurance fund. At the end of November the amount in the fund was approximately $56 million.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) asked me about representations received with respect to incentive payments on renovations of old buildings. In reply to that question I wish to tell my hon. friend we have received representations. They are presently under consideration, but it is unlikely that a positive answer will be given to them at this stage.



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. Have any of the provinces yet reached agreement with the federal government to pay the increases in old age assistance and in the allowances paid to blind and


disabled persons, effective December 1, which were passed in this house last week? If so, which provinces?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, we were keeping the provinces informed by telegram of the progress of the legislation through the house and of the royal assent to it. I have not checked this morning and I do not know whether any of them have notified us that they wish to reach agreement. However, they have been notified and we suppose they will answer right away.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister check this and make a report tomorrow?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will be glad to do so.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the genial Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I would like to ask him, now that he has seen Bill C-130, respecting the disposition of Indian claims, in the cold hard light of day, does he consider it advisable to withdraw this bill from the order paper in favour of Bill C-67, introduced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), respecting a court of Indian claims, which was given first reading on May 31?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the full consideration that has been given to the bill we have introduced, and in view of the fact that we feel it is completely fair and of great advantage to the Indians, it is now time to give them a chance to consider it and to know their answer by the beginning of next year.



INQUIRY AS TO COMMENCEMENT OF NEW SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would advise the house as to the date of the reassembling of parliament after the new year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that of course will depend upon when we finish this session; but perhaps later in the week, on Wednesday or Thursday, when we have a clearer indication than we have now as to when this session may be finished,

there could be discussion with hon. gentlemen opposite as to the government's intention in calling parliament together next year.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for intruding into the question period at this late hour, but the matter I raise is one of considerable concern to thousands of Canadians. Would the Prime Minister inform the house whether the correspondence related to the Columbia, which was ordered to be tabled by virtue of a motion of this house on October 30, will be produced before this session ends?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into that matter, Mr. Speaker, and see whether I can give my hon. friend a definitive reply tomorrow.



REDISTRIBUTION


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-126, respecting the office of representation commissioner and to effect certain consequential amendments to the Canada Elections Act.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to say anything in this regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I thought the right hon. gentleman made a very sensible suggestion when we were at the committee stage on the resolution, that we should have a full debate at that stage. The bill has been available for a week, and it seems to me there is nothing of a general character that I wish to say about the bill at this stage. I think it correctly represents what the resolution said it would; that it is to establish a representation commissioner whose primary function will be with respect to the redistribution and, to be frank, in the contemplation that a certain person who would probably be agreeable to the house accepts this position, it was felt to be desirable that the representation commissioner should have, for a period of years, a kind of appellate jurisdiction in respect of the office of the chief electoral officer. That is the principle of the bill. It seems to me, sir, that we could debate it much better clause by clause in
Representation Commissioner committee, where in fact I shall probably wish to propose one or two amendments, as may other hon. gentlemen.


John George Diefenbaker: Could the minister indicate them now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The principal amendment that I have in mind at the moment is with respect to clause 22. Quite frankly, I do not like that clause in its present form, and I am going to suggest that a different method be employed to bring this matter to the attention of the House of Commons. The method I will suggest is that the Prime Minister should have the responsibility of bringing this matter before the House of Commons for a review.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak at length on this matter. As far as the general plan is concerned, it covers only the setting up of the office of representation commissioner, with certain consequential amendments to the Canada Elections Act. There is one clause that I think deserves consideration, and perhaps the house would allow me to make reference to it now. I refer to clause 10, which provides for the appointments and says:
The commissioner may
(a)	appoint such officers and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the office of the commissioner; and
(b)	prescribe the duties of such officers and employees-
I think the government would be weakening the provisions of the Civil Service Act by this clause, and I hope the minister will be prepared to agree to an amendment whereby these appointments would be made by the civil service commission. In so far as clause 11 is concerned, it provides that the commissioner may engage on a temporary basis the services of persons having technical or specialized knowledge of any matter relating to the work of the commissioner. I do not think that would be improper.
I am very glad this is the first step toward the assurance that we shall have in this country a redistribution made without regard to political bias or partisan considerations. We brought this question before the house in 1952. Hon. George Drew moved and I seconded an amendment when the bill was before the house. This amendment was:
That the bill be not now read the second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the enactment of a measure to provide for the appointment of a commission to effect the redistribution of electoral ridings in accordance with the census of 1951, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952 inclusive;

Representation Commissioner such commission to be instructed to make its report to this session of parliament upon the resumption of the sitting.
It is quite interesting to note the change of opinion that takes place over the years, Mr. Speaker, for I see that those who voted against that amendment in 1952, when we endeavoured to bring about this desirable objective, included the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) among other distinguished members at that time. In other words, with the passing of the years viewpoints change in the light of discussion.
I was rather surprised today to hear the view expressed by the Minister of Finance, who is rather new to the house, that he was not going to be cross-examined. That was the view of Charles I. I thought it had ended with the unfortunate demise of that king, but apparently that view is still held among those who occupy positions of responsibility on the treasury bench and who are not fully conversant with the traditions of parliament.
I have studied the reports of the commissions appointed in Australia, and they are very revealing. Mr. Castonguay, who it is generally agreed will occupy the position to be created under this bill, visited Australia; and a reading of the reports by the commissioners on the way they have dealt with the matter in their country is of particular interest. I do not see any one of them occupying a position similar to the representation commissioner who belongs to all of the commissions as set up; the reports do not indicate that. But the report of the commissioners of the various states were in general acceptable with one or two exceptions, all of which are set forth in the reports. The grounds of protest are generally those of inequitable distribution of enrolments giving excessive numbers to metropolitan divisions, illogical inclusion of some urban metropolitan districts with adjacent rural areas, and matters such as that. In other words, in Australia the general complaint seemed to be that there was over-representation in the urban areas, a complaint that is the reverse of that sometimes advanced in this country.
Our attitude throughout has been that action should be taken in this regard. The setting up of the commissioner is acceptable. I think that was not the view we held when we were in office, but I am not going to argue that question again. I think a man of the stature and fairness of Mr. Castonguay will make a worth-while contribution toward making parliament more effective.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
I have read in the press editorials to the effect that when the Secretary of State endeavoured the other day to bring before the house first reading of the bill on the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons, and to provide for the readjustment of such representation, I took objection to that course in order to stall, hold up or obstruct action in this regard. That was furthest from my mind. I know that no matter what you do it will always be wrong as far as some newspapers are concerned. I am speaking of editorial writers. If I were to read the metropolitan morning newspaper editorials this morning I would find that the present government is wrong in two matters. Well, that is par on that course. The criticism which was made of me as leader of the Conservative party was made without justification, rhyme or reason. I raised the question whether we should proceed with first reading of the bill at that time in view of the fact that the representatives of the various parties had met and had decided that this bill would not be proceeded with at the present session. I raised that question, as it was my right and responsibility to do. The terms of this bill would not receive consideration in the present session, and that was the understanding. There is no reason at all why, before the end of this session, which I hope is not too far removed-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said "Hear, hear".


John George Diefenbaker: So you agree.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wish the N.D.P. would say "Hear, hear".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The Secretary of State reveals a wonderful spirit of co-operation by what he has just said, which is appreciated very much. I simply want to make clear that we have no desire or wish to hold up redistribution, but arrangements have been made among the party representatives that the bill on the redistribution will not come up at this session. Therefore the suggestion in the minds of one or two editorial writers, or at least the criticism which was advanced, is devoid of that responsibility which one expects on the part of those who view us from positions outside of parliament. The suggestion of one paper was that if I, on behalf of the official opposition, were to obstruct this redistribution measure it should be pushed through by force of a majority in the house. That was a gratuitous statement, again without any foundation.

So far as this bill is concerned we intend to give it our support, asking, of course, that there be an amendment to the clause with regard to appointments to which I have made reference. We welcome the plan which is involved in the setting up of an electoral commission. We welcome any step which is taken to bring about an end to a system whereby political opponents are operated upon and their constituencies carved without anaesthetic. That was our idea when His Excellency, in the speech from the throne on January 18, 1962, used these words:
My government will ask you to take steps to ensure that the forthcoming redistribution of electoral districts is made in an equitable manner upon an objective basis. To this end you will be asked to approve for the first time in our history a measure to create an independent commission to recommend the changes required in the electoral districts as a result of the decennial census.
We are at one with the government in this, and with the other parties as well. I hope that through discussion and examination, even cross-examination, we will bring about a bill that will be operative, effective, and generally will contribute to a better parliament in assuring a better basis of administration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition that it is not necessary to have a lengthy debate at the second reading stage of this bill. Indeed, we hope that debate on the entire bill at all its stages will not be lengthy and that we can get it passed in a reasonable period of time.
We have already indicated in an earlier debate on this whole question of redistribution that we welcome most heartily the main purpose of this piece of legislation. As hon. members who have looked at the details of the bill will be aware, it is a mixed bag. It deals with one aspect of redistribution and it deals with some aspects of our election machinery. Hon. members are also aware that there are features of this bill which cannot be fully implemented until another piece of legislation has been enacted. But even after all of this has been said, the fact remains that the main purpose of the bill before us today is to give parliament the opportunity to take the first step toward the redistribution of the seats in this house by an impartial body. I suggest that the day when we pass a first step of this kind is a red letter day for parliament. Some of the experiences of the past in connection with this subject are recorded in the pages of history, and some of those pages make dark reading. I think parliament will be doing itself proud when it recognizes that seats in the House of Commons should 2S902-5-378
Representation Commissioner not be drawn by the members who are elected, but should be drawn by an impartial body, bearing in mind that the seats are the possession of the people of this country.
I welcome the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I do not think I have very often made an observation like that, and I hope the right hon. gentleman will not faint, on hearing words of commendation from me-


John George Diefenbaker: I will wait until you conclude before I intervene.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, as the Leader of the Opposition is aware, interpretations were placed on statements made earlier by him, or on actions taken earlier by him, which suggested that he was not prepared to go all the way with the proposals for impartial redistribution. He has set aside those doubts. He has referred again to the proposal made in the speech from the throne in the last session in which he was prime minister. He has told us he wants redistribution to be carried out by an impartial body. That is now the position of the present government. It has been our position throughout the years. It is the position taken by other groups. We are all agreed. I hope the day has now come when it will not be necessary for editorial writers to say to any party in the House of Commons: No politics, please, in connection with redistribution. It is up to us. We can demonstrate that we are united in this high purpose, and if we can carry it through it will be a good day for parliament.
I recognize that this is only a first step- that the other piece of legislation will also have to be passed. I recognize we may have difficulties about some of the details in the other bill. We have already indicated some of those difficulties during the earlier debate.
I need not repeat the position we in this party took with regard to some of those details. However, I suggest that differences over detail will not justify anyone saying that anyone is trying to detract from the idea of redistribution by an impartial body. We like, in this House of Commons, to be in a position to attack right and left-to blame the Liberals, to blame the Tories, and that sort of thing. It is a happy thought that today we have no need to do that, and the sooner we make it clear that we are unanimous on this principle of redistribution by an impartial body the better it will be for parliament and for the whole legislative and democratic process in this country. I trust we can get on with this piece of legislation and, having passed it, that we can deal with the other bill at an early date when the new session starts.

Representation Commissioner
It was not clear from what the Leader of the Opposition was saying about the other bill what his attitude is toward its being introduced tomorrow, or some day this week, and being read a first time. I accept his suggestion, despite any previous difficulties we may have had, that the introduction of that bill should be held up until this debate is over. But after this debate is over and after this bill has been passed, I think there might be consent, tomorrow or later this week, to the introduction of the other bill so that it may be printed and we may know what the government has in mind for parliament at the next session.
When we get into committee on this bill there may be a few amendments moved from this part of the house to some of the provisions dealing with the details of the election machinery. We have no amendments to suggest to those features of the bill which deal with redistribution. I did intend to raise a question about clause 22, and I am glad, as I am sure Your Honour will be glad, that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) has indicated there will be an amendment to that clause. We are not supposed to refer to clauses of a bill on second reading, but far be it from me to be outdone by the Secretary of State or by the Leader of the Opposition, who have both done so.
Before I am called to order, may I remind hon. members that clause 22 proposes the unusual course that something should be done on a motion in the name of Mr. Speaker. I am sure this is a situation we should try to avoid. We once had something done in this house on the initiative of the Speaker, something which is of sorry memory, six or seven years ago, and I think it would be far better that if a motion has to be made it should be made in the name of the house by the Prime Minister as the leader of the house. So I am glad the Secretary of State does propose to make an amendment with regard to clause 22, the only clause having to do with the redistribution aspect of this bill which we might have sought to amend. With regard to some of the other clauses dealing with the election machinery, we may have suggestions to make.
Because of the unanimity which has been demonstrated on this occasion, we are able to omit references to past history. The fact is we now have the party in power, the party which has been in power, and parties which would like to be in power all agreeing that the time has come for independent redistribution. This is an important step, and we support this bill.
IMr. Knowles.]


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: In the
earlier debate on this subject I took the opportunity of placing on record the position of the Social Credit party with respect to the measure now before us. I rise at this time simply to say that we continue to support this bill. As far as the principle is concerned, we are giving it our full support though, possibly, we may have reservations with regard to some of the detailed proposals. We recognize that political and party views do play a great part in the operations of parliament, but we recognize, too, that recently there seems to have been a tendency toward co-operation with respect to some of these important questions. We certainly welcome the fact that the house is endeavouring to put this particular matter above political considerations. I believe that with a continuance of the co-operation we have seen we should be able to arrive at a definite conclusion on the matters now before us. I rise simply to voice our support for the principle of this measure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might just say a word to close this debate-to express my appreciation for the unanimity which has been shown and, in particular, for the way in which the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has expressed his unanimity, that is to say, by his silence giving consent.
I would not have risen at all except that I wanted to reiterate what I said earlier, namely that except for the monetary provisions contained in this bill, with respect to which the initiative of the crown must, of course, be respected, amendments which are put forward from any part of the house will be considered on their merits.
With regard to the question raised by the right hon. gentleman with respect to the appointment of staffs, let me say that I am perfectly willing on behalf of the government to consider a different procedure. But I would point out that the chief electoral officer stands in exactly the same relationship to parliament as does the civil service commission. This would be equally true of the representation commissioner, if the bill is adopted. He is not an officer of the government: He is an officer of parliament, and as independent of political parties as the civil service commission itself could be.
It may be there would be reasons why, in the case of certain members of his staff, and particularly in view of the fact that we are faced with some degree of temporal urgency in getting on with the work, it might not be as convenient to use the machinery of the civil service commission which, in the effort to be fair, is sometimes a little cumbersome. I would prefer to wait until we get into committee to consider the matter because,

quite frankly, I do not disagree with the right hon. gentleman at all in principle.
I know he will not misunderstand me when I say that the only contentious note he introduced was his casual reference to the Minister of Finance. I am aware of the scrupulous desire the right hon. gentleman has always shown in the house to be absolutely and judicially fair in these matters. All the Minister of Finance was doing today was objecting to cross-examination on the orders of the day, which anyone who will read paragraph 173 of Beauchesne will see is completely out of order. The Minister of Finance, even though inexperienced, was completely right about the rules. The proper time to cross-question him is when he introduces a budget, when he brings forward estimates, when he introduces bills. But I think the Minister of Finance took-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speaking of the rules, what relevance has this to the bill now before us?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is perfectly right. It has none, and I am going to cease and desist at once. I was not making the remarks in a very serious vein, anyway, any more than the right hon. gentleman was! I think we should seek to preserve the spirit of unanimity and highmindedness which has characterized the consideration of this matter up to the present, and which I hope will continue throughout its passage through parliament.
Again in a very serious vein, I want to thank all hon. members for the assurances of support. Perhaps I could conclude by saying that I was possibly a little less than frank with the right hon. gentleman when I opened the debate. I have had another amendment to the bill prepared which, if the house wishes, I have the authority of the Prime Minister and my colleagues to propose. It would be made at the end of the bill and in this way we could save ourselves the trouble of having to introduce and adopt a resolution for the appointment of the first representation commissioner. In this way we could carry out right in the legislation itself, in so far as the first commissioner is concerned, what seems to have been and I hope will be reiterated to have been the intention of the whole house, to appoint the present chief electoral officer to this office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not by name but by office.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not understand it. If it is not by name, what does the minister mean?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps we can deal with this when we get to the committee stage,
28902-5-378J
Representation Commissioner rather than entering into technicalities now, which might cause another breach of the rules. I simply wished to be perfectly frank and to indicate at this stage that if this could be done in this way it would save having to bring in a resolution later in the week to do what it seems to me we all want to do anyway.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unanimously.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 4-Tenure of office.
John George Diefenbaker: What is the age of the potential appointee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am told just a little bit less than half a century.


John George Diefenbaker: Almost the same diffidence that some women show.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 9-Report on methods of registration of electors and absentee voting.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, as indicated at the second reading stage by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, there are two or three suggestions by way of amendment that I should like to propose to clause 9 which, as was pointed out, really has to do with the instituting of a certain review and study of the methods of registration of electors and methods of absentee voting by electors. The suggestions I wish to make are by way of addition, rather than change in what is now set forth. They have to do generally with the idea that in addition to examining the methods of registration and of absentee voting which may be in effect in other countries the study should also include an examination of the methods followed in respect of these matters in the various provinces of our own country. I do not know what other members of the committee have found the situation to be, but certainly I have had a great many people suggest to me from time to time that we should be moving toward greater uniformity in respect of elections at both the federal and provincial levels. It seems to me that an opportunity is provided under clause 9 at least to consider this idea.
In order not to prolong the discussion I should like to move immediately:
That paragraph (a) of subclause 1 of clause 9 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
5944	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Representation Commissioner
"Review and study methods of registration of electors used in provincial elections and in elections in countries where continuous electoral rolls are maintained."
In line with the suggestion made earlier by the Secretary of State I would hope he will recognize that this amendment is put forward in a completely non-partisan way and I would hope that perhaps he might be the first to indicate his acceptance of the idea put forth in the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the purpose that the hon. gentleman has in mind?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: With regard to the study and review of methods of registration, the purpose is to provide that the commissioner should also make a study of the methods of registration used in elections in the various provinces, or provided for in the election acts of the various provinces, as well as those in use in other countries.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman say in what provinces there are permanent electoral lists?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I can speak with some knowledge of my own province of British Columbia where there has been a form of permanent election list for many years. I am not saying that I consider it to be a completely satisfactory one.


An hon. Member:: Far from it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Far from it; I think that expresses my sentiments as well. It is my view that one thing that might be achieved by including the provinces in this study would be a move toward uniformity of election acts and methods of registration and voting as between the provinces and the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: Order. Before we have a discussion on the amendment I should read it to the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman? Before any of these amendments are put, could we save time if we had a little discussion? Perhaps these amendments could be put forward as suggestions and then the hon. member could move them after we had discussed them. This might save a little time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In line with what the Secretary of State has suggested, perhaps I should indicate at this point the other amendments I had in mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may say so, I think it would be preferable to put these forward

as suggestions for consideration; then if there seemed to be no serious objection to them the amendments could be moved. I may say there seems to be something to this idea, but I believe the exact language does present some difficulties.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The second suggestion would involve paragraph (b). Here again, it is simply a matter of inserting a provision for provincial elections. There should be a review and study of the methods of absentee voting used in provincial elections and elections in countries where provision is made for absentee voting. For many years we have had in the province of British Columbia a system of absentee voting in provincial elections. It is one that is considered to be quite satisfactory and which meets the needs of the province. It is one that would be well worth including in this study.
The next suggestion I wanted to put forward has to do with studying the methods of proxy voting used in provincial elections and in elections in other countries. I have been given to understand that one or two of the provinces of Canada do have some arrangements for proxy voting under certain circumstances. I am not familiar with the details, but I have been informed that is the case. The next proposal would need an additional paragraph Cd), if it were put forward in this form. It would relate to the preparation of a report setting forth the recommendations of the commissioner as to whether the extent to which the methods of redistribution, absentee and proxy voting referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), might be applied or adapted for use in federal elections in Canada with a view to reducing the time required for the holding of federal elections. This, I feel, would make it clear that we would expect to have placed before us in a detailed way, the recommendations of the commissioner on these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think what the hon. gentleman has in mind could be brought about by simply leaving out certain words in paragraph (b), to review and study methods of absentee voting by electors, who, by reason of absence, and so on. If you omit those words, it would enable the commissioner to look into a plan, whether provincial or national.
This certainly is a very important matter in so far as those who serve in external affairs, trade offices abroad or where other positions of extraterritorial responsibility are concerned. The people who serve their country abroad, with the exception of those in the armed forces, are placed in a very unenviable position in being denied their full rights

of citizenship. Anything that might be recommended in that connection will be beneficial. Over and over again, as I have visited embassies abroad and met the Canadians who serve their country outside of Canada, I have found that one of the major objections they have to serving abroad is that it denies them the right which is essential to full participation in the government of the country.
I am sure the hon. gentleman will not misunderstand me when I say that I am not impressed by the suggestion that there should be proxy voting in this country. There are enough difficulties in the way now, without adding to them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would permit a question? Would he believe that perhaps there had been a little too much proxy voting sometimes in the past?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I seem to recollect one famous example, without identification in any way of the member connected with the incident many years ago. I believe it was the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, in the election of 1935, who was visiting a certain province in which one of his grandfathers was buried. During the course of the day he said he would like very much to visit that cemetery. He said, "You know, he was a fine man but he was a Conservative; I never quite understood that. He voted Conservative consistently." The member, who afterwards occupied one of the highest positions on the treasury bench stated, "Don't worry about that, Mr. King; he has been voting in every election." This type of proxy exercise of the franchise is just one of those difficulties in the mind of the Secretary of State, otherwise he would not have impelled me to give that example.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to make it clear at once that in putting forward the suggestion that a study be made of proxy voting, I am not necessarily suggesting I should like to see it included in our federal elections act. However, if some provinces or some other countries have some provisions along this line, and as I say I did not realize that they had until recently, I would be interested in knowing more about them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am very much disposed to accept the view of the committee in a slightly modified form. I think it could be done by the omission of certain words, as the right hon. gentleman has said. It could be done also, by the addition of one or two words. I do not believe the hon. member's amendment, in its original form, to paragraph (a) and also to paragraph (b),
Representation Commissioner would mean quite what he intended to mean. If the paragraph referred to a review and study of methods of registration of electors used in provincial and national elections, in provinces and countries, I think that amendment and the same amendment in paragraph (b), would meet the problem. I am quite sure from what discussion I have been able to have about this matter it was just taken for granted that anything being done in Canada would be studied. This amendment would make sure that it would be done. If there were no objection, I do not see why the hon. member could not move his amendment in amended form to paragraphs (a) and (b). There does not seem to be any disposition not to accept it.
I rather share the view of the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the proxy question, but for an additional reason to the one he has given. It is this: There is a time limit in this measure on these studies. If redistribution is done, and these studies are to be done, the whole business is to be reviewed, according to the provisions of this bill, in 1969. From what I am able to learn these two studies alone are going to take pretty well all the time that is required.
I think it is the unanimous view in the country, at least among those who have anything to do with elections, that if we can find a satisfactory method of having permanent lists to reduce the period of elections, we would all say hurrah. Anyone who values his citizenship, as we all do in this house, must feel that every Canadian citizen should have the opportunity of exercising the most important right of citizenship, the franchise,, if it is possible to arrange to have that done.
These two studies seem to be of such transcendent importance, compared with the question of proxy voting, that I would prefer not to impose this further duty at this time upon the commissioner. If at the time the review takes place there is some feeling we ought to go on having other tasks for a representation commissioner, then it might be considered at that time. This is perhaps somewhat of a conservative approach to the matter, but on this day of unity perhaps I may be permitted to express that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think we should do everything possible to assure that everyone has the opportunity to vote and will exercise his right in the future. When I spoke a moment ago about a former prime minister and his grandfather I neglected to say-and I know it was understood by members of the committee-that the member in question with whom Mr. King was travelling said he had been voting Liberal ever

Representation Commissioner since he passed away. Of course none of us want to see that kind of proxy voting practised, but we do wish to encourage people to exercise their vote as far as possible.
I am not one of those who believe in compulsory voting. I do not think it has worked out well. Mr. Castonguay has been in Australia where they have compulsory voting, but in my opinion this idea has not worked out too well.
A few years ago I had a suggestion given to me by an old recluse farmer in Saskatchewan who had a plan whereby everybody would vote. He said that if at the time an elector registered to vote he were required to pay $1 there would be a 100 per cent vote, or as near 100 per cent as possible, provided provisions were made that at the time the elector was handed the ballot he received a counterfoil which would secure him a refund of the $1. While this is a system I do not recommend, it is an example of a citizen who was devoting his thoughts to the solution of a matter that is very difficult, and one that is most costly to all who participate in elections in getting out the voters, while keeping strictly within the law.


Mr. Fairweather:: I wonder if the Secretary of State contemplates that overseas staffs would not be able to vote until 1969?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, not at all. The fact that a study of this kind is being made will not, and could not preclude this parliament from making any amendments it saw fit to the Canada Elections Act, to provide for as great a measure of absentee voting as was thought to be practical in the meantime.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I was in Japan recently, and our embassy officials told me that the military attache had the vote. He sat during election time taking the votes of the one sergeant and one major, while the other public servants watched. It is high time a solution was found for this inconsistency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may say to the hon. gentleman that while he was visiting Japan and other interesting places, I am told that elsewhere in this building consideration was being given, in respect of the Canada Elections Act, to the very question he is talking about.


Mr. Pritlie:: I wish to make a brief remark with regard to clause 9 (b). The right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Royal have referred to absentee voting for those serving the government of Canada overseas. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, myself, and others from British Columbia have more in mind the thousands of people in that province who, because of their occupations, are often away from their

homes at election time. They are the people who work in logging camps, the fishing industry and the mines. I am fully sympathetic with the views expressed about Canadian public servants overseas, but there is a very large number of Canadians at home who need absentee voting rights, and I hope the potential commissioner will look into it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like the hon. gentleman, I have a lot of loggers in my constituency and some of the recent elections were called at a time that was very inconvenient for them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think we would agree with the Secretary of State that priority should be given to the two items which have been mentioned, the making up of a permanent list to prevent thousands of people being disfranchised because the enumerators have not been able to call on them when they were at home, and the other, to provide an absentee ballot for people absent from their constituencies, and even for people on holidays.
If an election is held in the middle of summer a large number of people are on holidays, and if they could vote at resorts through absentee ballots they would not be disfranchised. One election in 1945 was held in August-


Gordon Minto Churchill: 1953.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was when I was first elected to parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know that in that election thousands of people did not vote because they were on holidays.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think that is probably how the Secretary of State got elected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I think all the people in Bonavista-Twillingate were on holidays.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If it is not too much of a burden, someone should take a look at the question of proxy voting. There is a lot to be said for people who are in hospitals, bedridden. Polls could be established in hospitals if the hospitals are large enough, but people who are bedridden at home, unless their friends are prepared to carry them to the polls, cannot vote. Even if they are carried, if the polling station is in an upstairs room which requires the climbing of stairs, they cannot vote, although I know that in some of the provinces, at the discretion of the returning officer the ballot box can be brought out to them, provided the scrutineers come with it to make sure nothing untoward takes place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member now like to go ahead and move his first two amendments? I would hope he would not press the other one.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Seeing these two are being generally accepted, with the help of the Secretary of State I would like to move:
That paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 9 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) review and study methods of registration of electors used in provincial and national elections-
Perhaps I might suggest that should read "federal elections".


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I think "national" because there are many countries that are not federal.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Very well.
-in provinces and countries where continuous electoral rolls are maintained;"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, may I proceed to move a further amendment. I would like to move:
That paragraph (b) of subclause (1) of clause 9 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) review and study methods of absentee voting used in provincial and national elections in provinces and countries where provision is made for absentee voting by electors who, by reason of absence, illness or other cause, are unable to vote at such elections in the polling districts or divisions in which they ordinarily reside; and"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 as amended agreed to.
On clause 10-Appointment of staff of commissioner.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before clause 10 is carried, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I may say a word about the point raised earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. I am now informed 

I was not informed about this when the debate started-that from 1920 until 1949 the chief electoral officer had the power to appoint his own staff. When the present incumbent of that office took over in 1949 he recommended that the staff subsequently be appointed by the civil service commission, and that has been the practice ever since. The chief electoral officer has advised me that in order to get on with the very urgent task of preparing maps, collating statistical information, and so on, it would be a tremendous convenience if he could engage a staff-which could be done very quickly once the office is set up-to get this work done, so that no time would be lost between now and the time when, during the next session of parliament, we get around to dealing with the boundaries commission bill. It is for precisely this reason that we are so anxious to get this bill passed now, so that all that preparatory work could be done and no time would be lost. I think that if the practice which prevailed in the office of the chief electoral officer was the pattern, probably at the time this act is reconsidered it
Representation Commissioner would be thought desirable, when the basic staff is established, to have recruitment carried out by the civil service commission. For that matter, that could even be provided for at a subsequent session of parliament at any time it was felt desirable, as undoubtedly it would be, once the original establishment was made up.
In any event, it is very probable that the representation commissioner will wish to draw upon some of the people in other branches of the public service for a good part of this work. I think we can rely on the chief electoral officer-if he becomes, as I believe we all hope, the representation commissioner-to show that same impartiality in this matter as he has shown in the matter of carrying on the elections themselves.


John George Diefenbaker: How many officers and employees are contemplated?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask the Secretary of State a question, Mr. Chairman? Would these employees be considered temporary employees?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will read the clause, Mr. Chairman:
The commissioner may
(a)	appoint such officers and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the office of the commissioner; and
(b) prescribe the duties of such officers and employees and, subject to the approval of the treasury board, prescribe the conditions of their employment.
(2) The officers and employees of the commissioner appointed as provided in subsection (1) shall be paid such salaries and expenses as are fixed by the commissioner with the approval of the treasury board.
I think this would make them public servants in the ordinarily accepted sense, and not temporary employees, because clause 11 appears to me to provide for the engaging of temporary staff of a technical nature.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What I had in mind, Mr. Chairman, was this. The number of employees required in the early establishment may be far more than would be required when the program is rolling and established.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am told by the chief electoral officer that his estimate is that there would be about eight employees engaged under this clause.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I feel most strongly that recruitment should be through the civil service commission in general. But in all the circumstances and in view of the statement that the number of these appointments will be restricted to eight, and that to endeavour to recruit them through the civil service commission would take a considerable period of time, I am not going to press the point. I am quite surprised to learn, though,
5948	HOUSE OF
Representation Commissioner that there is dilatoriness or delay on the part of the civil service commission in the matter of making appointments. That is the conclusion inherent in the statement made by the minister. That was not the experience when we were in office, and I am just wondering what he meant by that. But I am not going into that particular phase today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the right hon. gentleman that it is not as it used to be when I was appointed in 1937. I wrote the examination on October 14 and 15,
1936,	and I was appointed on October 14,
1937.	I believe the time lag is very considerably less nowadays. But it is still necessary, under the civil service commission regulations, to have examinations, to have someone correct the papers and to go through the formalities which ought to be gone through when a considerable number of posts in the public service are open for competition. We all know that those processes cannot be abbreviated beyond a certain length of time, just as we know that elections, under the law at the present, cannot be abbreviated beyond a certain length of time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Gilles Grégoire: Can we ask the Secretary of State to make an inquiry-


Lucien Lamoureux: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, the civil service commission did not have knowledge of the precocity of the hon. gentleman at the time, or there would not have been that delay.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Secretary of State whether it is possible that it took them a year to decipher his writing?


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask the Secretary of State why they hesitated for one year to hire him in the civil service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of my subsequent career, Mr. Chairman, I do not altogether blame them.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 22-Provision for review of act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, in order to save the time of the committee my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce would like to move an amendment at once. The amendment is in these terms:
That Bill C-126 be amended by striking out clause 22 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"22. The Prime Minister shall, at the earliest convenient opportunity after the commencement of the first session of parliament commencing after 1968, propose to the House of Commons that


an order be made and referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons for the review by such committee of the provisions of this act and for the recommendations of such committee with respect to any amendments, alterations or modifications thereto that appear to the committee then to be necessary or desirable, and upon such order being referred to it the committee shall consider the matter of the order and report to the house its recommendations with respect thereto."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 23-References to representation commissioner.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wish to propose at this time the amendment which is the amendment I indicated earlier on second reading I was proposing to move, if I found the committee in the mood I hoped to find it in, and which I appear to have found it in. Again the Minister of Trade and Commerce is pleased to move:
That Bill C-126 be amended by striking out clauses 23 and 24 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
Appointment of first representation commissioner.
"23. Notwithstanding section 3 of this act, the person who upon the coming into force of this act held the office of chief electoral officer of Canada shall be deemed to have been appointed at that time pursuant to this act to hold the office of representation commissioner, and until the appointment of a person pursuant to the Canada Elections Act to fill the vacancy thereby resulting in the office of chief electoral officer of Canada, the representation commissioner has and may exercise and perform all the powers, duties and functions of the chief electoral officer under any law of Canada, and with respect to any period before the appointment of such a person, a reference in any such law to the chief electoral officer shall be construed as a reference to the representation commissioner."
This amendment will have the effect, if adopted by the committee, that on royal assent, as the act will not have to be proclaimed, the chief electoral officer will become the representation commission. He will also until such time as the house is pleased to adopt a resolution appointing a new chief electoral officer be able to perform all the functions of the chief electoral officer. I do not think it will be possible during the present session of parliament to appoint a new chief electoral officer. This is a matter to which very careful consideration must be given and on which I believe there must be consultation among the parties. We want someone as nearly acceptable to everyone for that office as is the present chief electoral officer. This provides for an orderly transition. It gives us knowledge right now, if we enact this legislation in this session of parliament, of the person who will occupy that position, and I hope it will commend itself both to the committee and to the house.


George Roy McWilliam: Will that be clause 23?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before this amendment is carried, I would like to point out to the Secretary of State that he has moved two amendments to this bill, both worded in English. I wonder whether he would be kind enough in the future to have these amendments drawn up in both languages? I think that would also be appreciated by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher).


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I could easily translate it right here in the committee, but I am not quite sure that my French would be in the correct legal terminology. I think it would be preferable if we could adopt the amendment and stand the bill over for third reading until tomorrow, so that the amendments could be distributed in both languages. In case there was any objection to them there would be an opportunity to register that objection before third reading took place. I apologize for not having the amendments available in both languages, but I may say that it was only at two o'clock this afternoon that I was able to consult my colleagues about both these amendments, and they had been prepared only a very short time before. In order to prepare a proper translation it is necessary to consider and weigh carefully all the terms, as we discovered the other evening, as the hon. gentleman will recall.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Secretary of State would not have proposed this amendment had he not known that it would meet with the unanimous approval of the committee. Even so, I do not think it is out of place for us to say that we are unanimous. I am sure that on this occasion I speak for everyone when I say that we welcome the decision of the government to give parliament the opportunity to name Mr. Castonguay as our first representation commissioner.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Clause 24 goes now.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting.
28902-5-379
Customs Tariff CUSTOMS TARIFF


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe there might be time in the one minute remaining before five o'clock to deal with the Customs Tariff.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: the second reading of Bill No. C-129, to amend the Customs Tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Schedule A amended.
George Clyde Nowlan: Is the minister going to make a short statement just by way of explanation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a guide for the senators.


Edgar John Benson: I have a very brief statement, Mr. Chairman, if you wish me to make it. This bill involves two proposals, both of which I believe are of a non-controversial nature. The first is to remove all Canadian tariffs from tea on January 1, 1964, simultaneously with similar action by the United Kingdom and a number of other countries. This is part of an international initiative to assist the trade of developing countries. The second proposal is to extend the duration of three temporary statutory items which now bear expiry dates of December 31, 1963.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it the hope of the government that when tea comes in free the price will go down?
Clause 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the re-establishment of the Minas basin ferry service with special attention given to the use of a Hovercraft in this operation.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
5950	HOUSE OF
Minas Basin Ferry Service


Robert Carman Coates: I would be quite happy to resume my seat if unanimous agreement were given to the adoption of this proposal. However, I feel somewhat doubtful that this is, indeed, the situation and 1 therefore consider it would be wise if I gave the house a little background information to show why I placed this resolution on the order paper.
The Minas basin ferry service was a service available to the people of Nova Scotia in the Annapolis valley, and the town of Parrs-boro in my constituency. This service came to an end in 1940, after 90 years of operation. The federal government of that day considered it necessary to take the ferry which was used to provide this service and employ it in Newfoundland on duties which were considered to be of greater importance. At the time the ferry service was eliminated, there was no great hue and cry either in the Annapolis valley or in my constituency, mainly because it was a tidal operation and the trucking companies considered the type of service which had been provided an outmoded one.
Since that day there has been growing concern among the people of the Annapolis valley and my constituency that a more up-to-date service should be provided. The saving in mileage brought about by a ferry is considerable when one considers the area of Nova Scotia concerned and the time spent by trucking firms and others in going around the Minas basin rather than across it. If this ferry service were re-established it would mean the elimination of about 115 miles of travel, especially for tourists and transportation companies engaged in agriculture and fishing. The introduction of a practical transportation service would, I believe, be of real benefit to my area as well as to other areas associated with the Minas basin and the bay of Fundy.
In two different countries there have been significant advances which have made possible a type of ferry service far more efficient than anything which has gone before. In Britain they have invented the Hovercraft, a new type of craft which is capable of travelling at tremendous speed over water. It can travel as fast as 75 miles per hour, and a great deal of consideration has been given by the government of the United Kingdom to the employment of this type of transportation facility. In Russia there has been a tremendous improvement in public transportation consequent on the development of the hydrofoil, a vessel somewhat similar to the Hovercraft. Both these vessels hover above the surface of the water; they do not actually touch the water and they are capable of tremendous speed. It is my feeling that in a


country such as ours, where so many transportation difficulties are encountered, and so much water has to be traversed, and where there is such a heavy demand for exploration in the northland, the adoption of one or of both these craft might well bring us tremendous advantages, as well as savings from the taxpayers' point of view. They would, of course, need to be capable of moving the heavy transport vehicles which are so much a part of the transportation system of this country today.
In May of this year I had the opportunity to take part in a demonstration of one of these Hovercraft in Montreal and I found myself moved over the St. Lawrence river at 75 miles an hour, an amazing speed when one considers he is moving over water. For that matter, the craft was capable of moving over land, as well, because, in fact, it operates two or three feet above the level of the water, or the land, and obstacles do not present any great problem. I think craft of this type would prove to be of tremendous benefit in operations in northern Canada. I believe, too, that the service I have in mind, the Minas basin ferry service, and the service provided between Digby and Saint John, New Brunswick, could be joined together if craft of the type capable of moving the type of transport we have in our country could be made available. At the same time we would eliminate the heavy cost of wharfage facilities, which faces the government at the present time.
It is my opinion that governments have not been as interested in the development of craft of this type as they should be. When I say that, I am not saying that the former government was any better or more realistic about this matter than the present one. I am simply saying that this government and maybe the provincial governments-because there is certainly a field here where they could become involved-have not in my opinion looked at this subject realistically enough, and have not taken advantage to the extent they should of the tremendous amount of information available today both in Great Britain and Russia, where great amounts of money have been spent to produce some significant vehicles in this field.
In the November, 1963 issue of "Soviet Union Today" there is a description of a hydrofoil motorship which has a seating capacity of 250 to 300 passengers and a cruising speed of 75 kilometers per hour. In England at the present time a Hovercraft is either in the planning stage or being constructed which will be put on the English channel run and will carry approximately 300 passengers.

It is my view that in Nova Scotia, where transportation is so very important, there is an opportunity to eliminate a good deal of the money that is now being paid out in government subsidies and also to eliminate the heavy wharfage problems that are always on the doorstep of the Department of Public Works by endeavouring to have a craft of this type constructed to provide service in the Minas basin, and also between Saint John and Digby. I know that at the present time the new ferry operating between Digby and Saint John is encountering difficulties because of the wharfage facilities at Digby. They simply are not satisfactory for the new ferry that has been placed in the service by the C.P.R. How much better it would be if we could eliminate the wharfage facilities altogether by using a craft that did not need them, and which could provide a much better and more efficient service and eliminate so much time.
There are also other areas in other parts of Canada, certainly along the St. Lawrence river, about which the same thing can be said and probably even to a greater extent. We have heard in recent days in the house about the problems in the Baie Comeau area of Quebec where ferry subsidies are being removed, and because of this the people may be deprived of transportation facilities which they consider they need very badly.


Mr. Regan:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the remarks now being made by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) with reference to areas other than the Minas basin are not relevant to this notice of motion and that the hon. member should confine his remarks to that area.


Robert Carman Coates: I may have been straying somewhat. However, I feel that a ferry service for the Minas basin is very essential and in my view a Hovercraft or a hydrofoil craft might be able to provide excellent service for that area and for other areas as well. I hope the hon. member is not indicating by his remarks that he does not believe the government should give consideration to an investigation of these new types of craft. I hope he does not mean that we should not embark on the type of investigation that may very well benefit all areas of the country. I really do not think he does, because I know his home is in the Annapolis valley rather than in the constituency he represents, and that he knows the situation probably better than he might care to state at the present time.
What I am really trying to put before the house is a problem that we face in Canada today, and I would point out that recent
28902-5-379J
Minas Basin Ferry Service announcements with regard to ferries generally would seem to indicate that the government is going to involve itself in very substantial expenditures of money. It may well be that we are away behind the times and that we could save a great deal of money, having regard to what we are spending in subsidies, maintenance charges and so on and the heavy cost of wharfage facilities, if we would make a thorough investigation into the possibility of using craft of this type, because it might well be that a great deal of benefit would accrue.
I do not think I have very much more to say. I have placed the facts with regard to the Minas basin ferry service before the house on other occasions. I hope the government will find some merit in the suggestions I have made. I should certainly like to think that not too far in the future the government will take a long look at both the Hovercraft and the hydrofoil as a possible means of providing a more efficient type of transportation at a lesser cost to the taxpayer than is the case today.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this notice of motion may I say I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates), knowing as I do that his area is affected by this problem of a ferry service as is the constituency of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). I was interested in the various points of view and considerations put forward by the hon. member. However, in view of the need of that particular area for transportation I think that the possibilities of the Hovercraft are substantially better than those of the hydrofoil. Each of these types of conveyance has the drawback that it cannot carry a great amount of weight and, as the hon. member has said, one of the real needs between the Annapolis valley and the Parrs-boro-Amherst area is for transportation that can handle trucks and a large amount of freight. The Hovercraft does have the advantage over the hydrofoil that it can operate irrespective of extreme tidal conditions such as prevail in that area.
Transportation across the narrow strips between Cape Blomidon on the Annapolis valley side and the Parrsboro shore on any regular basis has been suspended since before the war, but the transportation that was provided then in the form of a small car ferry would not solve the real need at the present time because I believe the previous ferry could only carry seven or eight cars. This area is considered as one of the potentially great tidal power development areas of the North American continent. The vast amount of water that comes in and goes out

Minas Basin Ferry Service of Minas basin twice daily passes through the narrow gut between Cape Blomidon and Parrsboro with terrific force and it is generally accepted that this could be converted into a tremendous amount of power by a very extensive undertaking of the Passama-quoddy type. However, if that is ever done, that in itself might solve the transportation question across this stretch of water, because a road could be built across any such dam.
In the meantime, I cannot help but recall that Cape Blomidon was supposedly the home of Glooscap, a god of the Micmac tribe which inhabited Nova Scotia. I recall from my school days that he supposedly created two islands by throwing some earth at a beaver that was swimming by. The islands are there now in the bay of Fundy. If Glooscap really existed today, he could probably solve our problem very quickly. Unfortunately, this is not the case, so for a moment we might consider the area that would be served by truck and car transportation across this body of water.
In my view, it would not be of assistance or benefit to the metropolitan Halifax area since the route to Amherst by the main highway through Truro would be a much quicker route than travelling through the Annapolis valley. I think the only transport that would be affected would be the cars going from the Annapolis valley to the Cumberland area. Contrary to what the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) has suggested, this transport would involve no fish products whatever, but agriculture products would be helped if efficient transportation could be provided across this body of water.
In the days that have gone by, investigations have been made into the possibility of a conventional ferry service across this body of water. The problem has always been the cost of wharfage, and this problem arises as a result of the extremely high tides, probably the highest in the world, existing in the area. The cost of wharves would be $6 million or something in that vicinity, whereas the ferry itself would only cost a little over a million dollars. The total cost of this project would thus be in the vicinity of $7 million, and it has never been considered warranted in view of the amount of good this money could do if applied elsewhere to maritime transportation problems. I would comment that if this were the situation today, Mr. Speaker, the higher expenditure of $6 million or $7 million which the hon. member for Cumberland is proposing, would leave us in the same position, where the service

would not be warranted, worthy as it is, in so far as the immediately adjacent areas are concerned.
A Hovercraft service, while it would have a limited possibility in serving truck transport, would nevertheless represent a small investment in wharfage facilities. At any rate, it would probably be the answer to the question of automotive transport and small freight transport in this area. Unless it could take a substantial number of cars, there would be little in way of passenger traffic between points involved, because anyone going from the Annapolis valley, where the towns are spread out, into the Cumberland area, where they are again spread out, would likely be travelling by motorcar. I understand that the latest developments in Hovercraft would enable a reasonable number of cars to be carried across this body of water.
I think, therefore, that the suggestion made by the hon. member has some merit in this respect. It is, of course, not original at this time by any means, because the government of Nova Scotia has been exploring the possibility of a Hovercraft service. In this regard, I might say that since the areas that would be served are entirely within the province of Nova Scotia and the route would be, in essence, an extension of the highway system of that province, it would seem only reasonable to expect the province to participate in the cost of such a service. These few remarks, Mr. Speaker, represent my thoughts on this subject. I do say that the Annapolis valley is today an area of considerable prosperity and with the mixed farming that has developed in that area, the question of getting produce to market or obtaining a new market is of importance. If this ferry service could be established it would enable fresh products from the valley to be moved economically to places in the Amherst and Moncton region, and certainly that would be a step in the right direction. I feel, therefore, that this motion does have merit.


George Roy McWilliam: I feel I should say a few words with regard to this motion by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates). As preceding speakers have said, I feel there is some merit in what he has proposed because transportation in the maritime provinces has, I think, placed us at a disadvantage. I am thinking of purely local areas. However, in so far as the desire for transportation facilities is concerned, there is always the problem of cost involved. In most cases, this is the deciding factor in relation to whether or not the facilities will be provided.



IS, 1963

[Stage Direction]
The hon. member for Cumberland gave us the historical background of this Minas basin ferry service. I do not know how many members of the house are familiar with the topography or the geography of the Minas basin area of Nova Scotia. I suggest it would shorten the route if you entered the province of Nova Scotia at the New Brunswick border, at Sackville. If you wanted to go into the Annapolis valley, it would shorten the route by some 100 miles if the service were reinstated from Parrsboro to Wolfville. I believe it is true to say that, not only in the maritime provinces but everywhere, distances have not the same implication today that they had in days gone by.
I am sure that even if the Parrsboro ferry service were in operation today, unless one wanted the experience of going across the Minas basin, it is doubtful if he would take the ferry. The main reason for the trip by ferry would be to see the scenery around the Minas basin, but one could see this scenery if he were to travel by car. I think this is true particularly of the tourists. I do not believe the tourists would take the ferry if they came to the Minas basin, as they generally like to see the countryside through which they are motoring. I do not see a great deal of appeal in it for the tourists, particularly the tourists coming in from Bar Harbour or Saint John because they must cross the bay of Fundy to make the mainland of Nova Scotia, and I know that if they are proceeding to Truro or Cumberland county in Nova Scotia they would not care to embark on another ferry trip, when the distance around the basin is only about 100 miles.
As I listened to the hon. member speaking about the new types of transportation, such as the hydrofoil, the question occurred to me, is this really the type of transportation that is needed? If it is to be of any benefit the type needed is something that will take trucks and motorcars, and I doubt if much benefit would be derived from a purely passenger or light freight service. In that respect I think this whole thing should be given a great deal more consideration.
I would like to see a proposal coming from the government of Nova Scotia because the ferry service is within the provincial boundaries of Nova Scotia. If the province cannot finance it, then I think it should make some proposal to the federal government.
I believe that in prior debates this project was mentioned as something to which the Atlantic development board might give consideration. I do not know whether that board has come up with any suggestion. I do not even know if it has studied the matter; probably it has not because I think it would
Proposed Office of Parliamentary Counsel not have priority among the projects that are presently being considered by it.
I have no desire to block this motion. Actually it only asks the government to give consideration to the project. I do not see anything wrong in giving consideration to it, but I do feel much more study should be undertaken to decide the right type of ferry service that should be provided across the Minas basin, and to determine whether the expenditures would warrant it.
I do not know anything about these hydrofoil, or Hovercraft, but I would imagine that if they are the type that can carry trucks and motorcars they would be very expensive. Another expense involved is the building of wharves and ground development for a day and night service, which would be very expensive, considering that the tides run 30 feet high in the bay of Fundy. I know that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) quoted something like $6 million or $7 million.
I suggest that this matter be thoroughly studied. As I said before, it is the prime responsibility of the government of Nova Scotia, and if representatives of the provincial government, the Atlantic development board and some people from the federal scene got together, then maybe a solution to this Minas basin problem might be found.
Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there are some other members from the maritimes who would like to express their views on this very important motion, particularly the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Armstrong) who unfortunately is out of the house at present attending one of the committees which has to sit at this time. Therefore I move that the debate on this very important notice of motion be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



LEGISLATION


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the creation of an office of parliamentary counsel, with objectives and manner similar to the office of ombudsman used in Scandinavian countries such as Sweden and Denmark, for the purpose of examining grievances of Canadian citizens which arise in

Proposed Office of Parliamentary Counsel their relations with the administration of the federal state in Canada, and reporting on the merits of these individual grievances to this house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I see we have 22 minutes to devote to this topic, and I do not know what can really be resolved in that brief time. Just before the sunny Secretary of State departed from the chamber he told me he was in support of this motion personally, but of course he was not speaking for the government.
This subject has been a matter of some discussion for the last several years. I think I first put it on the order paper four sessions ago, but this is the first time there has been an opportunity to debate it. I do not know how important hon. members view it, but I fastened on to the conception because of a number of cases I encountered as a member of parliament and about which I was unable to do anything. I felt the administrators had gone as far as they could, but the individual citizen who had a complaint was still aggrieved and felt his grievance had not been handled impartially. In essence that would be the great advantage of creating this kind of office.
As I say, discussion of the subject has gone on in a lot of journals. Professor Rowat of Carleton University has written a number of articles about it, some in the popular magazine Maclean's, some in the public administration periodical, and in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science.
Recently New Zealand has adopted the public defender plan. It is on the statute books of that country and is working. The British have examined the matter through a couple of non-partisan committees. The Conservative and the Labour party have groups studying -it, and I have here a report which says the Conservative party in Great Britain indicates general acceptance of the idea. The unofficial group in England that has made a thorough report on it was called JUSTICE. There is a committee formed, largely of people with both political and legal experience who are concerned over the fact that discretionary powers allotted by statute to various boards and agencies have led sometimes to a conflict between individual citizens and the boards or agencies, with an inadequate form of redress or an inadequate form of appeal.
Very recently the royal commission on government organization in its report No. 5 had some statements to make on this very subject. On page 94 the commissioners write:
In addition, because of the growing need for ministerial attention to the difficult problems of policy and the general direction and co-ordination of its execution, the public's recourse to ministers of the review of official acts and redress of
IMr. Fisher.]
minor grievances become less satisfactory. Moreover, because the minister is held politically accountable for all actions of his subordinates and it is the practice in party strife to make issues of such matters-however trivial-the minister may too often be impelled to defend official conduct when the real need is for a remedy.
To my Conservative friends I would like to point out the bad situation that was gotten into a few years ago by the then hon. member for Peel in connection with some property at Malton, vis-a-vis George Hees, who was then minister of transport, and the fact that you had the minister in essence denying one of his supporters. There was complete confusion. I believe we had a vote of confidence in this house. We certainly had an issue that was sparked by and interravelled with partisanship on the very kind of issue that would never have been raised if the people with the grievance, the citizens with the grievance, had had a grievance commissioner instead of depending upon their member of parliament. I continue reading this report:
On questions of policy, public and parliamentary recourse to ministers is appropriate and necessary. But when what is at issue is a complaint relating to administration in the public service, more effective channels for public and parliamentary challenge may be devised.
To weigh the urgency of these problems, and, if need be, to devise solutions are the tasks of others. Your commissioners wish only to suggest that, should new safeguards be judged necessary, they may be sought in all three of the historic branches of government. First, the role of the courts in checking the excess of official powers and in providing redress of official wrongs against the subject, may repay examination. Second, in the executive branch itself, there may be greater opportunity for the use of formal processes of inquiry, in which the principles of natural justice are observed, either in reaching or in reviewing administrative decisions that affect the rights and obligations of the citizen.
The third course lies in parliament itself. Procedures might be developed for the closer scrutiny of statutory instruments-the orders in council and regulations by which statutory powers are elaborated and applied. Your commissioners have also noted the growing interest throughout other parliamentary countries in the office of parliamentary commissioner, modelled, with variations, on the long established Swedish ombudsman. The notable success with which this office has been adapted to the needs of the parliament of Denmark, the recent report by a group of eminent jurists in the United Kingdom, the enactment of legislation to establish a parliamentary commissioner in New Zealand, and the creation of machinery for a similar purpose in the United States, all suggest that the parliament of Canada may find here a means of bettering its defence against administrative defects in the public service.
I would like to point out that the Gazette reported, on May 23, 1963, this dispatch from Ottawa:
The government suggested Wednesday that parliament itself make the decision on whether to establish special machinery to protect the little man from bureaucrats.
Justice Minister Chevrier said in the Commons its rules committee might study suggestions of

creating a parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman, such as they had in some Scandinavian and other countries. The ombudsman is an official appointed by a legislature to investigate complaints from the public of cases of alleged highhandedness by government officials. Sweden has two of them, one dealing in civil and the other in military law.
I would like to point out that we have had in Canada, and are still having, as the result of the actions we take here, a proliferation of agencies and boards which operate in areas that affect citizens, particularly with regard to licenses and applications, and which are at arm's length from ministerial control; that is, from political control. It seems to me this is particularly the kind of agency in regard to which grievances develop. I always remember one man down in Kingston who has a bit of inventive genius. He developed a particular kind of helicopter. He was satisfied that it was an excellent helicopter, that it would fly, that it had a number of radical provisions in it that might be of much greater use. But he could not get any certificate of airworthiness, or even freedom to test the craft in the proper kind of circumstances, from the inspectors of the Department of Transport; and he was not able to get any satisfaction at all from any of the normal licensing agencies. He took the matter up with the department, through the minister, and could not get any kind of consideration. Finally he took it up with a whole host of members of parliament through some kind of circulating letter. When enough of us had raised Cain about it, finally something was done.
I have another example with regard to what has happened in my own constituency. There was a lady acting as a matchmaker for her brother, and a friend was brought out from Italy. The arrangement was that her brother and this girl would be married when she got here. The girl arrived here, and for various reasons decided not to go through with the wedding. The prospective sister-inlaw was outraged at this and demanded that the government carry through the normal immigration procedure and return the bride, who did not want to be a bride, to Italy. Various pressures were applied. There were very large families involved on each side in this matter, families that spread their networks out to Winnipeg and down to Toronto, and you had a situation wherein the minister and his officials were being bombarded and pressured by M.P.s from those areas, and with private representations; we even had mayors getting involved in the deal. Finally the minister, with all this pressure-and I do not blame the minister of the time-postponed any decision on it and just let the situation ride. This particular lady felt, and still feels, that she
Proposed Office of Parliamentary Counsel has a considerable grievance in that the law and the regulations of Canada did not apply in this case. This is the kind of case, I suggest, where this lady will never get it out of her head that she had been cheated, and cheated by her government, and her family has been held up to ridicule of a permanent kind that can only be settled by some kind of grievance procedure and some kind of person who is completely detached from both the ministerial framework and the influence of those of us who are politicians.
I do not feel there would be any tremendous number of cases right off the bat. I think every hon. member knows that each one of us will get letters from cranks in our constituencies and also from across the country. We know the kind of person who is always feuding and spatting with government agencies, particularly with the unemployment insurance commission or the workmen's compensation board in the province. It is all very easy to put a lot of these people down as cranks and write them off. But so often this tendency should be slowed up by a realization that you only need one case where there is real merit to make you see that these kind of people should at least have their opportunity.
I think the ombudsman would certainly apply. It is apparent that the British, in considering this matter, have felt that the whole question of ministerial responsibility and the joint responsibility of the cabinet has been a factor in their particular parliamentary set-up which would stand in the way of giving a parliamentary commissioner, a grievance commissioner, in Britain the kind of powers he has been given in the Scandinavian countries. This may very well be so; but we need to define the problem much more clearly. This is really what the motion suggests. We need to pinpoint the kind of things that a grievance commissioner could do. Professor Rowat points out, in effect, that the grievance commissioner could be the Auditor General for, you might say, civil and administrative matters as distinct from bookkeeping, cost and expenditure matters. I think that is a good comparison in that I do believe this person should have the freedom that the Auditor General has, to report to this house, rather than to any special minister. If we had such a parliamentary commissioner reporting to parliament and his report being dove-tailed in with a permanent house committee which met regularly every year, I believe you would really give many people in Canada the feeling that there was, in grievance matters concerning the administration, a court of last resort which would be extremely fair.
5956	HOUSE OF
Proposed Office of Parliamentary Counsel
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, there is not much more I want to say in case other hon. members would like to express opinions. I have a great deal of material on the matter. It is my impression that both editorial comment and the general feeling among people in politics are relatively favourable to this idea. It seems to me that what we need to know definitely, and I think it is up to both parliament and the government to find it out, are the limitations we should look for in this kind of office in Canada, so as to produce some concrete proposals as to the kind of legislation which would be required. I hope this study can be undertaken fairly soon, certainly within this parliament. It seems to me that one of the real things which will complement the bill of rights, and in a sense give the bill or rights a great deal of significance which it does not have at the present time where the private citizen is involved, in his relationship with the federal government, is this kind of office of a parliamentary grievance commissioner.


Miss Pauline Jewett (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed that the motion the hon. member has had on the order paper for a very long time, and which I gather from his remarks today he has brought forward for several sessions now, has come up for debate today, even though I will not have very much time to discuss it. I am afraid other hon. members will be in no better position since it has come on, so to speak, only at the last minute.
The main credit for popularizing the idea of an ombudsman in this country should go, as the hon. member suggested, to Professor Rowat of Carleton University, who did a very extensive study, during the course of a tour of Europe on a Canada council fellowship, of the practice in the European countries which have an ombudsman, and who has published a good many of his findings. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) did not mention-so I thought I would, in case other hon. members are interested-the most comprehensive of Professor Rowat's articles, which is the one to be found in the November 1962 issue of the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science. There has also been some writing on the subject by other academics. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) has just told me that the former member for Rosedale of some years ago, Charles Henry, Q.C., has been taking the initiative on behalf of the Ontario section of the Canadian Bar Association in studying the possibility of introducing the ombudsman scheme to Canada. It is of course, appropriate both at the federal and at the provincial level.


I have not time to go into the history of why such a parliamentary commissioner is necessary. Suffice to say that, with the great growth in discretionary powers at the administrative level of government, there has been a lot of feeling for some time that there should be some way by which the citizen could question by way of appeal the fairness, possibly even the reasonableness, of decisions which are taken in relation to him. We do not have a system of administrative courts in this country. We have the income tax appeal board, which is a type of court, but we do not have too many bodies like this. Even in those cases where we do, there are lots of grievances and problems which citizens have, which for one reason or another can never be brought before these tribunals.
Some European countries which already have a system of administrative courts have also felt the need for a parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman who would be the spokesman or the grievance commissioner for the average citizen. It is not, of course, the complete answer to the problem of the control of discretionary powers. As the royal commission on government organization pointed out, much more needs to be done both within parliament and within the administrative process itself, to try to bring us up to date and to ensure democratic control over administrative discretion. But I do agree with the hon. member that an ombudsman or a parliamentary commissioner or commissioners-I think Professor Rowat suggested that a commission of three would be appropriate in this parliament-should be set up.
The committee on procedure, which has already been established and which, I would hope, will be re-established in another session, will be taking under consideration- again I hope-the possibility of establishing an ombudsman or a comparable officer in this parliament. Indeed, if this is done, the committee should hold public hearings for those of us in parliament who would like to speak much more fully on this matter than we have time for today, and for those academics, lawyers and interested groups in society generally to present their views on the matter. I should think that a thorough series of public hearings would prove extremely useful before initiating a scheme like this; and as I say, I hope that if we go into a new session the committee on procedure will be set up again and will carry out this investigation.
In the meantime, may I make one suggestion to hon. members, and that is that they collect the major types of grievances they have received from their constituents

and build up a file of them. Because in the United Kingdom one of the reasons the ombudsman scheme has tended to be shot down is that they have said there: You have not given enough specific examples of what an ombudsman would do; there have not been detailed grievances specified where citizens have suffered at the hands of the administrative process. I suggest it would be unfortunate if that were to happen here, because I am sure that I, as well as the rest of us here, have many illustrations of cases where individuals have a genuine grievance vis-avis the administration, and we will undoubtedly find more during the recess. I hope it will be possible for this matter to be discussed formally at hearings before the committee on procedure, and that all members of parliament will take an interest in this new parliamentary institution. I suggest that we leave it there, for the moment at any rate, and if all is well the decision to do something about it may well be made, and should be made, in the fairly near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being six o'clock the hour for consideration of private members' business has expired. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. C-128, to amend the Canada Grain Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Income Tax Act, the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Railway Act, the Salaries Act and the Tariff Board Act with respect to the salaries of certain public officials.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks before this bill gets second reading.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The purpose of this legislation is to bring salaries prescribed by statute into line with those now paid to judges and proposed to be paid to senior civil servants, including deputy ministers.
Salaries of Certain Public Officials


George Clyde Nowlan: Many of these amendments concern matters to which we have given consideration in the past and I think that on the whole they commend themselves to the favourable consideration of the house.
One could make long and prolix speeches, if he wished, about the services rendered by these various organizations. I am thinking particularly of the tax appeal board. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) might give some consideration to the reorganization of that board so as to place it more or less on a permanent basis, similar to that of the courts. After all, when this board was first established it was set up to deal with petty and minor income tax cases. Now it is dealing with cases involving very large sums. I have been conscious, ever since the days when I was connected with the Department of National Revenue, that careful consideration should be given to this particular board. I am sure the same applies to many of the other boards we are considering tonight, and without taking the time of the house further I wish to express support for the principle involved, as far as we are concerned.
It is, of course, for the government to take responsibility for the amounts of the increases recommended. We are prepared to accept the principle that there should be increases in the salaries paid to the members of these various boards and corporate structures. I deplore the fact that in doing so it should be necessary to amend five, ten or 15 statutes at a time, on the basis of one bill. When I was practising law-and perhaps, one day, the Secretary of State will himself be practising law in Bonavista-Twillingate- I was conscious that when considering a bill which set out to amend some 15 statutes, an advocate did not know where to turn or what to do. However, I realize that where the primary and, it seems, the only concern is with the salaries paid, there is scarcely any alternative open and we are prepared to accept it. It is a practice which all governments have followed; we followed it, too, though some of us regretted the practice. I think the principle involved here is sound and to be commended to the house. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we notice that this bill requests a salary increase for a number of people employed in the civil service of Canada. When the persons concerned are competent, we do not object to their obtaining a salary increase, but in the present case, an increase is requested for many classes of employees and I
5958	HOUSE OF
Salaries of Certain Public Officials must say that we, in this corner of the house, object to clause 3 of Bill C-128.
We would rather have a distinct bill; we would have liked that clause 3 be taken out of this bill, that is as far as the salary increase for the chairman of the income tax division is concerned.
Among all the civil servants, he surely is the last one to deserve an increase; he would rather deserve a kick in the pants, as also those responsible for income tax in the province of Quebec, especially.
It was established last year that it was the least well administered of all the federal departments' divisions.
Tax inspectors go around in rural areas, conduct so-called inquiries into charity receipts and declare their inquiries over without having even consulted with the persons concerned. They reduce the amount of charity receipts, especially in the province of Quebec, and then they write the taxpayer: "Dear sir, you have produced charity receipts to the amount of $500 but, on inquiry, we can allow $250 only." What an inquiry. They have not even seen the person concerned. That is the way things are done by those income tax officers.
It is proposed to increase the salary of the chairman, the assistant chairman and the other members of the income tax division. This means that, afterwards, the salary of the other employees of that division will be also increased. We cannot agree to those increases in salaries; as to the other cases, it is all right, but not these, we cannot agree.
Those persons whose salary we are now asked to increase show an unwarranted zeal in the province of Quebec, and everywhere else in Canada, so as to make themselves noticed. Inquiries are made on small merchants and small businessmen, every record is investigated, every small detail is looked into in the hope of finding something wrong. And often, after a two or three week check, an error of $10 or $15 is found.
It is the small businessman who will then have to foot the bill.
That is what we cannot accept, Mr. Speaker. In the long run, it is always the small businessman who is hounded by those officials of the income tax divisions whose salaries it is now proposed to increase. Members of the income tax board prepare a case against Canadian citizens and hand down a sort of judgment without too much investigation. If the citizen is not satisfied, he is the one who has to appeal the judgment. However, since he is not familiar with the law, he does not want to get involved in a costly appeal of the decision of those officials whose salary is to be increased. He merely grumbles against the


Income Tax Act and the people who enforce it, namely those for whom we are considering a pay boost.
It is for that reason and many others, because the members of the income tax division are far from giving satisfaction to the Canadian taxpayers that we are against any pay increase in their case.
We would even say that their salaries should be reduced. That is why, when we come to section 3 of the Bill No. C-128, we intend to move an amendment to reduce the salary of the chairman, the assistant chairman and the members of the income tax division.
It is my feeling that they have shown themselves unable to put themselves at the same level as the general public.
As the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) stated, they behave like extortioners of taxes. That is why, especially those who head that division, who give orders such as those received these days by inspectors with regard to receipts for charitable donations, do not deserve any salary increase, but rather a decrease.
The parliamentary secretary who is the sponsor of Bill No. C-128 should withdraw clause 3 from it so as to make a different bill. If he were to do so, I am convinced that all members of the house would be glad to consign it to oblivion.
If we compare the salary of those gentlemen which is to be increased, and those paid to persons who perform their duties much better, like interpreters, translators and house reporters, it is readily realized that they are out of all proportion.
Those are the remarks I wanted to make at this time. I reserve the right to move an amendment in that connection when we come to section 3.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, if I may add one word it seems to me that the hon. member is under a misapprehension. As I understand the bill, it has reference to the income tax appeal board and really has nothing to do with the administration of the taxation division, which comes under the Minister of National Revenue. I can only say that if that department has fallen apart I did not think it could fall apart so quickly because, after all, it was very well administered under the last two ministers.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, for a minute or two I should like to direct the attention of the house to one aspect of the bill. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), with his usual lucidity, has spoken for the party and I agree with what he has said. I am concerned about the continuing disparity in the salary paid to

the lieutenant governor of Prince Edward Island. Of all the provinces, I see that the lieutenant governor of that province is in a separate category. If I may make a confession, over the last six years I pleaded and endeavoured to cajole and argue with the former minister of finance, not the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings but his predecessor, to no avail, and now it would seem that this legislation will not only continue the disparity but will enlarge it.
I do not see that there is any principle proclaiming why one province should be singled out. I will not argue the merits of the case at this stage. I could point out that Prince Edward Island is heading for one of the greatest celebration years in its history. I could point out too that there is probably no province in the country in which the citizenry are in closer contact with government house than in Prince Edward Island. I am sure the Solicitor General, my colleague from Prince, would agree with that.
It is the matter of principle I am concerned about. The salaries obviously are not on a per capita basis because you would not find British Columbia and Newfoundland in the same category. I as a private member cannot initiate steps to remedy this, but I appeal to the sponsor of the bill and the government. I am not saying whether they should bring the others down or put the province of Prince Edward Island up, but I do not see any justification for this discrimination. I never did get a satisfactory answer from the former minister of finance, and I am still alarmed and disturbed at this continuing discrimination.
I will not argue about the relationship of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to the others. If it were not the yuletide season I would even argue about that; but with regard to the other eight it is most disconcerting to me to find the province of Prince Edward Island placed in a separate and lower category than the others. This is improper, and I would appeal to the government to rectify the error. I do not know how it came about. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the parliamentary secretary can give us the historic background on this seeming discrimination. I am very proud of the fact that in the face of many provinces having surrendered the official residences of their lieutenant governors Prince Edward Island, a small province, has through the years maintained its beautiful government house. It was not easy for a small province to do that. So I would hope that in a gesture of appreciation therefor, and of justice long delayed, my suggestion will commend itself to the
Salaries of Certain Public Officials government. Apart from that I have no criticism to make of the legislation.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, in clause 1 provision is made for increases in the salaries of the members of the board of grain commissioners, but as far as I can see no provision is made for the members of the Canadian wheat board. In the newspapers today there was a reference to the increases for the members of the board of grain commissioners and all the others included in the bill, but no mention was made of the Canadian wheat board. I have in mind Mr. McNamara, Mr. Riddel and the others. I should like to have an explanation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since I moved the motion I imagine if I speak now I will close the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must caution the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: First of all, while I am answering the question off the top of my head, I am pretty sure that the salaries of the chairman and officers of the wheat board are settled by the wheat board itself and are not fixed by statute. 1 notice that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who knows more about this than I do, is nodding his head in approval.
The purpose of the bill is to deal only with officials' salaries which are fixed by parliament. Most senior officials' salaries are fixed by the governor in council. The salaries of the senior officials of crown corporations are usually fixed by the crown corporations, sometimes with the approval of the governor in council. I was assured when the bill was recommended to us for presentation to the house that it covers all the salaries that parliament fixes, except the salary of the chief electoral officer which we dealt with in a bill that was before the house earlier today. I think that is the reason.
With respect to the observations made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), and I think I can understand why he was under a misapprehension, this bill has nothing to do with the people who collect income taxes. It refers only to the income tax appeal board, to which a taxpayer can appeal if he thinks he has been unfairly treated by the income tax authorities. I would think that if the hon. gentleman has the view he has of the income tax collectors, which I must say I do not share, he should be glad to have an appeal board with good men on it to see that justice is done.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State.
5960	HOUSE OF
Salaries of Certain Public Officials [Translation]
Since the section may be ambiguous, would the Secretary of State be willing to add: the chairman of the appeal board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think that would be a proper thing to do, once I was sure I had the right title in both English and in French. I should be glad to do that when we get into committee. I hope there will be somebody who can give us the necessary designation so that it can be put into the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister makes one of those commitments, had he not better see what the language of that section is, and where it will be in the act?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right. I hope that someone who is a more competent draftsman than I am will be available when we get into committee. However, since we appear to be in committee in spirit, perhaps I should conclude my observations so that we can go into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Salaries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could clause 3 stand? [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) lent me a copy of the Income Tax Act. Now, section 86 of the Income Tax Act which is mentioned in Bill No. C-128, as pointed out a moment ago by the Secretary of State, stipulates that it is the "income tax appeal board".
I therefore note that the director or the officials of the taxation division or still the extortioners of taxes, as they are commonly called, are not involved but simply the chairman of the income tax appeal board. Consequently, I admit that I made a mistake, but I must give explanations. We had been told that not too much importance was attached to this legislation and I did not take the trouble of referring to the statutes to see what section 86 dealt with.
However, I repeat the remarks I made a while ago, concerning the director and official of the income tax division, and we shall resume when the estimates of the Department of National Revenue are introduced, within a few days.


In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw the amendment I put forward.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, as concerns article 3, I simply wish to point out it is time the salaries of the president and other members of the tax appeal board be increased, for I am advised the departmental solicitors who plead before that tribunal receive fees or salaries higher than those of the members of the board. Needless to say I am not speaking about solicitors who represent clients before the board, for they must get very high fees as compared to the salaries of the members of the board.
Mr. Chairman, I should also draw the attention of the house to the fact the members of that tribunal sometimes have to decide cases involving amounts up to $100,000 and even $1 million when, for instance, the cases have to do with estate tax duties.
Besides, the members of the board have to judge extremely complex cases of a technical and specialized nature, and after a few years, they become experts in their field. Now, under the present act, the members of the board are appointed for a ten-year period only, and their appointment may not be renewed, so that the experience they have acquired will be lost, at least as far as the state is concerned. Consequently, I feel that the government should not only increase their salary, but also consider seriously the proposal for making of the income tax appeal board a regular state court; its members would have the same status as the judges of the exchequer court, and they would try cases in a completely independent way, with the power and the dignity suitable to magistrates who judge such important cases.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall certainly draw the hon. member's views to the attention of my colleagues.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Salaries of Canadian commissioners.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I only have a word to say. I am in favour of increasing the salaries of the members of the international boundary waters commission as long as the commissioners publish as soon as possible their report, in order to hasten that great project, the Richelieu waterway, so that it could be completed by 1967, date of the confederation centennial.
If the Secretary of State could assure the house that he will be our spokesman in asking members of the commission to make

haste, we shall be happy to endorse the increase of those salaries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister of northern affairs has listened attentively to what the hon. gentleman has said. I promise that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs returns from Paris, the first thing I will do will be to draw his attention to the hon. member's remarks.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The only reason for making these remarks now is that we know very well on this side the leader of the house runs the government.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Salaries of lieutenant governors.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hope it is not necessary to make lengthy and contentious interventions in order to draw a response of any kind from the sponsoring minister. I would be interested in hearing the comments of the Secretary of State who used to evince quite an interest in our province in the days when we had no Liberal members from that province, on the matter which I raised a moment ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can point out, sir, that the relative situation, I believe, is improving. The gap between the salaries of the lieutenant governor of Prince Edward Island and of the other lieutenant governors is less than it used to be. However I shall draw the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Queens to the attention of my colleagues. It may be that on another occasion, particularly after the causeway has been completed and the population augmented, his views will prevail.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should not like to see, Mr. Chairman, my poor eloquence compared with my friend's, but on the basis of mathematics I have the impression that the difference is greater. It used to be $1,000 and now it is $2,000, and I cannot see that that is narrowing the gap.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The proportional difference is better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe the hon. member for Queens could achieve his desire of equality among the provinces if he would move that the salaries of all the other lieutenant governors be reduced to that paid to the lieutenant governor of Prince Edward Island. I am sure he realizes as a private member he could move that. I suggest that he do it, and I will support it.
National Centennial Act


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lamontagne (for the Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. C-107, to amend the National Centennial Act.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this bill and the resolution preceding it were before us on November 19, 20 and 21, on which day I had the pleasure of adjourning the debate because I rejected the suggestion of two hon. members on the other side that two minutes would suffice for anything I might have to say-although I was in a very co-operative mood then, and had I been given an opportunity to speak the bill might have passed second reading. That opportunity was not afforded me.
Since that time I have examined the bill with very great care and I have carefully read over the debate up to this point. I have also read the debate on the national centennial bill of two years ago, the confederation debates, and the debates in the British house of commons at the time of the passing of the British North America Act-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and I have refreshed my memory with regard to the history of our country. I find it rather odd that two years ago, in 1961, the house accepted very favourably the proposition then before it, namely, the setting up of the National Centennial Council. The people who were then in opposition and who are now on the treasury benches spoke very favourably of the suggestion that was advanced by the prime minister of that day. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) and the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) all participated in that debate two years ago and found nothing at all wrong with the bill.
At that time the present Prime Minister said:
A centenary is a.. .momentous occasion in the history of a state.
He went on to say:
Our nation will soon be celebrating its one hundredth birthday anniversary.
5962	HOUSE OF
National Centennial Act
The Minister of Transport used the phrase, "at this point in our national progress," and the Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke about, "the beginnings of our nation when we celebrate its one hundredth birthday." The hon. member for Hull used these words:
All the politicians put aside party feeling to bring forth the fullest national unity possible.
That was the spirit two years ago with regard to the celebrations we hope to hold in Canada in 1967. There was no dissenting voice. There was no niggling objection to the use of any word. It was only this year, in 1963, that we discovered there were some objections, and so the government introduced a resolution followed by this bill, to make certain changes.
Strangely enough the people who have spoken on behalf of the government in the debate up to the present have been the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamon-tagne) the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). The resolution stood in the name of the Prime Minister. In view of what he said in 1961 I would have thought he would have taken the resolution and the bill through the house on this occasion, lifted the debate to the high level that pertained two years ago, and drawn the attention of the Canadian people to our great history and the celebrations we hope to hold in 1967, with a look to the future. There was a chance for great leadership, such as was shown in 1961; but this year, 1963, the Prime Minister did not participate, has not participated up to this point; and I wish he would.
He left the job to the President of the Privy Council who introduced the resolution and the bill without any lift to the spirit at all. He pretended that only minor amendments were being made, which led the Secretary of State on to say that it was just an exercise in semantics. Consider the irresponsibility of a government bringing an exercise in semantics before the House of Commons.
I thought the President of the Privy Council was rather careless in his handling of this whole problem. He drew our attention to the fact that certain changes were desirable in the translation into French, and he said that those changes could have been made by the former administration. I ask him, why could those changes, to which we raise no objection, not have been made in the French version, if it was inaccurately translated originally, as he stated, instead of making a major change in the bill and, through his casual introduction, stirring up discord on a matter which should have no element of discord in it? Why could he not have done that, when what we are talking about is our country, our native 

land, the birth of our nation; and I am using the word "nation" in the sense in which people of English speech use it? We got the word from the French and it came originally from the Latin. There may be other meanings to the word nation but with us we consider it, and have done so for a long time, as the designation of a political entity covering an area, and all the divers peoples who are united together in that political entity.
Why could not the president of the council, when pointing out to us that there were some feelings among our French speaking brethren about the translation, have made that correction, instead of making a much more substantial change by way of the one which was introduced into the house? He has, by his actions-and he is acting, of course, as spokesman for the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)- raised a certain discord which is incompatible with the nature of the future celebrations that we hope to hold in this country. What purpose is served by this type of activity? I think that upon reflection the Prime Minister and the president of the council would be ready to express regret that they did not follow the course that was so carefully plotted in 1961, and keep the whole discussion of this interesting subject on a very, very high level. Not content with doing that, the President of the Privy Council distorted history on November 20. He used these words, as is reported on page 4979 of Hansard:
It is quite clear to me, as it should be to the right hon. gentleman, that our nation and Canada existed before 1867. What did happen in 18877 United Canada and two other separate British colonies joined together in a confederation to form a single British colony, which became sovereign in fact much later in the present century.
I suggest that is a distortion of history.


Mr. Lamonfagne:: In what way?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall indicate in what way immediately. What the president of the council has overlooked is that a new state was formed in 1867. He does not want to call it a nation. I appreciate that point of view. But certainly a new state was formed in 1867.


Maurice Lamontagne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I never said in my speech that there was no Canadian nation. I said that the Canadian nation was born before 1867.


An hon. Member:: What is your point of order?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the sense in which the president of the council is speaking, he is using the word "nation" as we use the word "race".


Maurice Lamontagne: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.



IB, 1963

Gordon Minto Churchill: No one is prepared to say there was not a Canadian nation before 1867. Also, if you like, there was an English nation in this country before 1867; but we do not use that term at all. At the time of confederation one of the great leaders of that era, who was quoted by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was speaking on this subject, used these words:
The time has arrived to form a great nation. If we unite, we will form a political nationality independent of the national origin and religion of individuals.
We have always accepted that as the historical fact with regard to what happened in 1867. And the other fathers of confederation were not talking about forming a larger British colony; they were talking about forming a new state comprised of the former British colonies that were on the North American continent. They were thinking in terms of a new state. Their opposite numbers in the British Isles were thinking along the same lines. When the secretary of the colonies, Lord Carnarvon, was discussing the British North America Act on February 19, 1867, he used these words:
We are laying the foundation of a great state- perhaps one which at a future day may even overshadow this country.
Mr. Adderley, who was a distinguished member of the British House of Commons, said this:
The rest of this large continent, still British, is now asking us to assist them to develop their own strength and resources in retained connection and in partnership of allegiance to one common sovereign.
Mr. Cardwell, who had been in the former administration secretary of the colonies and was subsequently minister of defence, used these words:
Time was when it was the policy of this country to exercise a strong imperial control over her colonies. If that policy continued it would be unwise to pass this bill...but that policy has now passed away and the sole object of our government now is to have the satisfaction, pride and pleasure of witnessing the growth under the crown of England of great and powerful communities attached to the mother country by no other ties than those of love and affection and a reciprocal regard, which will prove a source of strength in the hour of danger.
Mr. Gladstone, on March 28, 1867, said:
It is impossible to conceive anything more complete than our acknowledgment of those rights of self-government.
He was referring to the changed conditions that were being brought about in Canada. Then he said:
We have carried it to this point, that as far as regards the administration, I believe it may be said that the only officer appointed by the colonial secretary is the governor; and I believe there
National Centennial Act cannot be a doubt that if it were the well ascertained desire of the colonies to have the appointment of their own governor, the imperial parliament would at once make over to them that power.
There is nothing, sir, in the evidence of the debates in Canada at the time of confederation, or in the debates in the British house of commons, to indicate that just a larger British colony was being formed. It was the creation of a new state, with complete independence; and any vestiges of colonialism that were left in Canada were due to Canadians themselves. The chief vestige that was left from 1867 to 1871 was the presence in Canada of a considerable force of British soldiers who were kept here at the request of the Canadian government because of the threat of the Fenian raids from across the border. I hope that the national centennial council, when it makes its plans for 1967, will commemorate in some form or other the assistance and sacrifice of the long suffering British taxpayer who supported numerous British troops in Canada from 1867 to 1871 before the four million people who then comprised Canada were ready to undertake the responsibilities which certainly rested upon them.
I suggest it is wrong to distort history by pretending, as has been pretended now for so many years, that Canada was just a colony of Great Britain after 1867. For 25 years before that time self-government had been accorded the British colonies on the North American continent. We became a nation state in 1867, and that is the point in time to which we are looking back, to celebrate in 1967. The people of 100 years ago in Canada and in Great Britain looked forward with vision to the future and saw the development of a great self-governing dominion, which was almost called kingdom, on the British North American continent. Everything that Canada wanted by way of independence the people in Great Britain were prepared to give. So I suggest that the President of the Privy Council is distorting history in making the suggestion that he does.
Now I have a much more serious point to bring to the attention of the house. I have already indicated that in the debate so far, in marked contrast with the debate in 1961, the only people who have spoken on the government side are the president of the council, the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I take it that, this being a government measure, these people were speaking on behalf of the government, and were setting out the policy of the government and of the Liberal party. At the time I adjourned the debate on November 21 I did so because, having listened
5S64

National Centennial Act very carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I thought that the right of reply should be accorded to people on this side of the house.
Let us consider, Mr. Speaker, some of the things said by the hon. member during the course of that debate. I heard him speak, but Hansard does not record the eloquence of his remarks, the fervour with which they were presented to the house and the emphasis that he placed upon them. Let us consider very carefully what he said. He picked upon the most important change in the bill, and as reported at page 5006 said this:
But the most Important change, in my opinion, is the new name that is proposed. Instead of celebrating the centennial of the nation, we are going to celebrate the centennial of confederation. Of course that implies rather different circumstances, because we are ready to celebrate the Canadian nation at any time, but to celebrate the centennial of confederation, that is not exactly the same thing.
So he based his remarks on this main portion of the act. Then in his peroration, which was very well delivered, he speaks with feeling and with fire. He went on in these words:
Canada is an economic power; it has the right to transact business freely with other countries. It declared war in 1939-which is a sign of total Independence-and since 1945, it has its own representative at the United Nations. Why should it still be subject to bonds of colonialism?
Thus he harped on the theme set out earlier by the President of the Privy Council, on the theme of colonialism, which is a misreading of history and is false to the history of our country. Then, Mr. Speaker, here is his final paragraph:
Here is the nonsensical situation in which Canada finds herself in 1963: without a flag, without a national anthem, unable to amend its own constitution in some cases and a foreign sovereign is the symbol of its supreme authority.
Those were the words of the hon. member for Lotbiniere speaking, I took it, on behalf of the government, setting out the policy of the Liberal government. I call upon the Prime Minister of this country to come into this house and to make a statement. Does he agree with these words of the hon. member for Lotbiniere? Is that the stand that he takes with regard to this country? Or has he some different idea which he would like to put before the Canadian people? Will he speak in the terms in which he spoke in 1961?
Mr. Speaker, until I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the remarks of the President of the Privy Council on second reading, I was constrained to consider that the changes proposed, much as we regretted them, might be accepted; but I have reached the conclusion that we are

being pushed a bit too far under the circumstances. I suggest to the Prime Minister of this country and to the members of the Liberal party that they reconsider their position. There is no one in Canada who is not proud of his country; and we use the word "country" as synonymous with "state" and "nation". There is no Canadian who is not proud of this country. There is no Canadian who does not like the idea-I hope-of celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of our country. This is something to lift the heart, raise the spirits and enable us to look to the future. At the time we do celebrate our one hundredth birthday, let us review the whole history, the prior history, of this great country of Canada. Why not? It is a fascinating history, and so many races have contributed to the development of Canada. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) pointed out the contributions which had been made by people not belonging to the two original founding races. The whole opening up of western Canada, a vast empire in itself, has been due in very large part to the activity and dedication of people of races neither English nor French.
If we are going to have, or continue to have, as I think we have had in the past, a united Canada, why should we be exposed to the type of activity foisted upon us by the President of the Privy Council, who could have brought in the necessary amendment to the French translation of the act and left us with what we thought was established two years ago? Nobody in Canada two years ago, at the time the act was presented to the House of Commons, raised any objection. These objections came subsequently.


Maurice Lamontagne: In 1961.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In 1961. This whole idea was grasped with enthusiasm by the people of this country. And now the president of the council, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, has brought discord into the discussion of something which should have been so much above that. This, I think, is deplorable. It is an unfortunate development, and I think it can only be corrected by the Prime Minister himself speaking here to the House of Commons and to Canada and expressing his views.
Let us see where we stand. Why are we to be pushed this far. Is the Liberal party of this country going to ask us to accept some of these statements which were made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere? Are we to sit silent when he talks about a foreign sovereign? I would say to the hon. member and to the President of the Privy Council and to the Prime Minister: the Liberal party and the government of this country are

misjudging the temper of the Canadian people. We are prepared to be co-operative. We are prepared to make this concession and that concession. It may be perfectly all right. But I suggest that matters are being pushed to a crisis unnecessarily by the action of this government, based on the introduction of this bill.
I hope even now that the Prime Minister will accept his responsibilities, come here into the House of Commons and speak for Canada, instead of creating dissension and causing trouble in this country which we love.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had not intended to take any part in this debate and I do not intend to take any extensive part now. But there was one observation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) which I cannot allow to pass in silence. I happen, at the moment, to be the senior government representative in the house-


An hon. Member:: The only representative.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
An hon. Member:: How much?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It also happened that my constituency was the first landfall of Jacques Cartier. His first landing took place there before he went on to Gaspe or Quebec. Perhaps if I could have some quiet attention, the same courtesy as was given to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in a matter as important as this, where an appeal was made for unity, it might make for unity.
I have no desire to contribute to any kind of dissension in this country and I have tried never to do so. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre could hardly have been speaking seriously when he suggested that anyone could speak for a government except a member of that government. We are elected here as supporters of parties or groups, or even as independents; but outside of those who sit on the treasury benches and are sworn of the privy council and belong to the cabinet, no one else in this place is authorized to speak for the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you repudiate that Liberal, then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I repudiate any suggestion that the Queen of Canada is a foreigner-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -as the Prime Minister has already repudiated that suggestion. Of course,
National Centennial Act this bill has nothing to do with that matter at all. The purpose of this bill is to make certain corrections in the French text of the act, to make certain other consequential amendments, and quite properly to take advantage of this situation to change certain expressions which have given offence in certain parts of this country, and to substitute other expressions which, it seems to me, can give no reasonable offence to anyone. While they are there in the form they are, they do give offence to some Canadians. I would hope we would all try, no matter where objections come from in this country-if people are sensitive about certain things, and if those objections can be overcome without creating irritation in other quarters-I hope we would all try to meet those objections. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre indicated in his opening remarks, I hope we shall not seek to exacerbate any differences there may be in connection with this matter but that, instead, we shall deal with the words and the expressions which are actually in the bill before us, so that any irritation or misunderstanding which may have been caused can be overcome as quickly as possible.
We all know, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre hinted, that the word "nation" in the English language is generally used as a synonym for the word "state". We also know that in the French language it has two senses. Out of this comes, sometimes, misunderstanding. We also know that the word "foreigner" in English is translated in French by the word "dtranger". There was one occasion when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who had an almost perfect command of the English language-it was not a perfect command; indeed, few of us have a perfect command even of our own mother tongue-used the word "foreigner" when all he meant was the word "stranger", and thereby caused a tremendous commotion, though a person thoroughly familiar with both languages would easily have understood what had happened.
We in this country have a problem because we do have two official languages, but it seems to me that even those of us in this house who are familiar with only one of them should try to understand both the potentialities and the limitations of the other language, and try to make as much accommodation for them as possible. It seems to me that only in that way can we have the united country that we want to see; only in that way can we celebrate, in 1967 what I like to call, in the words of the British North America Act, the union which took place in that year.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to hear the
5968	HOUSE OF
National Centennial Act speech made by the hon. member lor Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).
I should not want to leave unchallenged some ol his remarks. We have witnessed a real war in the fashion of a modern Don Quixote, trying to break down a door already opened.
If I may make a suggestion to the government which wants to appoint a new Canadian ambassador to London, it should appoint to that post the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on account of the assertions he has just made, in order to rid Canada of him.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot with a mere stroke of the pen, cross out 200 years of history, that is the two centuries which elapsed before confederation took place in 1867. We may have been able to create a confederation of two nations in 1867, but it takes more than a day to build a nation.
The founding of a country comes gradually as events go on and is the result of a succession of events which preceded it. It develops through all sorts of legislation which precede it. There were final statutes before the 1867 act, namely the act of Quebec in 1774, another legislation in 1791, one in 1842 and finally confederation in 1867.
A country is not founded overnight. Before confederation, we had a whole series of outstanding facts, of leaders in the political and cultural fields, etc. Natural resources were developed which enabled the country to develop by itself.
It is the blending of all those facts which made it possible to designate at one particular time the 1867 act by the name of confederation. But that was not the foundation of a new state nor the creation of a new nation. It was a progression through circumstances, facts and developments which made it possible for Upper and Lower Canada, having come to maturity, to form what we call today the Canadian confederation.
We can take as an example Algeria, which has just reached independence. Would it be right to say that Algeria has become a nation over night merely on account of the fact that France has given it its independence? Obviously not, for previous to that, there had been historic events, personalities and cultural developments. That is what made possible the formation of a new country and a new nation.
The same thing could be said of the Congo and of those Latin American countries which, for years, have evolved by themselves through their own culture and with the support of other colonial countries which succeeded in opening up new cultural vistas for them. After a series of events, the adoption of various pieces of legislation and the appearance


of men who succeeded in imposing their personality, a new way of life was born in those countries. New legislation was the concrete evidence of all past efforts.
Confederation, Mr. Speaker, did not come into being spontaneously. It was not spontaneous generation nor a new state. It was the result of centuries of efforts, work and development. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, a former minister, must not find in the fact that a piece of legislation is being changed an excuse for a political debate.
We speak of confederation. A confederation is not born out of nothing, it comes out of something that existed beforehand. That is what gave birth to confederation. It is because some things existed before that those things could be united to form confederation. It is not a union of nothing, a union in a vacuum, but a union of principles, factors, human resources and natural resources, which at a given moment formed confederation.
Since it is a confederation built on principles, cultures, personalities and legislation that already existed, it was possible to make a concrete whole out of those things and to form confederation. There, Mr. Speaker, you have a confederation born out of something which exists.
Reference is made to the confederation centennial, to a nation. A while ago, I wanted to challenge the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who, in doing so, was actually taking to task the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) also deemed it advisable, after the Prime Minister, to repudiate the statement made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I do not mean to say that I approve 100 per cent the idea as expressed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. But there is perhaps one thing that should be borne in mind. If a nation, in the sense the word is used by English speaking Canadians, a political nation, is to be built, we French Canadians believe it must be given an image in keeping with a real nation. How is that image of a nation which exists by itself to be achieved? At the present time, we have a geographical image of our country, with boundaries to the east, west, north and south. But, in the interior, what is the image of this country? Let us look at our public buildings. Were we able to give them names representing symbols for Canadians as Canadians? As a matter of fact, when the question of choosing a name for an hotel in Montreal came up, it was called Queen Elizabeth.
I agree, as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) stated the other day, that the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada, that she is bilingual and nice, but if

we want to create the image of a Canadian country, why not give our public buildings names which represent something for Canadians, as Canadians and for Canada, as a country?
Let us look, for instance, at the name given to the street right in front of the parliament buildings in Ottawa: Wellington street, a name which recalls a great English general.
Put your hand in your pocket and take out your paper money. What are you going to find on it? Again the picture of the Queen.
Put a stamp on an envelope. The same picture again.
Streets, parks, public buildings are our symbols. Do we manage really to create a Canadian image favourable to each and everyone of the Canadian citizens? Are we trying to unite the Canadian people?
Here is another example, Mr. Speaker. About a fortnight ago, I had the opportunity to watch the Grey cup game on television. An interesting game, I agree, but it started with a regiment parading with the union jack while "God Save the Queen" was being played. Should anyone doubt the truth of what I am saying, let him get the tape recordings of that T.V. program and he will see that I am right. It was beautiful since it happened in Vancouver, but I, watching that television program in Jonquiere, that is, at the other end of the country, I heard the national anthem of another country whereas they displayed the flag of another country. What does it do for Canada?
Mr. Speaker, all that gives food for thought when we speak about celebrating the centennial of confederation, which others call the nation. Have we really created an image of the Canadian nation which displays the feeling of each and every Canadian? Or have we not, for too long and too often, drawn from foreign symbols?
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the points I wanted to make. I made these remarks as they came to my mind, particularly following the speech just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). I would have liked to answer some of the other remarks he made tonight, for I must admit I was somewhat surprised to hear them, particularly at a time when Canadians make a real effort towards understanding between the two great nations.
Recently, we saw-and I believe this is really relevant to the centennial of confederation, soon to be celebrated-the president of the Canadian National Railways suggest a program to promote bilingualism and bicul-turalism in our country, a program which was unanimously adopted. In fact, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and the hon.
National Centennial Act member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) seconded a motion I put forward to support that policy, which may be was only a project, but the results of which will be evaluated later on.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, steps towards understanding. But if speeches like that made tonight by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre were heard too often, then we would go backwards, retracing our steps continually.
The other day, the hon. member for Three Rivers deemed it advisable to make a speech on the state of Quebec during the debate on a motion I had presented. I am wondering if he will have the nerve to rise tonight and protest against the arguments raised a while ago by one of his former cabinet colleagues, namely the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
I am wondering also if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) will raise his arms as high today as he usually does when he is putting questions to the Prime Minister or the President of the Privy Council, and if he will protest with all the vigour called for against the speech we heard a short while ago?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You will read the speech I made some time ago.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is very well to make nice speeches but you must also practice what you preach. If you let the arguments heard tonight go unchallenged, you can say that these are high-sounding speeches, principles being formulated, and that you do not want things to go any farther. In fact, you must not be afraid to protest if need be, even if members of your own party are involved.
Mr. Speaker, these things must be said to put the cards on the table and stop allowing those who do not want understanding or who want to break open doors to come here and make speeches like the one we heard tonight.
If it is the wish to appoint the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre as Canadian ambassador to England, I would be the first to second the motion. This would be an opportunity to send him for some time in another country.
Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways to celebrate properly the centennial of confederation would be to set about preparing it seriously. Recently, efforts were made to promote bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada. There is an exchange of ideas and I conclude my remarks by emphasizing this point. Let us not forget that the most important problem at the present time-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

National Centennial Act


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I notice that there are still a few backbenchers who did not understand; in short, they are ignorant. But when time comes for these hon. members to speak about wheat, then they can talk for 24 hours. And since we let them outline their problems, they should be as broadminded as we are and let us enjoy the same privilege.
Mr. Speaker, the last problem I want to raise is the most important, I think, since confederation. I mean the taxation problem which brushes aside all the others and about which our English speaking colleagues seem to have fallen into step. In my opinion, this problem must be settled if we do not want to witness the breaking off of confederation, even before the centennial celebration. The parties concerned must get together and settle the problem, so as to enable us to save confederation whose centennial we want to celebrate in four years from now.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, just a few remarks.
We have been listening tonight to two speeches which, instead of being sources of agreement, are precisely sources of dissension.
As one complains on the one hand that some people lack breadth of outlook, on the other hand, one can complain about the same things even though one must keep those complaints for oneself.
I suggest that truths have been told tonight but that they could or should have been told in other circumstances. I believe that what we need is action rather than claims made at the top of one's voice, inconsiderately, without taking into account circumstances or varied factors that should be of interest to everybody.
Some say we should be acting instead of making speeches. I think that could be applied to those who talk that way and never do anything.
In a country such as ours, made up of various ethnic groups, of two official groups whose official languages are recognized, I think it is enough to know each other better, to better appreciate each other and to be able to recognize our characteristics in order to get along instead of always blaming each other and saying: if we cannot get along, there will be separation, or you are lacking co-operation.
There is exaggeration on both sides, but without going into more details, I should like to say that there still are probably in this house some people who have sound middle course principles, who know there are problems on both sides and who think it should be possible to find grounds for agreement instead of living in discord.


I think that the changing of this National Centennial Act into the Centennial of Canadian Confederation Act is a step forward towards the settlement of that problem. I think it is not by adopting rigid, unchangeable and die-hard attitudes that we can succeed in solving that problem. It is rather by admitting calmly the things that are done, like the project before us tonight, that we can finally arrive, not at a Canadian unity-it is quite hard to have real unity with so much diversity-but at co-operation and good understanding between the two majority groups which make up our country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am impelled to say a word or two in view of the contribution made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). He, in turn, found it necessary to speak because of earlier speeches that had been made. I was particularly interested in the expression of his views, to which I shall make allusion in a moment, that only those who are members of the cabinet can speak for the Liberal party and the government of the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair. I said that only the members of the cabinet could speak for the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I intend to refer to the fact that this cabinet certainly does not live up to the high aspirations that were designated by the minister during the course of his remarks. I think we have had a series of examples recently in this connection which would indicate that the cabinet of today has as many voices as the representations that are made to its membership require it to have. I am going to give some examples of that because I think it would be intensely interesting to understand how a government can express itself in unity, when amongst its members their voices are generally raised in disunity.
However, I am going back to the initial stages of this particular legislation. I introduced this legislation in this house, and it received general support. The then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), gave his views at the time, as did the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith). I am going to read a few of the remarks made by the Prime Minister, and when I read them it will be understood why it is that these amendments are brought in by someone other than the Prime Minister. I do not want to read at length, but I refer to the remarks made by the then leader of the opposition, because I gather that the word "nation" or

"national"-either of these words-have a connotation that denies their use in the interests of national unity.


Maurice Lamontagne: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister, on a point of order.


Maurice Lamontagne: I challenge the right hon. gentleman to show me where the word "nation" is in the English version of the present act and also to show me that we are deleting the word "national" from the present act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; perhaps I should mention that, in my opinion, that is not a point of order but rather a point of debate.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact it is a point of disorder. I read what the Prime Minister said:
I think all members of this committee wherever they may sit would wish to give wholehearted support to this resolution.
Then he said:
It is perhaps a happy coincidence that the Prime Minister on his sixty sixth birthday anniversary should be reminding us that our nation will soon be celebrating its one hundredth birthday anniversary. It is appropriate that we should prepare for that celebration.
Then a little later on again he said that Canada as a nation would be 100 years of age; and still later:
The fact that we shall soon be celebrating our hundredth birthday makes us one of the older states in the world.
As the Prime Minister has said, this celebration should encompass the whole range of Canada's history, not merely the achievement of confederation itself.
Then again, as recorded at page 8469 of Hansard for September 18, 1961, he said:
Also, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, it would be appropriate to re-examine the values of our national society.
He spoke. The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) spoke. The Minister of Transport of today spoke; and never was there one word of criticism among any of the members now sitting on the government side when this bill was before the house. They gave it undivided support. There was not one word of criticism in this house, not one word of criticism in the other place. Then, suddenly, ten days or so after the bill became law the first objection was raised by the premier of Quebec, who indicated that he would not permit his province to participate in the celebration of our anniversary unless there were changes made in the legislation.
National Centennial Act
Why was it that those sitting opposite today, when they sat over here, saw nothing wrong then? Why did they support it throughout? Why was there such unanimity, and why the change that took place within a few days after His Excellency had given royal approval? It was only because the premier of Quebec decided that the wording of the legislation did not meet his desires or wishes.
I want to be very clear on this. Over and over again, in an endeavour to bring about national unity within our country, when some of us disagree with other fellow Canadians we are immediately charged with being anti this or that. The suggestion has been made that I am anti-Quebec because I dared to say that I disagreed with Premier Lesage. Is he anti-Canadian because he disagrees with me? Was he anti-Quebec when he disagreed with Premier Duplessis? Surely there must be better arguments advanced than that, that every time you disagree with the premier of one province in Canada you thereby become anti-Quebec?
I was never anti-Quebec at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I point this fact out to the President of the Privy Council, that almost 40 years ago I argued a case in the province of Saskatchewan on appeal, whereby school trustees who were prosecuted for the use of the French language had been convicted. It was not a popular stand to take, but my belief was that the French had the right to their language in the schools of Saskatchewan. I took that case and at that time, 40 years ago, there was little thought of my being in politics. Those views represented my views, when it was unpopular to hold those views, and I emphasize that fact; but throughout the years it has been the prerogative of the Liberal party to charge those who may not agree with their viewpoints at any one time as being anti-somebody, anti-something. It is simply a continuation of divide and rule, which for so many years represented the reason for success of the Liberal party.
I was referring to the debate that took place on September 18, 1961. I think that above all in this nation we believe in freedom. We believe in the necessity of the preservation of those things that had their consummation in confederation.
When the Liberal party, under Mr. St. Laurent, was arguing in this house that the rights of language, religion and education guaranteed under the British North America Act could be amended by a majority of this House of Commons and of the Senate, the Conservative party took the stand that the

National Centennial Act rights of French Canadians, their religious and educational rights, were inviolate, unchallengeable and unchangeable. While we took that view, Mr. St. Laurent said that they could be changed by a simple vote of parliament, a principle that this party has never accepted, and which denies the basic agreements between Macdonald and Cartier and those who made confederation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Please, Mr. Speaker; I will be glad when I conclude to answer any question that the hon. gentleman will ask. At the moment I choose to proceed, but he will get every opportunity.
The words of Sir George Etienne Cartier are pertinent today. This is what he said:
The time has arrived to form a great nation, and I maintain that, as far as we are concerned, confederation has become necessary to our commerce, our prosperity, and our protection...
The government is of the opinion that confederation is necessary, but it is ready to hear the honourable members on the other side who apparently intend to oppose it. I am aware that members of this house and a number of people in Upper Canada and the maritime provinces believe that a legislative union would be far more advantageous than a confederation. As far as I am concerned, I believe that a single government could not deal properly with the private and local interests of the various sections or the various provinces. No other system is practicable but a federal system. It is pretended that it will be impossible to carry out confederation on account of differences of race and of religion. Those who hold that opinion are in error. It is precisely on account of the difference in races and local interests that the federal system should be established and that it will work well.
He went on to say a little later on:
Objection is made to our project, because of the words "a new nationality".
But if we unite, we will form a political nationality independent of the national origin and religion of individuals. Some have regretted that we have a distinction of races, and have expressed the hope that, in time, this diversity will disappear. The idea of a fusion of all races is utopian; it is an impossibility. Distinctions of this character will always exist; diversity is the order of the physical, moral and political world. As to the objection that we cannot form a great nation because Lower Canada is French and Catholic, Upper Canada English and Protestant, and the maritime provinces mixed, it is futile.
Then he goes on to say:
We cannot by law make the differences of race disappear, but I am convinced that the Anglo Canadians and the French Canadians will appreciate the advantages of their position. Set side by side, like a great family, their contact will produce a happy spirit of emulation. The diversity of races will in fact, believe me, contribute to the common prosperity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Those words of 1867 by the great tribune of French Canada in confederation are as true today as they were then. 
Ever since there have been divisions from time to time, but the essence of Canada is tolerance in action and in fact, a recognition that while we will not always agree in all things, over and above the disagreements that sometimes separate us is a common dedication to freedom and a recognition that those of the English and the French race, and the other races that have come to this country, each has a part to play, the basic races with their constitutional rights and the other races having that freedom which gives to those of us who are Canadian a pride in the greatness of our citizenship.
Over and over again it has been the history of our country that too often for political purposes divisions have been created. I would like to say it was because I believed in the possibilities in that connection that I advocated the need of the questions in dispute on national symbols, and the like, being submitted to a dominion-provincial conference; a conference representative of all the political parties of the nation and of all the races of the nation-because no matter what the symbols may be, they cannot be pushed on to the people; they must be accepted nationally, by our people as a whole. In other words, there must be that feeling that each and all are endeavouring to bring about that Canadian citizenship, strong, vital and free. I think of the words of Sir Charles George Douglas Roberts, when considering some of the things that have happened in the last year or so in our country. I think these words are so applicable:
Awake my country, the hour is great with change.
In other words, let us-and I make this Plea-fight our political battles over the things that separate us; but do not let us start fighting political battles in order to get votes over the questions that separate us and are bound to separate us from time to time because of the different racial origins of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Again I quote Cartier, who said this:
-there will be Catholics and Protestants, English, French, Irish and Scotch, and each by its efforts and success will add to the prosperity of the dominion and to the glory of the new confederation. We are of different races, not to quarrel but to work together for the common welfare.
That was the spirit of Cartier and of Macdonald and of Laurier; and that is the spirit that we need today. But for some reason the President of the Privy Council has belonged to those that in the past several years have continued to activate division in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not so.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes. I cannot understand why it is that what was right on September 18 and later in September of 1961, what was accepted thereafter until changed by the premier of Quebec, suddenly becomes wrong, suddenly becomes discordant, suddenly brings about a division in the nation. I plead with the government that in these things we do not proceed in a way that can only leave wounds. I am not going to say more in that connection, but I point out once more that there was unanimity when the legislation was passed; there was acceptance. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) joined in the band, and, now-


Maurice Lamontagne: What about consultation with the provinces?


John George Diefenbaker: -what was good in 1961 has become an element of disunity in 1963. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) was going to ask me a question a little earlier. I will be glad to answer it, and then I want to say something about the cabinet in a kindly way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question will, I think, be entirely non-contentious. The right hon. gentleman referred to a statement made by Mr. St. Laurent in 1949 about section 133 of the British North America Act. I am asking the right hon. gentleman whether when he made that statement he had forgotten that this same Mr. St. Laurent, in this house in the autumn of 1949, proposed an amendment to the British North America Act No. 2 of 1949, which safeguarded it for all time and took it beyond the power of a simple majority to do that. And to be fair to Mr. St. Laurent it should be pointed out that the defect he had mentioned in the constitution, he himself took the initiative in removing.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I said that Mr. St. Laurent had stated that by a simple amendment of parliament those rights could be taken away. We said no, and then finally Mr. St. Laurent asked parliament to amend the British North America Act so as to remove the doubt which was in his mind, but never in ours in this party. I mentioned Sir Wilfrid Laurier a moment ago and I want to quote what he said, because I think it might be studied with interest by the President of the Privy Council:
Below the island of Montreal the water that comes from the north, from the Ottawa, unites with the waters that come from the great lakes to the west, but uniting they do not mix. They run parallel, separate, distinguishable, and yet they are one stream, flowing within the same banks of the mighty St. Lawrence, and rolling on toward the sea...
National Centennial Act
There is the perfect image of our nation. We may not assimilate, we may not blend, but for all that we are the component parts of the same country. We may be French in origin, we may be English or Scots or whatever, but we are Canadian-one in aim and one in purpose.
That represents the view that this party has always taken from the days of confederation, to which it contributed so much and has continued to do so throughout the years since.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) gave us a lesson in cabinet solidarity and responsibility, and told us how only the members of the government can speak for the government. I was quite interested in that, because we have had some examples in the last while which indicate that he has not been studying the situation as carefully as he might. In his speech on April 23 the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) used these words, which were to be descriptive of the events which would take place in Canada within the 60 days and thereafter. These are challenging words:
This is a time to excite the daring, test the strong and give new promise to the timid.
They are striking words and they had national appeal. I am going to refer to some of the things which have happened recently in this regard-because the Secretary of State has chosen to bring this question up-and to indicate the unity which prevails over there.
This government, Mr. Speaker, is a collection of ministers who dispense contradictory statements about confusing policies. It is a government of uncertainty wherein each minister voices his private opinions publicly. It is a government in which principles or consistencies are not regarded as important. It is a government wherein the ministers, in a spirit of diplomacy, agree with whatever representations are being made at the moment. I am going to refer to some examples of this. We have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) who, rumour has it, is about to take a diplomatic post. Well, he showed high powers of diplomacy the other day when the labour group met with him. This labour organization group asked for sweepstakes for the-


Maurice Lamontagne: On a point of order; could we come back to the discussion of the second reading of this bill?


John George Diefenbaker: He reported that he was speaking for himself on that occasion.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, could we come back to the discussion of the second reading of this bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not too sure what is the point the minister is raising at this time, but certainly I am sure the Leader
5972	HOUSE OF
National Centennial Act of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) will want to limit his remarks to the bill before the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I beg to rise on a point of order, if I may. The point is that we are on second reading of this bill. I know what the right hon. gentleman has in mind and what he intends to do. He did it on my estimates the other evening. I have no objection if he does it again, but I should like to remind you, sir, that the second reading of this bill is not the place, it seems to me, to discuss matters which the right hon. gentleman is discussing. He had an opportunity to do it-


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a point-


Lionel Chevrier: I am on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: That is no point of order at all.


Lionel Chevrier: I am raising a point of order and I think the right hon. gentleman-


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I wonder whether we could not first hear the minister on his point of order, and then I will be pleased to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis).


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question of privilege I will hear him.


Malcolm MacInnis: My question of privilege is this. As a backbencher, or as an ordinary member of this house, what obligation have I to give place to a minister of the crown rising in his place, when the Chair did not recognize him in the first place, or prevent my rising on a point of privilege? The minister was not recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think I should bring to the attention of the hon. member for Cape Breton South that the Leader of the Opposition sat down and yielded the floor very politely to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier), who I think is trying to expound a point of order. He may or may not have a point of order, but I think we should give him an opportunity to state it to the house; after a ruling has been made we can hear out the Leader of the Opposition.


Lionel Chevrier: My point of order-


Malcolm MacInnis: One word on my point of privilege. I recognize the Leader of the Opposition's surrendering the floor to the Presi-


dent of the Privy Council, but not to the Minister of Justice, who was not recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If this will please the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I will now recognize the Minister of Justice.


Lionel Chevrier: The point of order I had raised is quite a simple one. We are discussing second reading of this bill. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to bring into this matter matters which are entirely extraneous and which were discussed on another occasion. They have nothing to do with the bill. I know what it is going to be. If he wants to talk about me and make sarcastic remarks he can go ahead-


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lionel Chevrier: -because I have been listening to this for almost six years now and I am used to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. On the point of order I can only say that the Leader of the Opposition has the floor now. He is required, and will I am sure, as all other hon. members try to do, to limit his remarks to the subject matter under consideration before the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice came in just a moment ago. He did not hear the contribution of the Secretary of State. Your Honour did not see fit to raise any objection when the Secretary of State was speaking with such scintillating eloquence regarding this cabinet. I think it only fair, if it was proper for him to lecture the house on the cabinet of which he is a member, that we should be able to get the other side of the question. It is because the other side of the question will hurt which causes the Minister of Justice to rise as he just did.


Lionel Chevrier: It won't hurt me, go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not wish to enter into an argument at all and I am sure all hon. members want to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say. My understanding is that when the Secretary of State rose he made a very cursory remark about cabinet solidarity, saying that only a cabinet member can speak on behalf of the government, and I do not think he did much more than make this very brief remark. I do not think this would justify the Leader of the Opposition in making a general discourse on cabinet solidarity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we talk about a spirit of co-operation and good will. I listened to the Secretary of State this evening and I seem to remember a book which was called "The Wizard of Oz". He is the

Wizard of Ooze. He speaks with such soft

ness and consideration at all times. But he is the one who gave me the opportunity to do this. I am not going to press it at all. I was just started, and I have some awful examples to indicate the spirit of unity that exists. I should have thought the government would have been anxious to have this cleared up. Remember what the Secretary of State said. He said: We speak as one; we speak for the party; no one else speaks for it. And when one thinks of all the clashing statements which have been made in the last few days-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -when minister after minister has been challenged for making statements, and the answer given in every case was: I was speaking for myself, not for the government-


An hon. Member:: On a point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Lotbiniere is not a member of the government, but I am sure he should have the same right to emulate their differences as they themselves have. I will deal with this, though, before the session is over, because I think an opportunity will occur which Your Honour will agree is in keeping. This should be clarified, because it has been an interesting session characterized by division and uncertainty, except in this one measure in respect of which a direction was received by a premier of one province to this effect: Unless you do what I want, I will not take part in the celebration of confederation.
I hope the day will not come in this country when the premier of any one province having taken a stand which is not acceptable to members on the other side of this house, pointing this out will be considered as an attack on the province represented by that premier. Indeed, the minister of health gave us a lead in this connection when, in the course of the provincial election in Ontario, she spoke in such derogatory fashion of the premier. No one charged her with being anti-Ontario because she disagreed with the premier.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I was pro-Ontario for the Liberals.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask for the same consideration. To suggest that, when we discuss issues objectively and reach conclusions which are not acceptable to the premier of any one province we are opposed to the province represented by that premier, is to endorse a doctrine which denies the very basis of confederation which we are preparing to celebrate in 1967.


Robert William Prittie: The
New Democratic party does not intend to take
28902-5-380
National Centennial Act part in this exercise in national disunity. It seems to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has started a debate which has set back confederation by several years.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 4-Personnel.
Gordon Minto Churchill: I regret to have to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that clause 4, which introduces an amendment to the French version of the bill, is not expressed in the same words as the French version of Bill No. C-107. This, I think, should be corrected. I have taken the opportunity to read the French translation as well as the English version and I found, on reading them through, that in line 9 of subsection 6 the conjunction shown in the French version is that which appears in the English bill, while in the French translation, instead of "et" we have "ainsi que". This is, perhaps, something which should be corrected.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I think the French version of the bill should be amended by striking out the word "et" and replacing by the words "ainsi que".


Lionel Chevrier: I move, accordingly:
That the words "ainsi que" be deleted from line 9, clause 4 of the bill, and replaced by "et".


Lucien Lamoureux: Could we have that amendment in writing?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in my
opinion, the Minister of Justice and the President of the Privy Council are aware enough of the niceties of the French language so as not to be influenced by someone who has not the faintest idea on the subject.
If the words "ainsi que" are replaced by the word "et", let us look at the results, and this, because someone wanted to give us a lesson in French:
... qu'il estlme necessaires aux fins de la prfisente Partle et fixer leur remuneration et les modalitds et conditions de leur emploi.
The Minister of Justice and the President of the Privy Council should agree with me that such a sentence would not sound well in French, whereas the present wording is as follows:
.. .fixer leur remuneration ainsi que les modalites et conditions de leur emploi.
The meaning is exactly the same, but it sounds better.

Supply-Northern Affairs
That is why I suggest that the section should be left as it is and remain unchanged.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether the hon. member for Lapointe would reconsider his discourteous remark that I have no knowledge of the French language. I happen to be able to read the French language. I am not suggesting that there be any change. I am simply asking that the two versions correspond.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say, in all fairness to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, that the committee should be grateful to him for discovering that the two bills are not identical and for wishing to make sure that there will only be one French version and not two.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, why not amend clause 4 in the English version and substitute the words "ainsi que" to the word "et", so that it may sound better.


Lionel Chevrier: I so move.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Chevrier moved:
That the word "et" be deleted and replaced by the words "ainsi que" before the words "les modali-tes" in paragraph 9 of clause 4 in the English version.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the bill carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Second Clerk Assistant to call now committee of supply so that we can go ahead with the estimates of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who has to be elsewhere for the most of the rest of the week.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
[Mr. Gregoire.l



DEPARTMENT OP NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
55. Water resources branch-administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of the province of Manitoba and of the province of Ontario of the cost of regulating the levels of Lake of the Woods and Lac Seul and the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $1,762,100.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, if we had ample time there would be a great deal I would like to say on this item. I know the minister is anxious to get away but I do want to bring to the attention of the house some matters in connection with this item. The minister gave an excellent address to the Saskatchewan river development association on November 1 of this year at Moose Jaw, the title of the address being "Energy From Water". I wish to quote briefly from this address because I think these remarks are well worth putting on the record. The minister said, commencing at page 6:
This makes it imperative that every available drop of water must be used wisely. Waste is inexcusable even in the midst of plenty, but where an increasing demand approaches the limit of the available supply, waste is not inexcusable, it is suicidal.
The warning signals are being given us by many people whose reputations are such as to command our most serious attention. Among them Mr. David Cass-Beggs, general manager of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, has recently said that it can almost be taken for granted that in the next 30 years or less much of the flow of the Peace and the Athabaska will have been diverted into the North Saskatchewan and in part into the South Saskatchewan. In addition to conserving and redirecting water flows from the eastern side of the continental divide Mr. Cass-Beggs has suggested the most serious study of proposals to use diversion of water from the west side of the Rocky mountains into the southern river systems where they are most needed. It is quite certain that to many Canadians who have always associated water with plenty, such proposals will smack of popular mechanics. They should remember that these forebodings, in time it is to be hoped, overdrawn if some would prefer to call them so, may deliver us from the crises by which water failures have pockmarked the pages of world history and even at this moment are threatening great areas of this continent. The conservation or wise use of our water resources should be the concern of every citizen.
I am sure everybody will agree with the minister's contention in that respect as those remarks were made directly applicable to the water requirements of the prairie provinces. Because of its keen appreciation of these circumstances the government of Saskatchewan had some surveys made under the direction of Mr. Cass-Beggs of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation as to the possibility of diverting some of the waters on the western side of the Rockies and in northern areas of the prairies

into the North Saskatchewan and into the South Saskatchewan. The result of these surveys was published in a paper called "Energy And Water For Western Canada" by Mr. Cass-Beggs. In that connection I want to quote one paragraph and then make a few concluding remarks. On page 5 of this very interesting report there is a paragraph headed "Water Supply and Demand" which reads as follows:
It is well known that the prairie provinces- Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba-are the most arid parts of Canada, particularly in the settled areas. It is not generally realized, however, how serious a problem the future water supply to these areas may be. The original source of water in a drainage basin is of course the total precipitation. But the net water available is the run-off after evaporation and transpiration by vegetable life has returned a proportion to the atmosphere. While the precipitation in the settled part of the prairies is the lowest in Canada, about 17 inches, the run-off remaining as a source of water is a much smaller proportion of the precipitation than in any other region, resulting in only 2.8 inches per annum. This should be compared with 11 inches in Ontario, 15 inches in Quebec and about 25 inches in British Columbia and the maritimes. It might also be noted that the settled areas of the prairies represent some 30 per cent of the settled area of Canada but has only some 6 or 7 per cent of the run-off.
In this study he goes on to indicate how water can be diverted from the Columbia into the South Saskatchewan river system and from the Peace and other rivers into the North Saskatchewan river system. I mention this particularly because the minister has recognized the seriousness of this problem to the prairies, particularly in the future and possibly in the near future, and because Mr. Cass-Beggs and the government of Saskatchewan recognize it. I understand that the governments of Alberta and Manitoba are also concerned. As I mentioned in a question this afternoon, the premier of Saskatchewan has called a conference of ministers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to be held in Regina on December 20, Friday of this week, to give consideration to the water requirements of the prairie provinces. I know that the minister, according to the reply he gave to my question this afternoon, is going to attend this conference. We are very pleased that he is and we hope that when he attends the conference he will give very serious consideration to the views of the representatives of the provinces. We trust that as a result of the conference in Regina the water requirements of the prairie provinces will be assured for all time to come.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
65. Fraser river-federal expenditures in connection with investigation to be carried out by the Fraser river board, $65,000.
28902-5-380i
Supply-Northern Affairs
Alexander Bell Patterson: For several years now, the Fraser river board has been making surveys and doing studies regarding the use of the Fraser river, and looking at it from various points of view. I was wondering whether the minister could indicate now just when it is expected the Fraser river board will be able to make its final report? I understand that the work is essentially completed and I thought the report would have been brought in before this.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the report has been completed and is being prepared and printed now. I understand it will be delivered to the government in January or February. We have had some indication of its contents in preliminary reports, and I believe it will be a report of exceeding importance.
The hon. member knows, as I know, that in the great 1948 flood many characters of the entire river were changed. We had sandbars that disappeared at one point and came up in other places. Thereafter, a considerable amount of money was spent by the governments of Canada and British Columbia in reinforcing and raising dikes. There is a general admission that in an extraordinary year such as we have known before, the Fraser valley could be flooded again. I believe it is imperative that action be taken upon this report, and it will certainly be the intention of the government to be guided by the report when it is received, in co-operation with the provincial administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Northern branch administration-
75. Branch administration including authority to make recoverable advances for services performed on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $1,092,800.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get a little information concerning the Eskimo affairs. I would like to ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to offer in 1964 a gift to the province of Quebec, and more particularly to Mr. Rene Levesque, and to entrust the province with the administration of the Eskimo affairs?
I gather that some employees of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and employees of the Hudson's Bay Company as well exert pressures and tell the Eskimos to beware of the government of the province of Quebec, because if the latter takes over the administration of their affairs, they will lose plenty by that very fact.
5976	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs
Mr. Chairman, I believe that if that is correct, it is a most disgraceful form of blackmailing, and it should not be allowed to take place.
I am also informed that some textbooks used to teach Eskimos come from the United States. I would appreciate it if the minister would check those facts.
Mr. Chairman, when Newfoundland joined confederation, the administration of Eskimo and Indian affairs was put in the hands of the government of that province. Now, I wonder why the same procedure could not be followed with the government of the province of Quebec?
I conclude with these remarks, as I would not like to delay the passage of the estimates. However, I would appreciate it if the minister would tell us what he intends to do in 1964.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, this has been a very involved and, I think for both governments, a somewhat embarrassing question, in that there seemed to be a very honest feeling on the part of the government of Quebec that the demands of industrial developments in what they called "Nouveau Quebec" made it necessary for them to go in and administer the area. Indeed, they have, in respect of the development of lands, control of properties, police and so on. I want to assure the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that up until very recently the interest of the province of Quebec in that area was practically negligible. Indeed, the federal government had gone in as a result of an award, as I would call it, of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1939 by which they deposed that Eskimos were a tribe of Indians and the federal government had responsibility for looking after them. The federal government has been in there ever since.
I think, in the main, we have done a very good job. We have at present almost $3 million worth of buildings, including schools. The annual cost of education and welfare of the Eskimos of the area amounts to approximately $1,800,000 per year. There was a request by the province of Quebec that we vacate the field to them, including the buildings. I made a trip there to see what the reaction was. I found that the Eskimos made the following demands upon me, that no change from the federal administration to provincial control be made without further consulting them. I found that their opinions were so definite that I told them we would not make a change without discussing the situation further with them. They said that they were eminently pleased with the federal administration; that there had been exceedingly rough times when many people had


starved, and today people were no longer starving. They did not want a change made.
The province of Quebec sent in its officials, and I want to assure my hon. friend we gave instructions immediately to our people on the ground to co-operate with them in every respect. They have done so. I cannot credit that any of our people endeavoured to develop animosity amongst the Eskimos to the people from Quebec, and I do not believe the Hudson's Bay officials have done that. I have no doubt that continuing discussions will take place between us and the province of Quebec. We are quite prepared to go on with those. But I have made this commitment, and I do not want to involve the people who, in the interests of the government here and the government of the province of Quebec, are protecting the Eskimo people in an area where the resources seem very slight indeed. It is an area where a great number of people, I think, would have to be accommodated with houses, because I have seen some there who had no shelter whatever from the weather.
I say the arrangements between the governments, I have found honourable in every respect, and I think they will continue that way in whatever we do.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I have an answer to the question of school books from the United States?


Arthur Laing: There are about 2 per cent of the books that are from the United States, and they were donated to libraries. Some of them have been donated from the United States, but less than 2 per cent of the books are United States books.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why?


Arthur Laing: They were donated to libraries.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In view of the circumstances could item 75 be held open? The hon. member for Yukon, who is taken a bit by surprise by developments tonight, has some remarks to make on this department. If the minister has to be absent on some public occasion, the parliamentary secretary could be available, and that would be satisfactory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure that would be acceptable, sir, on the understanding the minister would be excused from being here if public business required his presence elsewhere. We would be glad to let the item stand.
Item stands.
80. Education division-administration, operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the

government of the Northwest Territories of expenditures on education and vocational training, $5,702,500.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to ask the minister what decision he has come to about the three recommendations of the Glassco commission in connection with educational services offered in the north?


Arthur Laing: A number of recommendations made by the Glassco commission in respect of the north are still under study and active consideration.


Douglas Mason Fisher: More specifically, could the minister say what is being done on the two that seem to me to require very little in the way of spending? One was the new co-ordination of the curricula used, and the other was the fact that the northern adult education program needed to be revised and administered in a different way.


Arthur Laing: Both of those are under active review and I would say that very probably improvements will be made in the new year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
90. Welfare and industrial divisions-administration, operation and maintenance including $20,000 for grants to Eskimos towards acquisition of boats for commercial fishing or resources harvesting and to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to provide, in respect of Eskimo commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Eskimos, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods, and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $3,074,400.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I have the same question in connection with this vote. The Glassco commission made three recommendations. The first referred to a positive program for the rapid transfer of Indian health care for Indian communities and populated areas. I see no indication that this has been taken up by the department. As a matter of fact, I have seen indications where the spending program is going ahead with nursing homes and hospitals in populated areas where there are communities. The second recommendation was that medical and dental care be arranged through private practising physicians in the communities. I know something was done about this with regard to dentists on the prairies, but not much with regard to the physicians. The third recommendation dealt with the referral hospitals at Edmonton and Sardis, British Columbia. Could the minister comment on those recommendations?


Arthur Laing: Those matters are under review at the present time and are being studied intensively, particularly the matter of the referral hospitals, and I am speaking of the Camsell hospital in Edmonton.
Supply-Northern Affairs


Douglas Mason Fisher: How long are these reviews going to take because these reports have been out for some time? I understand Dr. Davidson, who is experienced in these fields has been leading the consideration through a special administrative agency. I would have assumed that by now in view of the length of time some decisions could have been taken.


Arthur Laing: I must say there are some very real limits on some of the recommendations made by the Glassco commission in respect of resident doctors and dentists. Anyone who knows the north country knows there is not too much practical application to that recommendation, because there are not many doctors there. As a matter of fact, we have some nursing posts where there are no doctors at all, but the nurses are doing a magnificent job on our behalf. However, I can assure the hon. member that the recommendations of the report are being taken very seriously, and studies are being made in all these matters.
Before we close off these estimates, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the opportunity of reverting to a matter which the hon. member for Port Arthur was permitted to discuss, item No. 120, that we passed the other night out of its proper order and place. I have had an opportunity of studying Hansard since, and I want to state my position in reference to my deputy minister, about whom the hon. member for Port Arthur had a considerable amount to say.
He said, among other things, that Mr. Cote was deeply involved in bringing Dr. Rousseau into the museum, and that he was also deeply involved in all recriminations which followed. He went on to say:
X would judge from some of the things in which he has been involved that he has no idea where the museum should be going.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that unless I answer these charges there will be a sinister connotation attributed to the actions of my deputy. I want to assure the hon. member and the committee that I have every confidence in my deputy. If it were not so I would not be in this post, or he would not be in his. I am going to suggest to the hon. member that everything Mr. Cote did, he did because he wanted to fulfil the directions and the policies of his minister, and because I have that confidence in him that he will endeavour to carry out those things I have in mind, I want to put this defence of him on the record tonight.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Since the minister has been given the opportunity to do this I would just like to say I do not disagree with the fact that he should place confidence in Mr. Cote, but from a review of the proceedings I would
5978	HOUSE OF
Newfoundland Savings Bank Act like to point out that Mr. Cote was not the deputy minister at the time. He was the assistant deputy minister. It was not Mr. Robertson, the deputy minister, but the assistant deputy minister who had almost all the dealings with the museum, right from the time the whole Rousseau appointment came out; and in all the interference that took place with all the dissatisfied parties throughout those years it was Mr. Cote who was involved. In the whole question of whether Dr. Russell was going to leave or stay, again it was Mr. Cote. Since he was the one permanent administrator of the department involved in those matters, all the way through from the time Mr. Lamontagne, Mr. Lesage and Dr. Barbeau were supposed to have got the idea of bringing Dr. Rousseau in, right up to the resignations of MacNeish and Russell, I feel that the responsibility for the, I think, sick human affairs side of the museum rests upon Mr. Cote.
That is the reason I put the thing the way I did. I felt I could not make any comment on what he may be doing in the rest of the department, but the minister could not make a better move than to go ahead with his plans to get one director, one person in charge of the museum, and then deal with him directly or through another assistant deputy minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
Gilles Grégoire: I wonder would the Secretary of State be prepared to continue with some other business, some other pieces of legislation that we might deal with tonight?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten thirty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house would like to oblige me by passing the bill concerning the Newfoundland Savings Bank Act, because I am sure we could do that in 30 seconds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just because it is almost Christmas, we will agree.



NEWFOUNDLAND SAVINGS BANK ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. S-4, to repeal the Newfoundland Savings Bank Act, 1939.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
[Mr. Fisher.)
[Stage Direction]
On clause 1-Repeal of the Newfoundland Savings Bank Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, how long has this bank been out of business?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot remember exactly, Mr. Chairman, but it is certainly between two and three years. It was sold to the Bank of Montreal and some of the profits were used to help the fishermen.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten thirty.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, could we have the business for tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tomorrow we will take the third reading of the two bills that were stood over today, and I will endeavour to make absolutely sure that we check carefully to see that the French version is the same in both bills. Having done that-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Don't leave it to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -pursuant to the order of the house made on Saturday night we will move to go into supply at once, without question put, for the purpose of taking the estimates of the Minister of Public Works, of completing the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and of moving on from there and completing the estimates of the Minister of Fisheries; and then, if possible, those of the Minister of Labour.
As for Wednesday, whether or not we have finished all these other departments, I think we should go on, as I indicated last Saturday, first with the post office, then with legislation and then with national revenue. I think we ought to discuss after that what will be done from then on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the Secretary of State would say

what has happened to the plans for the C.N.R. financing bill and the world fair bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman; I did forget about the C.N.R. financing bill. That bill will be taken tomorrow before we go into supply, after the third readings. We will go into supply immediately after that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But not the world fair bill?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not the world fair bill; we are not going to proceed with that tomorrow. I believe, too, there is general agreement, which could be recorded now and made an order of the house, that on Thursday, instead of the house beginning its sitting at 2.30 in the afternoon we would begin at eleven o'clock in the morning.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We agree to that arrangement for Thursday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that on Thursday the house will commence its sitting at eleven o'clock in the morning?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is understood. We agree.


[Stage Direction]
It being thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Water resources branch-
65. Fraser river-Federal expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out by the Fraser river board, $65,000.
70. Contributions to the provinces towards the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water resources in accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces, $7,735,000.
72. Nelson river study-Expenditures in connection with investigations to be carried out in accordance with an agreement entered into between Canada and Manitoba, $450,000.
55. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of the province of Manitoba and of the province of Ontario of the cost of regulating the levels of Lake of the Woods and Lac Seul and the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometic surveys, $1,762,100.
55a. Administration, operation and maintenance, $31,400.
60. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $306,500.
Supply-Items Passed
61. Studies and surveys of the Columbia river watershed in Canada, $41,000.
Northern administration branch-
Education division-
85. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the government of the Northwest Territories of expenditures on education and vocational training, $2,889,000.
80. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the government of the Northwest Territories of expenditures on education and vocational training, $5,702,500.
Welfare and industrial divisions-
90. Administration, operation and maintenance including $20,000 for grants to Eskimos towards acquisition of boats for commercial fishing or resources harvesting and to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to provide, in respect of Eskimo commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Eskimos, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $3,074,400.
95. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority for a program of construction or acquisition of housing for Eskimos and the sale of houses to Eskimos on such terms and conditions and at such prices as the governor in council may approve, $1,488,000.
Yukon Territory-
100. Operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,541,400.
100a. Operation and maintenance-To extend the purposes of vote 100 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to increase the grant detailed in these estimates, $75,000.
105. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,549,000.
Northwest Territories and other field services-
110. Operation and maintenance including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates and authority to make recoverable advances for services performed on behalf of the government of the Northwest Territories and to sell electric power and fuel oil (and to provide services in respect thereof), in accordance with the terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to private consumers in remote locations where alternative local sources of supply are not available and to authorize, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, amounts to be credited to the Northwest Territories revenue account in the current and subsequent fiscal years equal to the aggregate of amounts deducted from time to time in lieu of fuel oil tax under the crown-owned housing regulations from the salaries of persons employed by Her Majesty in right of Canada in the Northwest Territories who occupy living accommodation owned by Her Majesty for which heat generated by fuel oil is provided by Her Majesty, $6,868,700.
110a. Operation and maintenance-To extend the purposes of vote 110 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the contributions detailed in these estimates, $1,518,413.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
nod. Operation and maintenance-To extend the purposes of vote 110 of the estimates for 1963-64 to include the contribution detailed in these estimates and authority for the commissioner of the Northwest Territories in council to make ordinances, notwithstanding the Northwest Territories Act, for the lending of money by the said commissioner to any person in the territories for the purpose of enabling students to attend university, $1.
115. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including costs arising out of the relocation of the town of Aklavik and payment of such compensation as the governor in council prescribes to persons affected by such relocation, $7,308,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L35. To extend the purposes of the Eskimo loan fund established by vote 546 of the Appropriation Act No. 3, 1953, as amended, to allow the making of loans to Eskimos for the purpose of purchasing housing and to increase to $600,000 the amount that may be charged at any one time to the said fund; additional amount required, $250,000.
L35a. To authorize loans to the government of the Northwest Territories, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, for the development of a townsite at Pine Point, Northwest Territories, $450,000.
L38a. To authorize loans to the government of the Northwest Territories, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, for the development of a new subdivision near Hay River, Northwest Territories, $500,000.
Northern Canada power commission-
L40. Advances to the Northern Canada power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures in accordance with subsection (1) of section 15 of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, $2,765,000.
L45. Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $13,121,000.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 17, 1963