1963-12-21

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege involving the duties and responsibilities of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) and what I think is a violation of the responsibilities which he has. Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights reads as follows:
The Minister of Justice shall-[DOT]
So it is not discretionary; he must do this.
-in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the Clerk of the Privy Council pursuant to the Regulations Act and every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
Then there are regulations pursuant to that section which merely set out more intricate machinery as to how this should be done; it involves a certificate to be signed by the deputy minister, and so on, but I do not think that is germane to this point at the moment.
On June 7 of this year, more than six months ago, I introduced in this house Bill No. C-71. The bill was introduced and given first reading, and so far-and I checked this with the office of the Clerk of the House of Commons this morning at about twenty or twenty five minutes after nine o'clock-that bill has not been returned from the Department of Justice with any indication on it that it has been examined.
During the last session, in fact on February 1, I raised a similar question of privilege and founded upon it a motion, which is to be found at page 3329 of Hansard for February 1 last, that the standing committee on privileges and elections be authorized and instructed to inquire into and study the responsibilities attendant upon the Minister of Justice by virtue of section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights and whether those responsibilities were properly carried out with respect to Bill C-14, an act respecting Indians. No decision
was taken on that motion. The matter was taken under advisement and the house prorogued, or parliament was dissolved, before an opportunity was accorded the Speaker to rule on it.
There are some interesting comments with respect to that question of privilege reported at page 3330 of Hansard. For example, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said:
Mr. Speaker, this appears to us to be a matter of pretty serious import-
Then there is an interjection by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who said:
A breach of the law; that is all.
Then the hon. member for Laurier continued:
-more particularly because of the fact that the bill has been held up from October 1 until now, and my suggestion to you, sir, is that this matter be taken under advisement.
Then there is the following comment by the then hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin):
Particularly because of the violation of the act by the Minister of Justice.
Precisely the same situation as this arose with respect to Bill No. C-71, and this is even worse because it is a longer period of time, more than six and a half months.


Mr. Knowles:: What did the Secretary of State have to say?


Frank Howard: Unfortunately the Secretary of State was particularly silent when this matter was raised on February 1. I contend that the Minister of Justice has not fulfilled his obligation under the bill of rights with respect to Bill No. C-71. It is immaterial at this stage whether or not, as was done on June 7, the Speaker expresses any thought about the bill, because the measure has been introduced into the House of Commons and given first reading. I remind hon. members of the provisions of section 3 of the bill of rights where the expression is used: "and every bill introduced in, or presented to, the House of Commons", which makes it even broader.
I should like to move a motion founded on this question of privilege, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), namely:
That this house expresses its regret that the Minister of Justice has not fulfilled his obligation pursuant to the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I have to decide whether or not there is a question of privilege. I should like to say in this connection first of all that it appears to me that this is rather in the nature of a grievance against the conduct of a minister with regard to action which has or has not been taken. If it is desired to condemn the action of the Minister of Justice it should be done in the form of a substantive motion requiring notice. In this connection I would refer the hon. member to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 127, paragraph 2, and to Bourinot at page 301.
In the circumstances it seems to me that the motion is in the nature of a grievance and not a prima facie case of privilege. Therefore I regret I cannot accept the motion.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I could ask the unanimous consent of the house to my moving it as a substantive motion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: I have not looked into this matter recently, although I did receive some representations from the officers of the department, and I wonder-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of Justice, but I have given a ruling and I suggest we now proceed with the business before the house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I address a direct question to the Minister of Finance with reference to what has been described by Mr. Kierans and others as the discriminatory policies directed against foreign investors. Is the minister in a position to advice or at least give some hope that these policies he brought into effect, which resulted, to use an expression in one editorial, in biting the hand that feeds Canada and the commission of a historic blunder on Canada's part, will be withdrawn?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, they will not be withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT PLANS WITH RESPECT TO BUDGET DEFICITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the substantial


budget deficits that were announced yesterday, will the minister have some better plans for us in the new session?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am afraid I did not hear the question, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I asked the minister, in view of the substantial budget deficits that were announced yesterday, will he have some better plans for parliament in the new session?



COLUMBIA RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he any report to make to the house respecting the negotiations which took place yesterday on the Columbia river treaty? Further, is he hopeful that this matter may be brought before parliament early in the next session?


Mr. Fisher:: Order paper.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my estimates will be up this morning, and perhaps at that time I could deal with my hon. friend's very appropriate question.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Could he tell the house what his department is going to do about the Soulanges canal?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the government will continue to accept responsibility for the canal unless some other disposition is made of it.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport can tell us if he has been officially notified by the government of the province of Quebec that the province is refusing to buy the Soulanges canal for the sum of $1, as it had agreed a few years ago.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING BULK PURCHASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, on November 12 the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that his department had opened negotiations with sugar exporting countries with a view to ascertaining whether some bulk purchase arrangement could be made. I would like to ask the minister what progress is being made in these negotiations, and how soon he expects to be able to announce that a bulk purchase arrangement has been entered into by Canada.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there have been fairly lengthy negotiations with various groups of producers. So far we have not felt that any of the arrangements that have been proposed would be in the interests of Canada. However, we are continuing these discussions, and if we can reach a satisfactory conclusion we shall do so, of course, and announce it in due course.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Before this day is over or before this session ends will he see whether certain returns can be brought down? I refer in the first place to a motion for papers, No. 105, passed on October 23. The last time I asked about this I was assured it would be brought down shortly, and a couple of weeks have gone by since. May I also draw his attention to a document which I asked the Prime Minister to table, or to add to this return. The reference is on page 5701 of Hansard for December 11. This all has to do with correspondence and briefs regarding the Canada pension plan. I realize that it is an order of the house and it will have to be brought down sooner or later even if this session ends, but I would hope these documents might be brought down before the end of the session.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this is not meant as criticism, but I regret that the hon. gentleman did not mention this to me yesterday; because with his well known solicitude for the public servants he will realize that it may be difficult today to get the necessary co-operation from departments that may be required to meet his requests expeditiously. But if I can find someone who is available I will be glad
Inquiries of the Ministry to get the papers that are already available, as probably some of them are, and have a partial return made at any rate. I have no idea what the status of the return is, but as far as it is possible on a Saturday I will be glad to look into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say to the Secretary of State that after his promise of a couple of weeks ago that this would be done I did not think it would be necessary to remind him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no doubt that after the hon. gentleman brought the matter up all the departments were duly alerted. However, he will appreciate that I do not devote much of my time personally to checking each day to see what progress has been made with these returns.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would he inform the house if he is going to table the correspondence relating to the Columbia treaty in compliance with a motion for papers approved by this house on October 30, and if not why not?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the appropriate course will be taken. This return will be made in due course and the correspondence will be tabled.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he indicate to the house what action, if any, is planned to keep No. 23 wing R.C.A.F. band in Saskatoon? I would remind the Prime Minister that this band is considered to be one of the best in Canada, and its loss would be a serious blow to the city of Saskatoon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into the question of this band. I may not be able to reply before the house ends this session, but I will keep in touch with my hon. friend about it.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Ba-got):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister tell the house if the government has abandoned the project to construct a railway between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George James McIlraith: No decision has been taken on that matter, and when a decision is taken it will be announced.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Since the previous government had decided to construct such a railway, will the minister tell the house the reason why the construction has been delayed so long, especially when it means so much to this part of the country?


George James McIlraith: Yes. The reason for the delay is that the survey taken by the railway shows that the cost would be much higher than that indicated in the legislation. In addition, there were many indications of opposition in the area because the building of the railway would sever farm lands in the valley, which are rather long and narrow, in a way that would be very damaging. Then, too, the railway would be detached from any direct connection with the Canadian National Railways line which serves most of the area, and arrangements would have to be completed for running rights or some other rights over the intervening Gulf railway. There may be other matters which require consideration as well.


John George Diefenbaker: This is an extraordinary statement on the part of the minister. Does he intend at the next session to introduce legislation to repeal the law passed by parliament under which this railway was to be built?


George James McIlraith: I simply do not know what the intention will be so far as legislation is concerned for the next parliament. This matter is now under consideration. It is quite an important matter, and it will require a decision in the light of all the circumstances. I tried to give the hon. member who asked the question the information as to the nature of the problem.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I understand the Prime Minister cannot give us a statement of government intentions with regard to publications, but could he at least give an indication what those certain considerations are that have arisen recently and have caused a delay in the decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The additional factors are concerned with the desirability or otherwise of broadening the basis of any action that


may have to be taken to include foreign control of Canadian newspapers and possibly foreign control of television and radio.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question; I know this is going into policy, but I think it would be very interesting and informative if we knew the answer. Does the Prime Minister at present say that such a move has to be made by means of legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware, as I am sure my hon. friend is, of the far reaching importance and the seriousness of the question, and if possible action is to be extended into this field very careful consideration will have to be given as to how best it can be done.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question. Could he tell us where he sends all the letters children write Santa Claus each year at this time?



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. B. Siewarl (Anligonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. Can he say whether any decision has been reached as to appointments to be made to the Atlantic development board when the terms of the original appointees expire on January 24?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. An order in council was passed on December 17 reappointing Mr. Frank H. Sobey, Mr. Melvin J. McQuaid and Mr. Fred Ayre, who were appointed on the recommendation of the previous government in January of last year. The only member of the board who was appointed by the previous government and who is no longer on the board is Mr. Lalande, who regrettably had to resign for business reasons and who was replaced some months ago by Mr. Armand Cormier of Moncton. Mr. Cormier has also been reappointed, so, with that one exception, the board will continue in exactly the same form as it was when the legislation was adopted by parliament. This, I might point out, is one of those examples of the partisanship of the present government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted to supplement the answer I gave to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough by saying that Mr. McQuaid is a former Tory cabinet minister in Prince Edward Island.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: That was an example of good judgment, but I am going to bring up a question that has to do with rank partisanship. It arises because of the last words of the Secretary of State; otherwise it would not have been presented.
Has the Minister of Transport received communications from Sarnia, Ontario, protesting against the removal of the local harbour master, W. Hillmer, who has received severance notice as of December 31; and is it correct that his replacement will be the campaign manager for the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Foy) in the last election?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for having given me notice of this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: In spite of the laughter that this has provoked, I must say I really appreciate his notice of a question for a change, because I do not get many notices of questions these days. In any event, dealing with the subject matter of the question, the gentleman he mentioned, Mr. Whitney Hillmer, came to retirement age on November 1 this year. He was continued in employment until the end of the year because it was thought unwise to terminate his employment during the shipping season, and the effort was made to have him finish his annual reports.
He has been replaced, but not by the gentleman named in the telegrams, which all seem to be the same and seem to have been inspired, as indicated in this morning's Toronto Globe and Mail, by Allan Fowler, president of the local Progressive Conservative association.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: I might add that Mr. Whitney
Hillmer was the campaign manager for our former colleague in the House of Commons from that area, Mr. Murphy. He is not being replaced by the gentleman mentioned in the telegram and mentioned, in the question of
Inquiries of the Ministry the right hon. Leader of the Opposition; but he has been replaced by Captain Alex McNeil.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister tell us something about Captain McNeil?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I can tell the right hon. gentleman something about Captain McNeil. He was born on August 25, 1912-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: He had a high school education. He has four sons. He served from 1930 to 1939 with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. From 1939 to 1945 he served with the Royal Canadian Navy. He had a rather distinguished record in the navy. From 1945 to 1952 he was in charge of Royal Canadian Mounted Police patrol craft on the Atlantic and the great lakes area. In 1952 he retired on Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension. From 1952 to 1962 he served as assistant plant protection supervisor, fire, safety, security and first aid department, for the Canadian Oil Company's refinery at Corunna, Ontario. In June, 1962 he left that position. He holds a master's home trade certificate. He holds a mate's coastwise certificate. He holds the Royal Canadian Navy watchkeeping certificate. He holds the Royal Canadian Mounted Police long service and good conduct medal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: He attended a fire course at the Ansul fire training school, Marionette, Wisconsin; a fire course at the Ontario fire college, Gravenhurst, and safety courses of the industrial accident prevention associations in Toronto.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is only one qualification that is not included, and that is "superb". But I do want to thank the minister. When I telephoned him this morning and asked whether he had any information on this and had he received a number of wires and complaints, he did not have any information. I brought it to his attention, and this shows how carefully he proceeds after a request is made.


George James McIlraith: I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I meant it when I thanked the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we agreed last night to start our sitting at ten o'clock this morning and it was also agreed that the orders of the day would be called after 30 minutes. That 30 minutes has now expired.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise all hon. members that the 30 minute period will expire at 10.37.

Supply-Transport HEALTH AND WELFARE



ROYAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask when he expects to get the report of the royal commission on medical care.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry that I cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker. The last time it was asked I said that I hoped it would be in soon. I can only repeat that now. But I will make inquiries right away and get in touch with my hon. friend.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources what arrangements have been made at Uplands airport, at the civil aviation museum, that allow Percy Carriere to sell jeeps out of the museum?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries and advise my hon. friend.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
145. Airports and other ground services-operation and maintenance, $22,532,100.
['This concludes the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and also the estimates for this session.\nResolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.']
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have but one comment to make on item 145, concerning airports. It has to do with restaurants. I understand those restaurants are leased to concessionaires who benefit from somewhat exclusive rental rates and take advantage of this to raise the price of the goods they sell at air terminals. For instance, cigarettes cost more there and that goes also for newspapers, chocolate, soft drinks and what have you.
I wonder if the Minister of Transport should not investigate that situation and see to it that the exclusive privileges granted to concessionaires in restaurants and other business establishments are not used to increase prices, thereby causing unwarranted inflation.


The Chairman:: Shall the vote carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, a few words only on item 145 before it is agreed to. I want to refer to parking lots at airports. We note that these lots are looked after by contractors. Could the minister tell me whether the leasing of these lots brings in a great deal of revenue to the Department of Transport and whether it would be a great loss for the department if these parking lots were made available free of charge to patrons of air lines, instead of being leased to contractors who, in turn, rent space on parking lots?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this brings in a great deal of revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
155. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment with respect to national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport) and related facilities; contributions towards construction done by local or private authorities with respect to such airports, amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $41,360,000, $38,477,000.
['Yes, Mr. Chairman, this brings in a great deal of revenue.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is a brief comment I would like to make on item 155, which has to do with the construction or acquisition of buildings for airports under the Department of Transport. My brief reference is to the new airport at Winnipeg, which is indeed a tremendous improvement over the facilities we had there in former years. I regret to say, however, that there is one feature about this airport-as a result, I am told, of the practice of economy-which is unfortunate. I understand that the original plans called for tubes to be provided so that passengers would go from the second level directly out on to the aircraft, but somewhere along the line it was decided that these could not be afforded and they were not installed.
The lay-out of the airport is such that when passengers are going from the airport to the aircraft, or from the aircraft into the airport, both ways they have to go from ground level up, and then down. This is all right for some of us, but for older people, for women with children, for passengers carrying baggage, and so on, it seems rather unfortunate. I know that the first time I went home after the new airport was opened, I went along with the rest and found myself going up to the second level, and when I wanted to get my baggage I had to go down again. I thought I had missed a directional sign or something, but my inquiries revealed that this situation results from a decision taken, on the basis of

economy, not to have these special tubes to permit loading and unloading from the second level.
I can understand this bit of economy, and perhaps we should not get these tubes at Winnipeg for a while yet. But that is not the end of the story. In addition to that, escalators which were planned to operate both ways were altered so that they would go only one way. This means that passengers alighting from aircraft, although they start from ground level, have to walk up to the second floor and then go down to the ground level to get their baggage.
When departing, passengers have to do the same. I hope the department will take another look at this and realize that it is an unfortunate situation, and that if it is not possible to revert to the original plan to have loading from the second level, at least escalators should be installed so that people would not have to walk up a flight of stairs and then down again. I should like to hear from the minister whether consideration is being given to correcting this situation.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, while on the subject of international airports I should like to point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the Edmonton building does not suffer from that problem because it is better designed. But one point I would make to the minister which affects all international terminals is that we have a singularly cold reception for people coming into the building off international flights. At European international airports there is a sign which says "Welcome" or "Bienvenue" to the particular country. Why can we not do that here in Canada? I have taken this matter up with the minister's departmental officials on previous occasions and I was told that this should be a local responsibility, that I was to see my local chamber of commerce. These buildings belong to the Department of Transport. Surely in these huge terminals in Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal we should say "Welcome", even just to welcome Canadians back to their country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In both languages.


Norman Platt Lambert: Yes, obviously. At some
terminals we might even go further. After all, here in Ottawa for a certain convenience we use a third language, Spanish.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the last question I might say that this problem is usually looked after by the local boards of trade. I might inform my hon. friend from Edmonton West that in one area I could mention the local board of trade goes further and meets passengers with a serving of rum.
Supply-Transport


Mr. Nesbitt:: Is the minister suggesting rye and ginger ale here?


George James McIlraith: However, I will take this point under consideration. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, by reason of the earlier cut-back in expenditure in 1962 the installation of the escalators to which the hon. member referred was not proceeded with, but the building is so constructed that escalators can be put in, without requiring many structural changes. I hope that in due course as the situation improves the matter can be taken care of.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether "in due course" will be some time soon? In other words, are plans being made now to reconsider the installation of these escalators?


George James McIlraith: It depends on the house's treatment of the budget and the estimates, I suppose, but in any event the problem is one to which the department is very much alive. I have also given the matter some consideration myself and am looking forward to visiting the airport in a few days.
With regard to this criticism which has been made of the airport, it is a curious thing but after this rather costly, and I agree rather good, airport was opened it seemed that the criticism made of this matter was rather disproportionate. But in any event the matter is one of some concern, although I cannot give a commitment now as to what the estimates will be next year in this respect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear the minister will be coming to Winnipeg. If he will let us know when he is coming we will welcome him with a cup of tea.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I saw in the press not so long ago that the department intends to go ahead with rolling sidewalks at Montreal airport. I know that these rolling sidewalks were included in the original plans for the airport, but there again I am afraid they were the first victims of treasury board in the same way as were the escalators at Winnipeg.
I hope treasury board will revise this policy, because I do not think this sort of thing should be the first to be cut back in any plan for a new public building designed to handle a tremendous number of people boarding or being discharged from an aircraft and who may have parcels in their hands, children with them, and all that. I hope that in any new public building this policy of cutting back on elevators, escalators or rolling sidewalks will be revised. Montreal airport is probably the most beautiful air terminal in the world, yet people are still complaining

Supply-Transport
about the fact that distances between the planes and the public facilities are much too great.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether he will give a reply to the question I asked him last night regarding Transair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We passed that item.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the minister has not yet
replied. I was hoping that the minister would give a reply to this question.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should have replied but unfortunately the answer did not come in until after the house met this morning. The situation with Transair is that on part of the route the service in question has been suspended as of January 11. A hearing will take place before the air transport board to consider whether they should permit the air line to abandon this route, at which hearing there will be an opportunity for all interested parties to make representations. Notices of this hearing have been sent out in the usual way.
There is a real problem here, because the traffic load over one part of the route averages out at barely one passenger per trip. Obviously it is not possible to run an air line on that basis on that kind of route without some examination of the problem of how to meet the requirements of the communities involved, and meeting them adequately.
As the matter has not yet been dealt with by the air transport board it would be useless for me to speculate, and quite improper for me to do so, as to what their decision will be until persons making representations have had a full opportunity to do so at the hearing.
There was another part to the hon. member's question, if I remember correctly, concerning Trans-Canada Air Lines transfer of assets or equipment when they abandoned this route. I think I answered this question on July 15 last; there was also an order for return made as well.


Douglas Mason Fisher: But there were no details given.


George James McIlraith: In any event, the essential point as I have indicated is that Trans-Canada Air Lines equipment is bought and sold in accordance with normal commercial practice. This matter was also before the committee, and I think the report will be found on page 56 and following. Information was sought at that time. I have not had an opportunity to look up the record and see precisely what information was given, but there was an opportunity to ask about it, and there is no information I can give beyond what was given at that point.
[Mr. BalcerJ


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked if the figures I gave last night were correct, namely that T.C.A. gave to Transair one Viscount, two DC-3's and half a million dollars worth of DC-3 parts for $1. The second question was, will T.C.A. recover any part of this if Transair, who have operated the route for less than a year, gives up the uneconomic part of the line?


George James McIlraith: The hon. member is really asking me to answer indirectly what I explained to him could not be answered directly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister has in effect told us we shall have to wait until the air transport board holds its hearings, and he says that is the fair thing to do. I suggest it is not the fair thing to leave this matter for the air transport board, because the board itself has already been involved in this whole matter and so has the minister. I am not saying it is the present minister, but some minister has been involved.
It is obvious to all of us who have followed the situation which led to Transair getting this route that at some stage there was a recommendation or intervention at the ministerial level. It was not a case of the air transport board making up its mind as between a couple of carriers. Somewhere there was ministerial intervention, and it was obvious why there had to be. A crown corporation, T.C.A., was involved, and there was an arrangement of some kind-I was about to say a deal, but that might have been invidious. This question of where Transair stands in relation to these routes and to T.C.A. is more than just a matter for the air transport board. There are others involved besides the public and the cities of western Canada. They are the competitors.
What did Mr. McGregor tell us at the committee hearings? He said T.C.A. tried to demonstrate as far as it could that it was impossible to make money on this southern line. Despite all the arguments which T.C.A. gave, Transair insisted that money could be made, and they went ahead. They got in in April, and now they are out. Given a situation of this kind, it is not good enough to say that a solution will come as a result of hearings to be held by the board. There is surely a need for ministerial action and explanation with regard to this matter. If this is not forthcoming, I have to feel that the minister is letting the air transport board carry responsibility for something with regard to which he himself should be reaching a decision.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to say a word or two on the decor of public airport buildings. I know that in the past such questions as these have usually been left to the architects

involved. But the costs are now beginning to run high. In Toronto airport $150,000 was paid, I believe, for artistic objects of, to say the least, a controversial nature, and I am wondering whether in future it might not be a good idea to have these things checked by a government committee, perhaps including somebody from the national gallery. I say this because $150,000 is a sizeable chunk of the taxpayers' money, especially when it comes to the purchase of objects which are highly controversial even in artistic circles. One was described by a prominent Toronto artist as resembling a lump of mud. I think a little greater care should be exercised, and it might be a good idea to select objects which made concessions, at least to some extent, to the taste of the general public. Art galleries are perhaps another thing, but in the public airports one has to use a little reason.
It has been the fashion in the last few years to have large quantities of tropical plants scattered about our airports. These plants have an unfortunate habit of not living very long, and they are expensive to replace. This increases the cost of maintenance. All this may seem trivial, but I suggest that those responsible for the interior decor of airports and other government buildings might take a second look at the use of enormous quantities of tropical plants and devise some suitable alternative which would have a greater degree of permanence. I suggest some direct control be exercised by the department.


Mr. Nielsen:: There is one further matter I wish to raise with the minister. The Yukon legislative council communicated with the hon. gentleman or his officials requesting that a member of the Department of Transport should travel to the Yukon and discuss with the council the requirement for terminal buildings, emergency airstrips and all the facilities needed in the Yukon. I am informed that the department refused to acknowledge this request. A similar request to the Department of Labour was, I understand, no more successful; there was no reply.
It seems to me that when a request comes from such a body as the Yukon legislative council the courtesy of expert advice and assistance should be extended to them if they request it in order to obtain the efficient service which they feel is required in the way of improved airstrips and facilities throughout the region.
I showed the minister a telegram I received the other day concerning the positioning of the terminal building at Whitehorse. Apparently it is to be placed in such a position that a discontinuance of the cross strip, the east-west runway, will be required. Great concern
Supply-Transport
is being expressed over this situation. I believe this question, along with others, could be solved if the minister would ask one of his officials to go and sit with the council as the council has requested.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to return to this question of Transair for a moment. Since the discussion has gone thus far, I think I should point out to the minister that there are many people along this southern prairie route who are deeply distressed because of the events which have taken place since last year. On December 11 of this year I put on the order paper a notice of motion for the production of papers asking for all correspondence between Transair and Trans-Canada Air Lines that would in fact reveal to members of the House of Commons what the arrangement or deal was.
I think the minister has taken the position that this is not public information but is an arrangement which was made between two companies. But as has been pointed out by hon. members just a few minutes ago, Transair knew very well when it undertook to provide this service that it was not going to pay, particularly on the basis they set it up. The results of the service for the few months they did carry it on substantiate that, of course, in that on one part of the run the number of passengers averaged .8 per trip. We do not disagree that this kind of service needs to be discontinued, but we are a little bit concerned about the position of competitors who may have been able to set up a service with schedules and so on that would have resulted in the service paying.
Transair also claims it lost a lot of money. No one can disagree with that if the figures they have given are true, and I am not disputing them. But we are going to pursue this matter in the next session because we want to know whether Trans-Canada did in fact transfer to Transair assets with a value in excess of the amount of money Transair lost. It may be a million dollars, it may be half a million dollars; apparently it is somewhere in that neighbourhood.
Transair operated this service for 117 days, I believe, and claim they lost up to $1,000 a day. If this is so it means that Transair got by way of assets from Trans-Canada Air Lines at least five or six times as much as Transair lost on the run. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. I also believe that inasmuch as Trans-Canada Air Lines belongs to the people of Canada the House of Commons has a right to investigate this matter and also to have the answers from the minister; because it seems obvious to us that unless Transair knew in advance of the deal what assets Trans-Canada was prepared to transfer to

Supply-Transport
them for $1, they would never have undertaken to provide the service at all.
In spite of what the minister has said about not being able to get hold of the information that passed between Trans-Canada Air Lines and Transair, I believe that we as members of the house have a right to know if something like $300,000 to $500,000 in publicly owned assets were turned over to this corporation, which was then allowed to suspend the service.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Lapointe.


George James McIlraith: There are two points raised in the discussions, it seems to me-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps we could allow the Minister of Transport to reply to the points raised by previous speakers, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Lapointe.


George James McIlraith: It seems to me that there are two points involved in the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat and to some extent in the earlier remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur. I believe the point having to do with routes is fully answered by the fact that a hearing is going to be held. I would want to check my information, but I believe that already two applications have been made to serve parts of this route.
This is the very thing that should be determined by the air transport board, because it is a matter of examining the areas requiring service to see how they can best be served and what is the best method of getting some kind of service that will be effective. Obviously, as I think the hon. member realizes, a basis of service cannot be provided with an average of less than one passenger per flight, as was the case between a couple of points on that route. As to that part of the matter, I think the answer is surely satisfactory.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister leaves that point may I ask a question. Would the air transport board have any power to make Transair disgorge part of the planes and equipment it got to operate this route so they could be used to subsidize the successful applicant for the new franchise?


George James McIlraith: The question the transport board determined was whether or not they would permit them to cancel the service. As to the question put by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I would think the answer would be that this was a commercial transaction between two air lines and that the board would not have any jurisdiction to inquire into it. But if the hon. member will bear with me until I deal with the other part

of the question raised by the other two members perhaps he will find his question sufficiently answered.
The transaction referred to was carried out under the former government before I had the responsibility of office. In the light of what has been said, in view of the motion for papers which was put on the order paper and possibly was withdrawn at my request- I do not know what became of it-and of the discussion that arose at that time, and in the light of repeated questions on this point by the hon. member for Port Arthur and the questions now raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I am quite content as soon as the house finishes to have a look at the whole transaction to see if there is any ground on which I can with propriety produce information that would satisfy hon. members and show exactly the details of the whole situation. I shall make such an examination particularly with a view to seeing whether any part of this transaction falls within the realm of the government's responsibility and if the information thereon may be produced. But I do not want to recede from the position that information as to ordinary commercial transactions between air companies may not be produced, because it will be recognized that if I did that we would get into very serious situations. I will look at the whole matter in the light of the questions yesterday and today.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister another question before he sits down. I am not asking for details of the transaction between the two air companies, but I am asking the minister if Trans-Canada Air Lines, in giving Transair these planes and equipment, received any assurance that Transair would operate this route for any specific period of time.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, that is the very type of thing I have in mind. I want to examine the whole transaction in some detail, as is obviously required, and that is one of the many details that will have to be looked into. I must say I have not had any real opportunity to look at the matter at all in the past week since the matter was raised.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When the minister does come back to the house I would ask him to supply information so we will know the total fair value of all the planes and equipment involved and also the total loss of Transair while it operated the service, in order that we can make some comparisons and find out whether in fact they made a profit by losing money.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I shall now turn to another matter with which the citizens of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area are very much concerned, the Bagotville airport.
Hon. members know that that airport is both a military and commercial airport. There have been accidents between T.C.A. aircraft and military aircraft using the landing strips there. The resulting danger makes the people in that area a little nervous, and they have requested for a long time a civil airport at St. Honore, near Chicoutimi, that is practically in the centre of the area.
I wonder whether the Minister of Transport contemplates setting up a civil airport at St. Honore.
Besides, the citizens of that area have been asking for some time for an air terminal in Bagotville, because there is, at present, a sort of building without any conveniences and with a waiting room totally out of date; it is necessary that conditions be improved. And, therefore, I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) whether he could give us some information regarding the building of a new airport or a new terminal in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area.
[Text}


George James McIlraith: I do not have much information on the precise details of the new airport. There are no immediate plans for it. However, in so far as the building to which the hon. member refers is concerned, I recall signing a letter on that subject within the last week. It is involved in the future plans, but I have forgotten the precise dates and the actual timing.


Gilles Grégoire: Will we have this new building for the airport in Bagotville without too long a delay?


George James McIlraith: I cannot tell my hon. friend anything offhand because I do not have the file. It depends on the estimates program; however I did deal with the new building within the past week.


Mr. Scott:: Will the minister give us an up to date report on the status of the Malton airport? What is the stage of construction, and what is the estimated date for its official opening? There is a great deal of interest in this matter in Toronto.


George James McIlraith: I think the best information I can give the hon. member is that the airport will come into operational use at 12.01 a.m. on January 12, and that the formal opening will take place on February 28. I do not know that there is much I can usefully add to that.
I might take advantage of the opportunity to reply to a question asked by the hon.
Supply-Transport
member for Oxford. The answer is that the art selection is made by an art selection committee, one member of which is the head of the national gallery.


Mr. Leboe:: I should like to take a couple of minutes of the committee's time on one or two subjects. We have ranged rather far and wide, Mr. Chairman, so I hope you will let me conclude my remarks without interruption. First of all I should like to thank the minister for his co-operative attitude in connection with the representations I have made to him. We appreciate that.
However, I am a little concerned about airport facilities, particularly at Quesnel. The last time I was at Quesnel I saw the strange sight of the ticket agent making out tickets on the baggage wagon on the airstrip. There is absolutely no place in the Quesnel airport for passengers who are getting on or off planes. If it happens to be raining they have to get into a taxi or go into one of the hangar sheds for private aircraft. It would seem to me that one of the problems Canadian Pacific Airlines have in operating out of Quesnel is the lack of airport facilities for passengers.
Another thing that concerns me is the situation when an air service fails and for some reason or other cannot meet its scheduled flights. There have been cases where such a carrier had landing rights in certain airports and refused landing rights to other carriers who were willing to provide the service. I have actually had experience with this situation, and I hope a closer check will be made in connection with this matter so that people who want to get from one place to another when the regular carrier is unable to fulfil its obligations will have the right to use another carrier which is willing to provide the service. This is most important in an area such as the Cariboo, where there are a lot of air minded people. As the minister knows there are many aircraft being used, both private and commercial, because this particular area lends itself very well to air transport.
I believe that at the moment the fares on Canadian Pacific Airlines in this area are too high, and therefore they are not getting the traffic that is available. If the fares were reduced by even a small amount I am sure the traffic would increase and these large aircraft they are using would be filled closer to capacity. Perhaps the minister could use his influence in that regard, and I hope consideration will be given to this point.
I think it has been demonstrated by Pacific Western Air Lines that what they call a bus service between Edmonton and Calgary is practical. I think an air bus service from Whitehorse or from Fort St. John, with a

Supply-Transport
reduced fare and no reservations but just picking up your tickets on the aircraft, could provide better service all around.
There is one other thing I should like to mention, but I hesitate to do so. I hope when the minister goes to Winnipeg he does not have to shave with an electric razor. The washroom in Winnipeg, which is as big as any office in this building, has no outlet in which to plug an electric razor. I looked all over this new airport to find a place to use an electric razor and finally wound up in the kitchen. I hope the minister will have better success in finding the outlet than I did.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have a last question to put to the Minister of Transport. In view of the scope afforded by this item, the last one on that subject, can the Minister of Transport tell us whether it is true that when the contract was passed between T.C.A. and Douglas Aircraft in the United States, it was agreed that the tail units of the DC-9s would be built in Toronto and that the overhaul and maintenance of these aircraft would also be done at the Toronto plant?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems the the question of the hon. member for Lapointe is in no way related to item 155. However, if the minister is willing to answer, he is free to do so. But the hon. member for Lapointe-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are still on item 145.


Norman Platt Lambert: No, we are now on item 155.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that we were still considering item 145.


Lucien Lamoureux: No, we are now on item 155.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, as soon as you called the first item, if you remember, I rose and-


Norman Platt Lambert: No, no, we are on item 155.


Lucien Lamoureux: I must tell the hon. member for Lapointe that item 145 was passed by the committee and that we are now discussing item 155.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, something is wrong here. If the item was passed, an hon. member was on his feet then.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe seems to forget that he has already spoken on item 145 which was passed later on.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not know exactly what happened but there is a mistake. At any rate, I should like to have a reply to my question. I asked whether the contract

for the overhaul and maintenance of the DC-9 has been awarded to de Havilland.


George James McIlraith: The commercial contract is not before us, but in any event this question was answered in the committee, and it was proposed to do this work at the existing overhaul and maintenance base. Since that time another delegation has come with other ideas.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not think
this question has been settled and that the committee has received an answer to it. A rather important principle is involved, owing to the fact that Trans-Canada Air Lines equipped and organized a whole plant in Montreal for the general maintenance and repair of those aircraft. But now, because a contract was passed, Montreal is to be deprived once again of the general maintenance and repair of the DC-9.
I feel a very important matter of principle is involved here, especially in view of the fact that expenditures were incurred for the repair of those jet aircraft at the base in Montreal. Moreover, since the DC-9 is being bought, all those expenditures will again be incurred in Toronto for the maintenance and repair of that aircraft. Now, that means that Montreal loses not only the contract for manufacturing part of this DC-9 aircraft, but also the maintenance and repair contract.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry to say the hon. member seems to have got a lot of very serious misinformation. Nothing is being taken away from Montreal, and that is the whole thing I am being attacked for these days. The overhaul for these aircraft has always been proposed for Montreal and there was no suggestion it be done in Toronto. As to the other part of the question, it has been stated in evidence many times that the Canadian share of the aircraft production is very high.


Gilles Grégoire: If I have been misinformed it was by a member of the cabinet, because on a motion for the production of documents the Minister of Industry said that the overhaul of these DC-9 aircraft would be done in Toronto, according to the contract between de Havilland and T.C.A. I would like to have the truth.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could give a short answer. The hon. member has misunderstood the whole matter as it affects overhaul and maintenance. The overhaul and maintenance by T.C.A. was proposed to be done in Montreal, subject only to the requests from other parts of the country that it be done

elsewhere. There has been no change in that whatsoever; but where the confusion is creeping in is that the hon. member is not aware of the nature of the work being done by the manufacturers of the aircraft at the de Havill-and plant in Toronto. It is true that certain company work is being done which is an obligation on the manufacturing company in Toronto. He is confusing that work with the work of the air line that buys these aircraft.


Gilles Grégoire: The confusion is due to the fact that we were told by the Minister of Industry that these aircraft would be overhauled and repaired in Toronto, according to the contract. I have had previous experience of this kind, when the Department of National Defence bought Voodoo aircraft from the United States, and it was a condition of the contract that for two years all the parts for those aircraft would be repaired in the factory in the United States. If that is the case with the DC-9, then they will be repaired in Toronto.


George James McIlraith: It is quite clear now that the overhaul the hon. member is speaking of concerns that work which is an obligation on the manufacturer, and that will be done in the de Havilland plant. This is a very good contract for Canada, but it has nothing to do with the points raised about the overhaul and maintenance by T.C.A., which will be done in Montreal.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister assure me that he will send an official of his department to confer with the legislative council of the Yukon?


George James McIlraith: I am sorry the question did not get answered, but I think there is a little misunderstanding about the facts. The department always sends officials out, and I believe a letter was sent within the last week on this subject. It has gone to some inquiring person or agency, with a view to having the appropriate persons sent from the department.


Erik Nielsen: I know the letter has gone out because I have a copy of it, but it said that the department would not send any one to confer with the government of the Yukon. I would like to have the minister's assurance that he will have one of the officials comply with the request of the council.


George James McIlraith: My understanding of the letter is quite different from that. I will look into the matter again, but I understand the letter first asked for certain types of information.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister send an official?
Supply-Transport


George James McIlraith: I will look into the whole matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
165. Grants for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $360,000.
['I will look into the whole matter.']
Mr. More:: I just want to bring to the minister's attention the problems of the association of Canadian soaring and gliding clubs. I spoke some two years ago about this, and I believe the association has been seeking some assistance and recognition from the government. I believe the matter would come under this estimate. I doubt if the minister would have any knowledge of it, but I can assure him I will be pressing it next session. Meantime I hope he will look at their representations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
205. Salaries and other expenses including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $622,400.
["I just want to bring to the minister's attention the problems of the association of Canadian soaring and gliding clubs. I spoke some two years ago about this, and I believe the association has been seeking some assistance and recognition from the government. I believe the matter would come under this estimate. I doubt if the minister would have any knowledge of it, but I can assure him I will be pressing it next session. Meantime I hope he will look at their representations."]
Mr. Barnett:: I would like to ask the minister if he could tell us something about the new chairman of the air transport board. Not too long ago the Canada Gazette announced the appointment of Mr. F. T. Wood of the city of Montreal, Quebec, to be a member for a term of ten years. I do not suggest that the minister give us the date of his birthday, as he did earlier this morning with regard to another appointment, but I would be interested to know some of the qualifications of Mr. Wood for this appointment. Perhaps the minister could also give us an explanation of the resignation of the former chairman of the board and what changes in board policy, if any, may be anticipated as a result of the appointment of Mr. Wood as the new chairman.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give a long answer since I have no notes. Mr. Wood has been in the transport business all his life. He was first a Canadian National Railways employee and later joined Trans-Canada Air Lines, and became one of its vice presidents. He has been president of the air industries and transport association and is still a member of that board. He has had a great deal of experience in dealing with the relationships of air lines in the international field; that is, with air organizations and the negotiating end of air operations, both nationally and internationally. I do not know that there is much more I can usefully add.


Mr.   Barnell@: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister, further, whether he can give any report on what consideration may be given to the suggestion that there be developed an arrangement of regional representation for the air transport board. I am wondering whether he may be willing to

Supply-Transport
consider the idea of setting up regional panels within the air transport board, which might involve some expansion of the membership of the board but on the other hand might enable the board to give more detailed consideration and attention to on the spot investigation of problems on a regional basis than has hitherto been the case.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, this question has received some consideration. I came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was continue with the three man board; that the way to meet the problem raised by he hon. member for Comox-Alberni is not by enlarging the board but by perfecting the board's hearings system, particularly with a view to regional hearings and that sort of thing. I think the hon. member will be interested to know that hearings will be taking place in his part of the country in the latter part of February.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one other matter that I would like to raise in connection with the operations of the air transport board. It has to do in particular with its terms of reference as drafted under the Aeronautics Act. I was interested earlier in the session to note that the minister was introducing a bill to amend the Aeronautics Act; but I was rather disappointed, when the bill came before the house and we were acquainted with its terms, that it made no reference to the particular area of the act in which I had become interested and about which I must confess I have some concern.
I think this might be a very appropriate time for me to bring forward a suggestion for the consideration of the minister. I suggest there is to be an amendment to the act. If my understanding is correct, the present bill is not likely to be dealt with prior to the end of this session. In the interval of time which will elapse between the end of this session and the beginning of the next the minister might be willing to agree to some redrafting of the present bill which would include this point.
My concern arises out of the present terms of the act in respect to appeals to the minister from decisions of the air transport board. I have a file here on the subject of disagreement with certain decisions of the board. It contains copies of a large number of petitions addressed to the minister in connection with the ruling of the board contained in decision No. 1865. I am not going to attempt at this time to go all through this file in discussing this question with the minister, but I am sure he will recall something of its contents. I will say, Mr. Chairman, for the information of the committee, that I do not recall any single

matter ever creating such a volume of communications from Comox-Alberni as did this particular decision of the air transport board. I think the committee will therefore readily understand my concern in the matter and my interest which led me to look at the Aeronautics Act in a way that I had not had occasion to do before.
The particular point about which I am quite concerned is this. As I understand the act, under section 15 (9) an air line which has made an application to the board for a certain form of licence has the right of appeal to the minister if it is dissatisfied with the decision of the board. But another air line which may consider itself adversely affected by the decision of the board, which air line was not an applicant, has not this right of appeal. Under the circumstances it would mean that in effect a decision of the board could put a competing air line out of business in favour of the applicant air line and they would have no right of appeal whatsoever. There was an attempt to appeal to the minister by one of the air lines involved in this situation. That appeal was disallowed by the minister on the technical ground that he had no jurisdiction, under the terms of the Aeronautics Act, to deal with their appeal.
This appears to me a rather inequitable state of affairs. I believe the Aeronautics Act should be amended in this connection so that any air line which considers that its vital interests have been adversely affected can have a review made of the matter. All air lines should be placed on an equal footing in this connection as far as the Aeronautics Act is concerned.
I am also rather concerned with the situation that arises under section 15 (10), which gives the air transport board the authority to alter or change or amend the conditions of the application in its original form. The result of the operation of this section is that when the board does use the authority-and I am given to understand that it is an authority which the board has rather seldom used-a form of licence can be granted which in effect is different from that which was notified to the interested parties prior to the hearings of the board.
I think the minister will recall that one or two of the air lines operating in my area felt themselves to be quite seriously aggrieved, and a great deal of the objection that arose on the part of the public and local organizations stemmed from the fact that they felt the board had made a decision with regard to which there had been no prior notice of hearings.
I would urge the minister to pay serious attention to these two subsections and consider an amendment to the Aeronautics Act

in this respect. I would certainly be interested to have some comment from the minister as to what consideration he is prepared to give to my argument, perhaps more particularly in respect of the question I have raised about the inequity of section 15 (9).


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the case the hon. member has raised and with the difficulty in the language used in the particular section to which he referred. I will have a look at his argument today to see how the problem can best be dealt with. The Aeronautics Act will be coming back for debate very early I hope in the new session, and there will then be an opportunity for an appropriate amendment to cover the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni if, after examination, he should find it advisable to do so. However, I will look at this matter in light of his arguments this morning as well as in light of some other rather technical legal arguments which have been raised subsequent to the decision to which the hon. member refers.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that this is a rather complicated matter and one of which I certainly do not claim to have any expert knowledge. But it seems to be that there is a prima facie case of inequity in the way the present clause 9 reads.
One other question I should like to take the time of the committee to ask the minister about is this. I wonder whether he could give a brief explanation of the reason for the recent amendment to the regulations as published in the Canada Gazette, part II, of December 11, 1963, in which subsection la of section 6 of the commercial air services regulations is revoked and a substitute regulation brought in which in effect eliminates class 4 group C fixed wing aircraft from the provisions of the former order. It now provides that:
Notwithstanding subsection 1, applicants for licences to operate commercial air services in classes other than class 7 shall satisfy the board that the proposed commercial air services would be in the public interest.
I wonder whether the minister would explain the thinking behind the amendment of that regulation, which has changed the position as far as the class 4 licence lines are concerned.


George James McIlraith: This is the regulation which restores licensing of group C, class 4 and the procedures governing such licensing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
212. Amount to be credited to the railway grade crossing fund, in addition to the amount to be credited to the fund under the Railway Act in the current fiscal year; and, notwithstanding section 30
28902-5-400
Supply-Transport
of the Financial Administration Act, to authorize an increase to $24,067,000 in the commitments (in addition to any commitments in respect of which amounts are appropriated under this or any other act) that may be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years, $100,000.
['This is the regulation which restores licensing of group C, class 4 and the procedures governing such licensing.']
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, what about item 210?


George James McIlraith: That was passed last July 26.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I will take advantage of vote 212 to raise a matter that is of great importance to the people of southeastern British Columbia, and I make no apology for this final appeal because time is of the essence. The governor in council is required to make a decision by January 16 with respect to the termination of passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway. I have been asked to bring this matter to the attention of the committee by residents of Fernie, Kimberley, Nelson, Trail and Penticton. They want a spokesman in this house on this matter because they are very concerned about it.
For some years we have been suffering from a limited and split passenger service on this very important railway, a decision initiated in the first instance owing to supposed danger from bombing attacks by the Sons of Freedom. That matter has now been overcome so it is no longer a consideration.
Some time ago the Canadian Pacific Railway made application to the board of transport commissioners to discontinue this passenger service, and hearings were held in the district. Strong opposition was voiced to this step. The city of Fernie was represented as well as the Fernie chamber of commerce. So was the city of Cranbrook and the Cranbrook chamber of commerce; the brotherhood of locomotive engineers; the brotherhood of railroad trainmen; the city of Lethbridge; the village of Natal; the Nelson chamber of commerce and the city of Nelson; local 480 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers; Tye; and also the Kootenay lake bible camp and others.
I have sat here patiently waiting for an opportunity to express in as few words as possible the concern of the people in southeastern British Columbia over this problem. I have received telegrams from Nelson, Trail and Rossland, and I have handed them over to the minister. A good number of these municipalities and other organizations are sending petitions to the governor in council because of the changed circumstances.
Just to indicate the thinking of the people of the district I am going to read one petition sent by the Nelson chamber of commerce:
Petition: We the Nelson chamber of commerce hereby humbly pray to appeal against the ruling

Supply-Transport
of the board of transport commissioners order authorizing the discontinuance of operation of passenger trains No. 45 and 46 between Lethbridge, Alberta and Spences Bridge, B.C.
The Canadian Pacific Railway has taken the necessary steps to discontinue the said passenger service effective date set for this area is January 16, 1964.
Throughout the time the board of transport commissioners were holding its hearing in this area there were misgivings on part of both the railway company and the public to be served as to the economic value of the passenger service.
In late October of this year the railway companies of Canada announced new reduced passenger rates for travel in Canada. On this basis we request a rehearing of this application of the board of transport commissioners. We feel that until the board have had the opportunity to assess the value of the new rates to the travelling public of this district the cancellation date of said passenger service is premature.
This petition is addressed to the governor general in council, Ottawa. This matter seriously concerns the people of this district, because our air service is sometimes limited in the winter by weather conditions. Our road service is also limited by road conditions, particularly over the summits. This railroad serves one of the great wealth producing areas of British Columbia, and the discontinuance of this passenger service will affect at least 100,000 people. In this area we have a great mining and smelting industry, a great forest industry, and other industries are being developed in the region. I raise the matter again, as I promised these various organizations and persons who have wired and written to me I would, on this last opportunity before the end of the session. I urge the minister to bring these representations to the attention of the governor in council and to give favourable consideration to the very reasonable request of a very reasonable group of people.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, this matter raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West is of very great importance to the entire southeastern portion of British Columbia, as a matter of fact to the entire southern portion of the province outside of the lower mainland. The minister will tell the hon. member that I have brought this matter both to his attention and to that of the government on a number of occasions, and the minister has assured me that as soon as the session is over and the work load becomes a little less arduous he will be considering the question of the board's order to allow the C.P.R. to withdraw this service.
It might be well to mention here, Mr. Chairman, that one of the most lucrative subsidiaries of the Canada Pacific Railway, and I believe one of the subsidiaries that makes the greatest contribution to the dividends paid by the railway company, is itself located in this area. That is the huge smelter mentioned by the hon. member, the mines in Kimberley

adjacent to Cranbrook and, of course, the vast fertilizer industry established by the same company in Trail.
Unquestionably this service is losing money for the railway company. The submission to the board indicated, I believe, that the company is losing some $500,000 as a result of so few passengers using the service. The service consists of Budd cars, units which can be operated relatively cheaply, yet the operation has been showing a deficit of $500,000 when all costs have been considered.
Should this service be discontinued $500,000 of the taxpayers' money would be saved. This is axiomatic when one considers that we are now subsidizing the railways to the extent of $70 million on a straight grant basis to provide additional revenue to the companies because they have not been allowed to increase their rates as permitted by the board. I suggest that the Department of Transport consider spending an equal amount of money in providing safe all weather airstrips which would enable us to have the benefit of a first class air service in that area at all times. The hon. member for Kootenay West has told the committee that the air service in this area is not dependable in the winter months and I think we can realize why, when we consider that the airport of which he was speaking is situated between two high mountain ranges. The hon. member for Yukon can talk about airstrips running east and west and the danger of having them obstructed by terminals. In the area of which I am speaking we have our strips running in one direction only because that is the only direction which they can run, in other words parallel to the mountain ranges.
There are these difficulties about providing a service, but I wish to say that Canadian Pacific has provided an excellent service having regard to all these circumstances. If Mr. McConachie were required to come before a house committee, as is Mr. McGregor of T.C.A., to report on the activities of his company I think we would find that this air route has been operating since 1946 and showing a deficit during all those years. The company is attempting to provide a good service, and I am sure if the department were to make better landing facilities available we would see a great improvement in the service during the winter months.
The railway service is an old and historic service and its discontinuance would represent a serious backward step. I ask the minister now publicly to give this matter serious consideration as soon as the house prorogues, sometime this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not "dissolves".


Mr. Gundlock:: I wish to add my support to the objection taken on behalf of the communities in southern Alberta to the proposed curtailment of air travel facilities. I think probably everything that can be said has been said, but I should like the minister to give us some assurance that this matter will be considered. It is a bad time of year to resort to bus travel over the mountains. Even if this proposal to abandon the route could be put off for two or three months, until spring, it would be a help. I strongly urge the minister to consider this matter in every light. It would be a good Christmas present for us if he would do so and reach a favourable decision.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
213a. To provide payments to companies subject to order number 96300, dated November 17, 1958, of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada of an aggregate amount of $20,000,000, in respect of the period April 1, 1963, to March 31, 1964, to be paid in instalments at such times as may be determined by the said board for the purpose of reimbursing the said companies for such diminution in their aggregate gross revenues during the said period as the opinion of the said board is attributable to such companies maintaining the rate level for freight traffic at an 8 per cent increase instead of 17 per cent as authorized by the said order; and to provide payments to the said companies of ;i 11 aggregate amount in respect of the calendar year 1963 of $50,000,000 to be paid in instalments at such times and in accordance with such methods of allocation as may be determined by the said board for the maintenance by such companies of the rates
$70 000 OOo'	at the 831(1 reduced level,
['I wish to add my support to the objection taken on behalf of the communities in southern Alberta to the proposed curtailment of air travel facilities. I think probably everything that can be said has been said, but I should like the minister to give us some assurance that this matter will be considered. It is a bad time of year to resort to bus travel over the mountains. Even if this proposal to abandon the route could be put off for two or three months, until spring, it would be a help. I strongly urge the minister to consider this matter in every light. It would be a good Christmas present for us if he would do so and reach a favourable decision.']
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mc-Ilraith) a few questions with regard to vote 213a, which reads as follows:
Interim payments to companies as defined in the Freight Rates Reduction Act as compensation to such companies for the maintenance of their freight rates on freight traffic at reduced levels.
I also read on the detail of the same vote.
Appropriation not required for 1963-64.
Could the minister tell us whether this means that as of January 1, 1963, or at the beginning of the fiscal year 1963, such interim payments to companies under the Freight Rates Reduction Act are discontinued and will not be in effect as of this year?


George James McIlraith: This is to provide the identical amounts which were provided last year. It has to do with adjustments which are made by carryover because of the different fiscal years.
28902-5-4001
Supply-Transport


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, does this mean that those payments will not be made in 1963-64?


George James McIlraith: No, they will be made.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, since that subsidy will be granted again, I wish to say a few words about it.
First, I want to point out to the house that those payments or subsidies are granted to all railways, which use them to reduce their freight rates. That being so, the railways are competing unfairly with the trucking companies because the federal government grants subsidies to the railways on a percentage of the cost of transport, whereas the truckers do not get the same advantages.
I wish to point out to the minister that the subsidies amounting to $50 million, which are given to the railways only and not to the air transport companies or the trucking companies, are taken out of the taxes paid by the people and the Canadian corporations.
Trucking companies and truckers pay taxes which are used to grant subsidies to railway companies, thus letting them compete with their own enterprises.
Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me that this does not make sense. Why tax private enterprise so as to make it possible for public enterprise to compete with it.
It should be noted that the C.N.R., for instance, does not pay any taxes; but it is the money collected from the truckers which will help the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. to compete with them in the transportation field.
I think that this is illogical, unfair and illegal competition on the part of a crown corporation and against private companies.
At the meeting of the sessional committee on railways, I asked the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon, whether he would agree to the granting of this subsidy not only to the railways but to all freight carriers. The president of the Canadian National Railways replied that he would readily agree to the granting of these subsidies not only to the railways but to trucking companies as well.
It seems to me then that, if it were so, competition would be fair and that there would not be this attempt to drive the trucking industry to bankruptcy. That would be only fair for all transport companies, including trucking and air transport companies.
I wonder if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) would agree with the trucking companies which made representations and with the president of the Canadian National Railways, so that those subsidies be granted not

Supply-Transport
only to the railways but to all carriers including trucking and air transport companies.
I ask the minister if he is prepared to change those payments in order to grant them to all transport companies operating in Canada.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, just before the minister rises to answer I should like to express my support of what the hon. member has said about this matter, because it seems to me that under the present set-up we are in fact using public funds to direct business to the railroads in a discriminatory manner, and we do not allow the same thing to happen with private firms. If we are going to have these subsidies I believe that the trucking firms should have an equal opportunity, so that at point of origin freight can be designated to go either by truck or rail. I certainly feel that a choice is not given shippers in this matter because of this situation.
The minister knows, of course, that the matter was discussed to quite an extent in the committee. When this question does come up for final consideration I hope we will put an end to this type of thing and bring things out into the open so that truckers can compete with the railways on a fair basis. As far as I am concerned the trucker is not given a fair shot at the business at all.


Edward Nasserden: On this particular point I should like the minister to clear up a question in my mind. So far as the railways are concerned, do they receive this subsidy on any goods that they move by truck?


George James McIlraith: The answer to that question is no. The essential difference between the trucking industry and the railways has been completely missed in the discussion of this item. This item was provided for the railways by the former government because the railways were prevented from adjusting their freight rates. In order to compensate them for the arbitrary restriction of their right to adjust their freight rates, this payment was provided. I am somewhat amazed to hear hon. members who come from areas where great quantities of freight originate that require to be shipped by rail raising any question at all about this item.
In any event, the truckers are free to charge whatever rates they like, and so far the government has not seen fit to restrict the rates they can charge. The whole premise on which the argument of the hon. member for Lapointe was based disappears. The item is one that I hope will disappear in this form from the estimates. It really is an item that arises because of the delay in dealing with the railway legislation based upon the Mac-Pherson royal commission report. I must say
[Mr. Gregoire.l
I am rather disappointed that there was no opportunity to deal with that legislation at this session, because it is a piece of legislation that I think is of vital significance and of some urgency to the country.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if we ever heard a specious argument, it is the one that has just been advanced by the Minister of Transport, when he said that the government does not control trucking rates as it does for the railways.
It is obvious that the government, by trying to restrict freight rates, wanted to cope with a substantial increase in freight rates. But to correct one evil, it produced another one which it does not seem ready to remedy. To grant subsidies to railway companies in order to prevent an increase in their rates is like saying that since railway companies have now a given rate, trucking companies that want to remain competitive with them are compelled to maintain their own rates at a relatively low level.
It is obvious that the government does not and cannot control private trucking companies' rates. But if special subsidies are paid to the railways so that they can maintain their rates at a relatively low level, trucking companies have to do the same, and this represents an indirect way of controlling the rates of the said companies. However, as truckers do not get special subsidies from the government, they have to put up with losses if they want to maintain their rates at the same level as the railways'; and if their rates are higher than those of the railways, they are not competitive and the shippers use the railways. It is therefore by means of the government's subsidies that the railways enter into unfair competition with the trucking companies.
The government controls the trucking rates, if not directly, at least indirectly, as these rates are compulsory for the trucking companies that wish to remain competitive not only as regards the C.N.R. but railway companies operating in Canada.
That is why we suggest to the Minister of Transport that the legislation should be changed. As I said a moment ago, although the subsidies were granted to prevent an exorbitant increase in rates, I am afraid that by trying to cure one ill, the government has brought about another one: the unfair, illogical and illegal competition of railway companies against private trucking companies.
That is why I ask the minister to enlighten the house about the government plans on that point for the coming year. Is it the

minister's intention to put the railway companies on an equal footing with the trucking and air line companies? What are the solutions that he could propose before too long to solve that problem?
I would like to hear the answer of the Minister of Transport.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Before the minister speaks, if he does answer, I should like to say that I do not want to be misunderstood. The minister said he was surprised that the question was raised in connection with a possible reduction of freight rates to consumers. We are not against that, and we do not want to be misunderstood. What I am saying is that the shipper has no choice in placing an order because of the 9 per cent difference between the truckers' rate and the railway rate which results from this subsidy.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois):
That item 213a be not voted in its present form, but that it be granted for any type of transportation, of the shipper's choice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not wish to raise any point of order, but I have grave doubts as to whether the amendment is in order. I think the simplest way to settle it would be to put the question on the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, even though it is Saturday and we want to get through, let us not establish a precedent of that kind. If this amendment is allowed to be voted upon after a point of order is raised we could have all kinds of amendments on 500 different items.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I say that if the hon. member had listened carefully he would have heard me say that I was not raising a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I do.


Gilles Grégoire: Then I withdraw my amendment, and I propose-


Norman Platt Lambert: No, the hon. member cannot withdraw without consent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely we are going to give consent if it is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the point of order has been raised, I submit it is not possible to do anything to a money vote in committee of supply except to pass it, reduce it or one or two other things like that. One cannot change the destination or purpose of the amount. I have a good idea what the hon. member is
Supply-Transport
going to do now. He is going to move that the vote be reduced. Let us not waste time with something that is completely out of order. Let the hon. member withdraw it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could save a little time for the committee by suggesting that there be unanimous consent to allowing the hon. member to withdraw his amendment.


The Deputy Chairman:: Does the committee give unanimous consent to allowing the hon. member for Lapointe to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Megantic.
That vote No. 213a be reduced to $1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is in order.
Amendment (Mr. Gregoire) negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 53.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have only one word to add on that matter. I must say that the truckers, not only in the province of Quebec but throughout Canada, requested many times that the subsidy legislation be amended. At the present time, there is no indication that will be done.
When we asked what were the plans of the Department of Transport to improve that legislation, we did not get any answer. The truckers told about their problems in detail. They even told us that each time a political party was out of office, it showed itself sympathetic to their problems and approved the plans and suggestions made by the truckers. But when that same political party comes to power, then it disregards the suggestions and recommendations made by the Canadian truckers association.
I think that today truckers are in a position to see how things stand. Since each member was free to vote, the truckers will be able to appreciate the sincerity of the members of the house.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item
carry?


Gilles Grégoire: On division, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
['On division, Mr. Chairman.']
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Transport.

Supply-External Affairs


George James McIlraith: I should like to thank all hon. members of the committee for their courtesy not only today but throughout the whole of this session. I should like to wish each hon. member and his family a very happy festive season.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you call the next department, Mr. Chairman, there was an understanding last night that when we approached one o'clock we would decide whether it would be worth while sitting through the luncheon hour, if that would expedite the business of the committee and allow the staff to get home for the evening. It seems to me we have made the kind of progress which would suggest that if we had that hour during the day we might be able to get through well before six o'clock, and if it was understood there was general acceptance of that view we would sit right through. Instead of interrupting the estimates of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who might at one o'clock be in one of his eloquent flights, I thought it would be preferable to make a decision on this point at this stage.


Norman Platt Lambert: That would be the most compelling reason to rise at one o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we should all have some break for lunch.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then could we agree to break off at one o'clock, or pretty near one o'clock, and come back half an hour later?


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed we break off at one o'clock and come back half an hour later?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
1. Department administration, $7,648,800.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 1 carry?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize that since these estimates were discussed on a previous occasion the Secretary of State for External Affairs has visited NATO headquarters; and while most of us realize that no great, momentous decisions were made at NATO, because of the newness of various heads of states for other reasons, nevertheless I wonder if he, in his customary genial manner, could attempt to give us some information on what went on at the NATO meeting. I would also like to have his comments, briefly, on the likelihood of Canada securing a seat on the security council of the United Nations.
This is a matter which I have raised on various occasions, and in the interval between [The Deputy Chairman.]
the minister's attendance at the NATO meeting in Paris it has gained a great deal of prominence at the United Nations. As hon. members know, the Soviet union has made it quite clear the security council will not be expanded until such time as the People's Republic of China is given the Chinese seat. As a result the available non-permanent seats are going to have to be redistributed to provide for Asian and African representation.
In all likelihood the commonwealth seat will have to go, if it has not already gone. The other day the Prime Minister was a little clearer in the house on this question than the Secretary of State for External Affairs had been, but he pointed out-and I am fully aware of them-the difficulties which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has in this problem. There is no easy answer to it, but if the commonwealth seat goes at the next meeting of the general assembly and is filled by an Asian or African member, then Canada will be left with no place to go. In other words she will have no group to join in order to obtain a seat on the security council, and I think everybody would agree that would be a ridiculous situation in view of the work and the assistance which Canada has supplied to the United Nations.
There are two alternatives. Canada could go with the Latin American group or the west European group, but that would only give her a chance to secure a seat on the council every ten or 12 years, and this would not be very suitable. The other possibility, which I have mentioned on previous occasions and which I would like to draw to the minister's attention again, is that if the redistribution takes place a number of other countries will be in the same position as Canada, countries like Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Cyprus and perhaps the two West Indian countries, Jamaica and Trinidad. Although I hope every effort will be made to retain the commonwealth seat, possibly some arrangement could be made in the interim, until the security council is expanded, whereby the countries I have mentioned could form a group in order to obtain a one year seat on the security council. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are three charter members of the United Nations and have contributed to it in a great many ways. I have a feeling that if the minister went out and really tried to sell this proposition among the other countries in the United Nations he might have the same success he had in days gone by when he introduced the package deal providing membership for all the new countries in the United Nations.
I am concerned about Australia and New Zealand but more concerned about what will happen to Canada, because our role at the

United Nations has been such that I am sure nearly every member country would agree we are entitled to have an opportunity to serve on the security council and the other councils of the organization.


Mr. Gelber:: Mr. Chairman, there was an ancient Greek philosopher called Heraclitus who said you cannot stand in the same stream twice; everything is in flux; everything is in change. I believe we should take a look at our attitude toward NATO, the commonwealth, the United Nations and at our associations with Britain and the United States, which are always in a state of change. Today our relationship with Britain has matured, but our association with the United States is under critical review. The emergence of our southern neighbour as the political leader of the free world, and the most powerful of all the world's economies, has placed special stresses on our thinking, for we have profited much in terms of our security and economic growth by the easy relationship which ensued between us for more than a century.
It is important to separate in our minds the problems which are disturbing us. The role of the United States as leader of the western alliance should not be confused with the question of United States capital investment in Canadian development. We can only welcome the profitable participation of friends in our economic growth. Our ability to provide solutions that meet our national needs and prove attractive to foreign investors is our task, not theirs.
Trade problems also influence our relationship with the United States. Here there is a closer association between political and economic policy, and the United States must follow policies of trade which will give strength to her leadership and not frustrate it.
The pull of the frontier endowed American life with a spirit of optimism and a faith in the invincibility of American power. Much of this democracy has given a special and attractive quality to American society. It has also had its shortcomings, and among these have been the inward-looking tendency of American public life, its messianism, its boundless optimism, its refusal to plan because the realization of the American dream was inevitable in any case.
The role of the United States as a world leader was thrust upon her. There was to be a rude awakening. Today we still live with the shock of Pearl Harbor. The United States has learned that it must play a large role and that the price of leadership is not always sweet. The American public has learned that to meet the challenges of the
Supply-External Affairs 1960's it does not possess resources without limit. The United States also needs allies, and it prizes them.
The death of John Kennedy removed a powerful leader who was not the product of a disenchantment with the American tradition, but the eloquent spokesman of a new and mature pragmatism that has been willing to accept the burdens of its role and looks to its allies to accept theirs. It would be unworthy for Canadians to be anti-American as it has been unworthy for Canadians to be anti-British or anti-French. The passions that were expressed about Britain between the two wars have subsided not only because Britain is different, but because we too have changed. But the lesson remains. As a member of a wider alliance we must press for what we think is right, while remaining loyal to our allies and associates.
John Kennedy was not a typical American in a society where the collective pressures to conform are so powerful. His love of learning for the sake of learning marked him as someone special. His refusal to bow to the orgy of sentimentalism that on occasion engulfs his people marked him as a strong individualist. His personal dignity and that of his wife have shown them as chief citizens who eschewed the popular humdrum. His belief in the equality of man before the law, as expressed by the highest tribunal in his land, will remain his finest hour as it is the blessing of the American commonwealth.
To play our part we must strengthen our own national life for the benefit of all Canadians. The economic growth of our country provides us the sinews for international policy. We must be wise, and we must have the wherewithal to underwrite our judgment. We must have amity. In our broad country there is scope for all who live here. If we are to be torn by a struggle between our two chief cultural groups, then we will have less to say, we will have less for each to do. A frantic dialogue can enervate our national being and frustrate the well-intentioned purposes of all. Abroad, we could only sink in the scale of those who are contributing to peace and well-being. The first test of our statesmanship is leadership at home. This means both national and provincial and in the area of all those voluntary groups which contribute so much to our national life.
In working for a world at peace we seek the extension of the rule of law. We were among the founding members of the United Nations and have joined each of its specialized agencies. Through the developing commonwealth and in association with our NATO

Supply-External Affairs allies we are daily seeking to strengthen the forces of peace and to make more abundant the avenues of international well-being.
Canadians must be prepared to share office with more members in the committees of the United Nations and in its secretariat. Canada's influence now more especially will be related to the wisdom of its counsel and the strength of its national life at home. The shifting emphases in NATO reflect in part the recovery of Europe itself, which NATO was formed to protect. The underpinning of European peace was recognized as the special interest of all the partners, and the English speaking members made commitments stronger, more pervasive and automatic than ever before, which marked a turning point in the history of the west. To resist the encroachments of Soviet power was sworn on the headstone of Czech democracy.
The discomfitures in NATO arise not alone from jealousies over sovereign power, but the very sinews of national being are at stake in the problems of industrial production, of markets and the race for nuclear technology. These problems of Europe and the Atlantic community pose difficult challenges to American leadership of the west, to the European members themselves, and to countries like Canada which have an important interest and must have an opinion about these serious issues.
We all welcome the moves which the government has made to increase Canadian participation in programs of aid to underdeveloped countries. This was first marked by doubling the allotment to the special United Nations fund. In his recent statement the Secretary of State for External Affairs outlined government policy for an additional $70 million in the fiscal year 1964-65. These programs which assist the developing countries to help themselves are a growing aspect of our foreign policy. Foreign aid will remain a facet of our public life during the lifetime of all members of this house, and beyond. We must cast it in these terms, and international assistance will grow as an aspect of our national policy. It seems to me that we should continue to support all those multilateral programs which have grown under the aegis of the United Nations and have to their credit many brilliant accomplishments. The devotion and service of peoples from diverse backgrounds who have contributed in a spirit of dedication places us in their debt. Among these are many splendid Canadians.
While we view foreign aid as a permanent feature of our public life, we must plan our programs in terms of our over-all economic policies. Here is the union of the right and of national interest, and we must be ashamed of neither. Foreign aid, like all economic

programs, must be viewed as part of our own economic growth and part of the important objective of full employment for Canadians. To further these aims and to give greater weight to foreign assistance programs, it seems to me that we are going to have to expand our bilateral programs. These provide the more likely avenues for a wide expansion of this special international activity.
There is another facet which we must not neglect. I mentioned the Canadians who have given service abroad. In most of the developing countries there is a lack of knowhow. The skills we have, we can share. The programs of investing in the skills of our people should be related to needs both at home and abroad. Many Europeans have given this service when the flags of their motherlands flew over the lands of colonial peoples often rich in great traditions but poor in the techniques needed to help themselves. Canada should provide career opportunities for those who wish to serve abroad. It was suggested by the former secretary general of the United Nations, the late Dag Hammars-kjold, that the United Nations itself should create such an international agency through which people of skill could be seconded to developing countries seeking to borrow special talents. The agency could provide the security and the career opportunities which a recipient country is unable to offer. Canada itself could start such a program through a special section of the civil service. Men and women specially recruited and trained could thus bring their talents to the international scene where such avenues are now provided in modest measure.
In a world of turmoil we are jealous of fundamental rights and liberties of all human beings. The United Nations, through its commission on human rights, has provided an important means for the discussion of these important issues. The position of Jewish people in the Soviet union is a case in point. This is one aspect of Stalin's policy which Khrushchev has not neglected, although the means are different. The Soviet union is based on the legal recognition of nationalities and, within the context of this law, Jews are designated as a nationality. Jews constitute slightly more than 1 per cent of the Soviet population and are eleventh among the nationalities. Thirty eight per cent live in the Russian republic, 37 per cent in the Ukraine and 7 per cent in white Russia. In a country where they have resided for over a thousand years they are looked upon as an alien group. Policy toward the Jews and Judaism has remained the same since 1948. The communist poet Yevtushenko asked why there was no monument to the thousands of Jews slaughtered by the nazis outside Kiev, at Babi

Yar. There is a strong tradition of antiSemitism in Russia, in which the Soviet leaders have been raised. But there have also been other voices. No Hebrew bible has been published since 1917. Not a single Jewish religious book has appeared since 1920. Synagogues have been closed; the study of Hebrew forbidden; Jewish religious observances hounded and harried. This process has been stepped up since the middle of 1961. The public baking of matzah-unleavened bread-for the Passover has been forbidden since the spring of 1962.
Attacks on Jews and Judaism have been published in the communist press. Elderly religious Jews have their names listed in the press, together with the names of their children, stating public positions and places of work. This is to hold them up to ridicule and is effective social blackmail. The economic crimes which have led to public trials are almost unbelievable, and death has been the frequent verdict. That within the context of a communist society another economy exists is like Alice in Wonderland. This is not even state capitalism. Karl Marx said in his attack on the rise of capitalism in England that when they stopped burning witches they started hanging men for stealing horses. The progress from Stalin to Khrushchev may be mirrored here.
Edward Crankshaw of the London Observer, as printed in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, November 16, reports a trial where the accused "contrived to perfect a racket which diverted a great deal of the products of no less than 52 state-owned factories and a number of collective farms into their own pockets". One "had bribed his way into a political post which put him in charge of a 'psycho-neurological health centre' where a large number of patients were innocently engaged in occupational therapy. By bribery and blackmail on a majestic scale, he and" another "turned this modest outfit into a commercial underwear factory, fitting it out with the latest machines embezzled from state-owned enterprises, diverting wool-460 tons in all-from collective farms, sent out the manufactured articles to be finished at other state-owned factories, and privately selling the final products in markets and at railway stations".
Of course the accused were trapped because an accomplice, who sold his wife to one of the plotters, confessed to the police, who found under the floor boards of their house rubles valued at $300,000, and bullion in gold bars. The picture was perfect. The Soviet union confesses that within a communist society exists a highly organized economy of the demi-monde, equipped with everything, even gold bars. The Soviet union is 28902-5-401
Supply-External Affairs loth to have meetings of the United Nations commission on human rights. Canada must be one of the guardians of this tribune of fundamental freedoms and ensure that it is not put aside.
The influence of Canada abroad can only be impaired by bitter struggles at home. Sparsely spread along the southern frontier of our great continental land mass, we have only emerged as a country of significance and a people of achievement because for two centuries we have lived and worked together on a basis of give and take. That tolerance is the mortar of our edifice. Should it not withstand the weathering of time, then surely what we have built will crumble.
To be a Canadian is to be proud of our achievement. Should we lose the sense of the worthwhileness of what we are doing we will never respect ourselves nor command the loyalty and allegiance of others with whom we are associated in the great tasks of building peace and well-being. We must stand for understanding both at home and abroad, and this we share with our friends and allies.
The eternal flame which was lit over the grave of Jack Kennedy in Arlington Park will pierce the darkness where prejudice abounds and provide a beacon to men who dream and struggle for freedom. This is something for us all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege, along with others, of being a member of the standing committee on external affairs, the sessions of which were very ably conducted by the hon. member for Leeds, assisted at times by the vice chairman, the hon. member for Queens. I am sure all of us who were members of that committee feel that even though it was late in starting-it had to meet at a time when there was competition for space, and so on-nevertheless its sessions were worth while, and we hope that at the next session this important committee will meet earlier.
It is not my intention to rehash any of the matters discussed by the committee on external affairs. Rather there are two subjects on which I wish to speak briefly. The first is one which has arisen since the committee held its sessions; the second is a matter part of which has just been referred to by the hon. member for York South. The reason I did not raise this before the committee is that the minister himself was not able to be there all the time, and the matter was such that I wanted to raise it when he was present.
The first matter, one which has come up since the sessions of the committee, is, I freely admit, a delicate one. Nevertheless I think it ought not to be delicate, and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should

Supply-External Affairs comment upon it. It came up yesterday or last night during discussion of the estimates of the Department of Transport. I think it was somewhat out of order at that point, but it is certainly in order now. It arises, at least as far as I am aware, from an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on Thursday of this week under the by-line of Victor Mackie. The headings are rather interesting. The article is headed "Diplomatic eyebrows up. Canada raps French critics. Federal government angered over embassy's too open pressing for Caravelle". I should like to read the first paragraph of Mr. Mackie's article which appears, as I say, in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 19, on page 1.
Activities of the French embassy in Ottawa during the period when the cabinet was considering Trans-Canada Air Lines' decision to purchase the DC-9 medium-range jet embarrassed members of the Canadian government, it was learned here today from informed sources.
The French government has been made aware of the embassy's unusual activities. It has been drawn to the French government's attention that their embassy in Canada appeared to capitalize on the delicate English-French situation within this country to promote the interests of the Caravelle.
I was quite interested in the comments made on this matter last night, and I recognize the motives behind those comments. I think it is pretty generally known that I am one of the strong advocates, of whom there are many of us in this house of all parties, of equal rights for the two main groups which make up this country of ours. But it seems to me we should not confuse the rights of the French language and the English language and the rights of the French culture and the English culture in Canada with an issue of this kind. It is my view that if it is true that the ambassador of a friendly country, the country of France, used his position in this country on behalf of a commercial outlet in his own country, and if he exploited a difficult situation which we had in this country, there is reason for these headlines; there is reason to believe that the federal government must at least have been embarrassed, if not angered, over what happened.
I express the hope that the minister, diplomatically but nevertheless clearly, will give us his view of this incident. At first when press reports appeared about this one wondered whether it was really true. Then reports seemed to mount. Yesterday morning there was a preview commentary on this matter over the C.B.C., although I think the speaker on that occasion did not refer to the embassy but to the French government participating in this matter. But last night the hon. member for Three Rivers, as far as he had knowledge of it, seemed to confirm that this actually took place and that the ambassador of France to this country did participate in the matter.

On occasion American officials in this country have done things which we did not like, and we have said so. I think we should continue to do so. Not long ago in a British Columbia election I think there was a complaint about a United States government representative in this country. I do not think our sensitivities on this question should keep us from bringing this incident out into the open too. I believe our diplomatic relations with friendly countries will be maintained in the way they ought to be maintained only if the proprieties of diplomatic relationships are respected.
I should like to hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this matter. Does he have knowledge that these activities were carried on? Has the Canadian government made its views on this question known to the ambassador of France or, through our ambassador in Paris, to the French government? I noted what the Secretary of State said about the capacity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for eloquent flights. However, even if he is to make an eloquent flight I hope he will not fail to speak to us diplomatically and calmly, but nevertheless clearly, on this issue.
It had been my intention a few minutes ago to make this small contribution to the debate and then to sit down and let the minister comment if he would, and then to rise later and raise the other issue. But because of the latter part of the remarks of the hon. member for York South I feel I should deal with this other question at this time. 1 for one was interested in the entire speech made by the hon. member for York South, even though it is the last day of the session, which is not usually a day when long speeches on philosophical and international issues are the order of the day. Nevertheless it was a good speech. I liked in particular his bringing out into the open another delicate question and one that concerns us, namely evidence of antiSemitic practices in the Soviet union. With what the hon. member for York South said I am in complete agreement. I think in all parts of the house there is agreement with and sympathy for the point of view he expressed.
I only wish he had gone a little further, and that he had told us what the present government's position is on this matter. I am sure that as a member of this house he must know of documents which have been tabled. He must know about the one I have in mind, because he was here when I asked for it to be tabled. I refer to sessional paper No. 264, tabled on Wednesday, November 27, 1963. This document consists in the main of a communication addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by the Canadian Jewish Congress over the signature of Mr. DECEMBER 21, 1963
Michael Garber, the president of the congress. In addition to that letter there is a copy of the reply which the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote to Mr. Garber's letter. Mr. Garber's letter was written on October 8, 1963 and the reply was written under date of October 30.
Mr. Garber in his letter referred to a portion of a brief presented earlier to the Prime Minister on behalf of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and both that portion of the brief and Mr. Garber's letter referred to the very things about which the hon. member for York South has told us. In particular there was a specific reference to a rabbi in the Soviet union who was charged with certain alleged economic malpractices, and there was a possibility at that time that this rabbi would be sentenced to the death penalty for those alleged practices.
It is hard to believe that this kind of thing can happen in our modern world. When it happened some years ago in an other country our consciences were shocked. They were even more shocked when it was over and we were aware of the extent of it. I remember being in this house when we considered these matters and passed certain legislation concerning them. I remember when we considered the universal declaration of human rights and when we discussed a convention against genocide, and I felt that the house was resolving in its heart, man by man, that we would never again countenance anything of that sort no matter where it reared its head.
I think the letter of Mr. Garber was restrained and reasonable. In the main it asked two things. It asked that the government take the matter up with the Soviet union through diplomatic channels; and second, that it raise the subject of discrimination and anti-Semitism in the Soviet union in the third committee of the general assembly of the United Nations. I do not intend to take up the time of the committee by reading Mr. Garber's letter. I hope hon. members will take my word that it is a well composed document, restrained in its requests. I feel it should have been responded to in a positive way.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he replied, expressed concern, sympathy and understanding. He went on to say he doubted whether there was any official program encouraging anti-Semitism in the Soviet union but, nevertheless, it existed. In fact he used language almost the same as that which the hon. member for York South used a few minutes ago about the way it had been going on for hundreds of years with some of it, which is there now, being residual from what had been there in the past. But when the Secretary of State for External Affairs 28902-5-401i
Supply-External Affairs got to the two specific requests that the matter be taken up with the government of the Soviet union and raised in the third committee of the general assembly, this is what he had to say. In a lengthy paragraph he referred to the fact that the creation of the state of Israel had heightened suspicion of the Jewish community in the Soviet union. Then he said:
This suspicion continues, and it has been our policy, therefore, to avoid any action which would emphasize the Jews' foreign connections and confirm Soviet fears. We would be loath, therefore, to make representations directly from the Canadian government to the Soviet government on the rabbi's behalf as it would emphasize the foreign ties and might provoke a renewed drive against the Jews.
That is the response made to the specific request contained in the letter with regard to representations. As to the second request, that the subject be raised in the committee, I should like to read the following paragraph from the letter written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
Although the third committee at the United Nations will not be discussing the question of religious intolerance in any detail this year, the Canadian representative will at some point be making a statement on human rights. If an appropriate occasion arises, it might be possible to make reference in a general way to religious persecution in the Soviet union, which is not directed only against those of the Jewish faith. For the reasons outlined above, however, I would prefer that strictures on the practice of the Jewish religion not be mentioned specifically.
I can only hope the hon. member for York South has not read this letter, because I am sure he would have been scandalized by it. Or perhaps he has read the letter and has decided to ignore it.
If these practices exist at all we should not be so unwilling to mention the question to a friendly nation, bearing in mind that we belong to a generation which has memories of what anti-Semitism did not only to millions of Jews but also to the hearts and souls of all of us. We should not be so unwilling to raise a question on the subject of human rights at the United Nations. I asked for this document to be tabled at a time when a delegation of Canadians was seeking to meet officials of the Soviet embassy here in Ottawa. I know the people who were planning to meet them, and I know that up until the day they were hoping to go they had been given no assurance that they would even be allowed in the embassy. But they were allowed in and they did have a discussion, and I suggest this emphasizes a point which Mr. Garber made in his letter to the minister, namely that the detente we seem to be enjoying at the moment is an occasion when it might be possible to discuss some of these things and get somewhere with them.

Supply-External Affairs
Like other members of this house I have had the opportunity of visiting Berlin recently. I remember, when I saw the wall while we were there in September, it looked like something which would never be breached. Today many thousands of West Berliners are at least getting a day in East Berlin. The impossible can happen. I plead with the Secretary of State for External Affairs not to treat this as a subject which should not be raised. 1 ask him to listen to the eloquent words which were uttered on this subject by the hon. member for York South. I ask him to reconsider the letter he wrote to the Canadian Jewish Congress. I ask that Canada carry forward the sense of resolution we had with regard to this question during the second world war and immediately after when we said, in our hearts if we did not say it openly, that we would never again keep quiet in the face of antiSemitism anywhere in the world.
These are the two subjects I wished to raise. Neither of them was raised in the committee. I should like to hear from the minister, when we return after our half hour break. What does he think about these reports of the activities of the French embassy, and what has he to say about the government's responsibility to state Canada's position with regard to combating anti-Semitism anywhere in the world?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 1.30 p.m.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this item rather than wait for the particular item, because I suppose we will be in a greater rush than ever then. I should have liked to say something about external affairs in general but I realize that time is limited. I was a member of the committee, but being a member of other committees also I unfortunately was not able to attend many sessions. I hope that next year our committees will start early in the session so we will only have a third of them sitting at a time and can really do the work that is required.
I have been sitting here almost restlessly, Mr. Chairman, expecting a statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the negotiations with respect to the Columbia, but I assume we will hear from him at great length when I have concluded. I am going to confine my few brief remarks to a particular aspect of this matter, because it does provide an opportunity to advance one argument which I trust will have some effect on what up to now appears to be the

minister's impervious mind in this respect. I wish to refer to a motion I moved for the production of papers, and I really have a complaint here. On October 30 I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and it was ordered:
That there be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence and telegrams exchanged between the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or their offices and any private citizen in Canada with respect to the Columbia river treaty since May 1, 1963.
I have risen on a few occasions, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that we were looking forward to the production of these papers. I mentioned it again today and the Prime Minister did not give a very satisfactory answer. I do hope these papers will be produced before this session ends, because they are interesting letters and there are a lot of people who are anxious to peruse them prior to the commencement of the new session. I do ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to open his heart in this respect. I am told privately that the person who is really holding them up is the secretary of the privy council, Mr. Gordon Robertson. I am told he is primarily responsible for advising the minister not to release them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is wholly inaccurate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear that, because I could not understand why that would be done. In any event, I do urge that these papers be produced before this session ends, which I trust will be by midnight today.
I rise particularly to bring to the minister's attention the concern of the governments of the prairie provinces, organizations in the prairie provinces and many individuals with regard to the protection of water resources that will be required for future development on the prairies. There is a great deal of concern in that respect. The western reclamation association had a meeting last year in Vernon, and against the protests of Hon. Ray Wil-liston unanimously passed a resolution supporting General McNaughton's scheme on the Columbia because they know that in that scheme there would be provision for their water requirements.
In contrast to the attitude, as we understand it, of the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, what do we find in the states to the south of British Columbia and Alberta? In that connection I want to quote briefly from an article in the Christian Science Monitor of December 7 last headed "Northwest Opposes Sharing of Water":

The Pacific northwest states of the Columbia basin-their future water supply more secure than that of any other region in the nation-will not gladly share that resource. Opposition has been general in Oregon, Washington and Idaho to a Los Angeles proposal that a 519 mile aqueduct be constructed to siphon off Pacific northwest water to the relief of parched southern California.
Consensus of official statements, newspaper editorials, and other expressions of opinion in the northwest has been:	Let people come to the
northwest if they want the northwest's prime resource-water.
What we say is, let people come to British Columbia if they want our power for industry. I mention that to indicate how concerned they are with preserving their water rights and not giving them away without certain requirements of the states in question being met. I urge that the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia look upon these water resources as resources that should be developed for the Canadian people first, and then let others have our surplus. We can treat these people with complete equity and fairness and protect our own interests at the same time.
On a number of occasions I have asked the minister questions in respect of article 13 of the Columbia river treaty. I have asked whether the consumptive requirements of the prairie provinces were protected under this article. On those occasions the minister has risen and given what I think it is fair to call very evasive answers. The minister must realize that the diversion of water from the Columbia into the prairie rivers must be accomplished by pumping; then there must be the production of electrical energy to recover the power lost in pumping, and then this water will flow through a number of plants on the rivers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The minister replied in effect that the rights of the prairie provinces were protected in so far as consumptive requirements were concerned.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, so far as
consumptive uses are concerned, which is quite different.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister never gave me a direct answer in respect of the multiple use requirements, which is a different question. I should like to ask the minister three questions. They are as follows: in the event that 10 or 20 years from now it was decided to divert water from the Columbia into the Saskatchewan for consumptive and non-consumptive uses, and that this water was to flow through a series of hydro plants between the Rockies and its point of use in Saskatchewan or Manitoba and the surplus was to flow on to Hudson bay, is there anything in the Columbia treaty in its present form that could prevent it?
Supply-External Affairs Has the government of Canada ascertained the views of the United States government on this matter, and are they the same as the views of the Canadian government?
If not, will the Canadian government ascertain the views of the United States government on this matter before the treaty is signed? I ask these questions because they are being asked by people in Saskatchewan and organizations that represent the persons interested in the consumptive use of water on the prairie provinces.
In conclusion I have one more question. In view of the written promise of the Prime Minister of Canada that a Liberal government would not make a decision with regard to the Columbia river treaty prior to the persons directly concerned being consulted, can the minister assure the house that this promise will be kept and no decision will be made until those persons interested have been consulted and their views heard?


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, after listening carefully to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who dealt with the question of diplomatic relations, I should like to say a few words on the occasion of the consideration of the estimates of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).
Since efforts have been made in these last few years, through the ecumenical council, to bring closer relations between representatives of the various religious denominations throughout the world, it seems advisable to mention here a request which was made on several occasions by Canadian organizations, in the province of Quebec as well as in the other provinces, to the effect that an ambassador should be appointed to facilitate relations with the Vatican and to interpret the various religious viewpoints in Canada.
In my opinion, it would be more than ever advisable, especially since it is endeavoured by all possible means to bring together the different religious faiths in the world in order to help solve the religious, political and economic problems throughout the world.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this question. Does the Canadian government intend to take this opportunity to appoint in the near future an ambassador to the Vatican?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: Mr. Chairman I promised the other day, after returning from the NATO meeting, in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, that on my estimates I would make a report on that meeting. The hon. member for Oxford has

Supply-External Affairs renewed the request of the Leader of the Opposition, which I am very happy to fulfil at this time.
The ministerial meetings of NATO, are in camera. It is not possible to give a detailed account of the matters discussed or of the decisions reached. However, to the extent that it is possible to give an indication of our discussions, I may say that this particular meeting took place at the end of a rather unusual year in international affairs.
At the beginning of that year we had what the Soviet union foreign minister has called the Caribbean affair or the situation in Cuba, and the actions taken by the United States with regard to the installation on the island of Cuba of Soviet offensive nuclear weapons in October, 1962. Since that time other matters of interest have taken place. We have the partial nuclear test ban treaty which was agreed by the foreign ministers of the United States, the Soviet union and the United Kingdom in August. This partial test ban treaty has since been supported by 107 nations or more. Then there was the agreement between the United States and the Soviet union with regard to the banning of weapons of mass destruction in outer space.
These are matters of great significance in relation to the general problems that face us at the present time. Perhaps in themselves they do not represent the full achievement which is desirable, but certainly as demonstrations of the detente that exists they must not be discounted.
Advantage was taken at this meeting and against this background, to discuss the general state of east-west relations. It was well that this should be done, because at this meeting there were a number of new representatives of governments. Since the previous ministerial meeting there had come into office some new heads of government, including a new prime minister in the United Kingdom, a new chancellor in West Germany, a new president in the United States and a new prime minister in Italy. In addition to these heads of government there were at the NATO table a number of new foreign ministers, including of course the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, Mr. Butler.
I took advantage of the meeting in Paris the other day to invite Mr. Butler, at some time convenient to him, to visit Canada. I hope this visit will take place in the relatively near future. I took advantage also of the presence of Mr. Saragat, a distinguished Italian statesman who has taken an active part in the politics of his country over a long period and who is now its foreign minister and vice premier, to ask him to come to Canada at his convenience.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).)
We agreed at the ministerial meeting to take advantage of every opportunity to extend the area of agreement with the Soviet union. We were not all agreed as to the nature of the period of tranquillity which exists and as to whether it is in fact a detente. I am impressed by the suggestion that there is a difference between a detente and a state of actual peace; and bearing in mind that refinement it must be obvious that there is today a detente between east and west. We must take advantage of this to further reduce the risks of conflict between the Soviet union and the western nations.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: When the minister refers to a detente between the Soviet countries and the western countries does he mean that in the strictly military sense or in the political sense, in the broader meaning of the word, and also in the economic sense?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I meant in the general relations which prevail between east and the west. Between the Soviet union on the one hand and the western world on the other, there is a disposition, we believe, to try to eliminate possibilities of conflict, particularly in this era of nuclear independence.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister means military conflict?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope my hon. friend will permit me to examine the nature of this situation as I see it. We are convinced that, for a number of reasons, the Soviet union is desirous of improving its relations with the western world, we in turn are anxious to make sure that there is proper reciprocity.
There are a number of reasons for the exisence of this detente. It is not necessary to traverse what I said when my estimates were introduced. We believe there are a number of contributing factors in this developing situation. I took occasion then to express the view that commercial, cultural and scientific contacts could be important in bringing about a further harmonization between east and west.
While the situation of detente exists, it is true that at the same time the major political problems that divide east and west remain unresolved. There is still a divided Germany. There is still a divided Berlin. There are the problems centered in Indo China, particularly in Viet Nam and in Laos, and the situation developing in Cambodia. There continue to be problems in the Middle East, and there are, of course, problems in the commonwealth country of Malaysia and the attitude toward that country adopted by Indonesia, notably by the president of Indonesia. So while on the one hand there

is this detente, the problems that divide east and west have yet to be resolved. There is therefore no justification for overstatement; nor is there any justification for failure to appreciate the extent to which progress is being made in relations between east and west.
The 18 nation disarmament committee, will be holding its session in Geneva on January 20. We at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization meeting gave consideration to some aspects of the problems that will arise at Geneva. There is a strong disposition to take advantage of the Geneva meeting to see if further agreement, even on a limited scale, might not be achieved on disarmament. I think it is wise to be realistic and to recognize the realities that may not make possible a wide area of agreement on disarmament at this time. I indicated that Canada would pursue its objectives, in concert with its NATO allies, trying to reach as wide a measure of agreement as possible on disarmament, taking advantage of the agreement that was reached in Moscow on the partial nuclear test ban treaty.
We will stress at the Geneva meeting, as I indicated at the Paris meeting, the importance we attach to the proposal for the establishment of control posts on each side of the iron curtain as a means of reducing the risks of surprise attack. This matter was given attention by ministers attending the NATO meeting, and between now and the disarmament meeting to be held in January, there will be further consideration of some practical aspects of the proposal for the establishment of control posts and inspection teams on both sides of the iron curtain.
I wish to say that there is no justification for the view, so widely stated in the newspapers, about the state of disunity in NATO. Each member of the organization took occasion at this last meeting to affirm his country's belief and confidence in the integrity and the purposes of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There were no exceptions to this reaffirmation of confidence in the purposes of the alliance.
There are differences, of course, as to method, but this is inevitable in any alliance that is predicated upon the membership of nation states that are free. But there can be no doubt that NATO represents a group of nations dedicated to the fundamental basis of the organization, which they recognize as an essential instrument for the preservation of peace, and for their defence in the light of the situation that prevails in the world at the present time.
I think I properly characterize this meeting by saying that the relative tranquillity that has existed in the world for the last 12
Supply-External Affairs months, gave the foreign ministers in attendance an opportunity to carefully evaluate their relations with the east, with the Soviet union. This involved a consideration of commercial policies. It involved a consideration of the use and the terms of credit that should be extended to communist countries in trade in non-strategic goods. It also involved an appreciation of the results of some of the activities of the United Nations that are of concern to NATO.
I should like to tell the committee that there should not be any reserve in the minds of hon. members about this country's support for NATO or about the wide measure of support for the alliance by all the member states which constitute that organization.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I will not take much of the committee's time. I am sure all hon. members of the committee were interested in hearing the resume given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the recent NATO meeting. I wanted to ask the minister just three brief questions. The first is with reference to the role of NATO in economic matters. The press reports certainly gave the impression that this was a lacklustre meeting of the NATO ministers, largely because, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself has said, we have reached a detente and the primary purpose on which NATO was predicated, is much less serious now than it has been for many years. This is the criticism that many of us raised at the time NATO was formed, that an organization that is built upon a negative, namely fear of military aggression and nothing else, is likely to lose its centripetal force when the threat of aggression diminishes.
This is why many of us argued so strongly at the time that article 2 of the treaty ought to be the important and the long range objective of NATO. I would predict that unless NATO is able to assume a more positive role, as the danger of military aggression relaxes NATO is very likely to disintegrate. I want to ask the minister whether the economic role which was envisaged for NATO is now going to be left entirely to O.E.C.D., or whether there were any discussions with a view to giving NATO some effective and positive economic role in world affairs.
The other question I want to ask the minister is with reference to the attitude of the NATO countries concerning the shipment of arms and military equipment to South Africa and to Portugal. I would like to have it clear as to Canada's position in this regard. What steps are we taking to make absolutely sure that no Canadian arms or military supplies are going to either South Africa or Portugal? Also, what member nations of NATO are

Supply-External Affairs taking definite steps to see that armaments are not going to Portugal and South Africa? Would the minister tell us which nations have refused to place such an embargo on this type of shipments? I would appreciate it if we could get some information from the minister on those points, Mr. Chairman.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked a number of questions. First of all I should like to deal with the questions asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West with regard to the Columbia. In this connection I note the question put to me today on the orders of the day by the hon. member for Kootenay East as to the progress of the discussions on the Columbia river project, the meeting yesterday with the United States negotiators.
I believe that the discussions held yesterday advanced this project more than at any time since we began this series of negotiations. As a result of the progress made and the agreement reached, we are now in a position to put into documentary form material for consideration by our respective governments. This will be followed by a meeting to be held in Washington about January 9. I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that at yesterday's meeting those of us who represented the Canadian position, the government of Canada and the province which is owner of the resource, maintained a joint position in our negotiations with the United States.
The Columbia river project is a very important one. It is one of the major projects that has been considered by any Canadian government. It is a matter of great importance not only to British Columbia but to Canada as a whole. It is a matter of great importance in the relations between the United States and Canada. I may assure the committee that in the negotiations the interests of this country are, of course, carefully observed.
My hon. friend asked me three questions. The three questions that he put to me today were contained in a letter dated December 16 which I received from the premier of Saskatchewan. I shall be replying to that letter in the course of the next few days.
On the first question, as to the situation 10 or 20 years from now with regard to the right of use of the waters of the Columbia for what my hon. friend called consumptive purposes, I can say-this is obviously a hypothetical question-that it will depend upon the situation at that time. But in the context of the question in the language used by the premier of Saskatchewan, the decision would have to rest in this instance with the

government of British Columbia. This is obviously a matter on which only the owner of the resource could make a decision.
As to the question of diversion from the Columbia for purposes of irrigation, there is no doubt about the position under the treaty. My hon. friend said that when he asked this question some time ago, I was evasive. I do not think I was evasive in regard to this question. I was not able to give my hon. friend answers to all his questions, because most of them obviously had to do with matters that were then under negotiation. But on the question of interpretation of the treaty there has been no evasion. Article 13 (1) is clear. No loss of right to divert waters for irrigation purposes is contained in the treaty, because the expression "consumptive use" provides for irrigation. This right would be open to Canada in the future, if it were thought that this resource, the Columbia, was desired for irrigation purposes by any particular province in western Canada.
In confirmation of what I have just said there is the testimony of General John Itsch-ner of the United States army corps of engineers before a committee of congress; it said in substance what I have just indicated, namely that neither country will be denied the right of diversion from the Columbia of water for irrigation purposes, which under the treaty are defined as consumptive use.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked me about the economic aspects of NATO. Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization provides for collaboration among the members of NATO along lines which would promote their mutual economic interests. As he knows, Canada was among those nations which have taken a strong position in urging action toward the implementation of article 2. However, the situation within recent years and more particularly since the establishment of the organization for economic co-operation and development, has considerably advanced.
It is not correct to say that within NATO itself there has been complete implementation of article 2, but some of the ancillary and auxiliary actions taken by members of NATO in the organization for economic co-operation and development go a long way to cover what has not been done under article 2. O.E.C.D. is an organization made up not only of members of NATO. It is made up not only of members of the European economic community and E.F.T.A., but includes two European nations which are not in either of these European eonomic groupings and, in addition, Japan, the United States and Canada. I attended the O.E.C.D. meeting, as my hon. friend knows, about a month ago, and from what I saw at that meeting and from

what I have been able to learn since taking on this particular ministerial responsibility I think that O.E.C.D. will very largely meet our demands tor the kind of co-operation among NATO member states which has not been fully satisfied under article 2 of NATO.
In addition to O.E.C.D. there is the Kennedy round, the proposal for a 50 per cent linear tariff cut, an initiative which we have welcomed and which we regard as very important for international economic relations, both for the developing countries and for the developed nations.
In addition to this there are the GATT discussions, and the United Nations trade and development conference, which will be held in the spring and will be presided over by a very distinguished Latin American Dr. Pre-hisch, the former governor of the bank in the Argentine. This conference will not only provide the opportunity to consider the economic interests of countries in the O.E.C.D., but as well the relations between members of that group and the developing nations of the world. This will have a very important bearing on the whole question of external aid; because while we all support the principle of external aid on a bilateral basis, I think most of us recognize that to do something fundamental to help the developing countries will require some effort to touch their productive systems and to touch their whole economies. There is no avenue by which this can more effectively be accomplished than by the future trading patterns which are established between these countries and the developed countries of the world.
In answer to the second question of the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam, may I say that Canada has acted on the decision of the security council with regard to the embargo on arms. The Canadian government, in answer to the note of the secretary general on August 19 pursuant to a decision of the United Nations security council, replied on October 21 in these words:
It has for several years been the policy of the Canadian government not to permit the shipment of arms to South Africa which might be used for the enforcement of a policy of apartheid. Following the security council resolution the Canadian government has decided that it will not authorize the acceptance of any new orders from South Africa for items of military equipment, or permit the shipment of such equipment to South Africa.
A similar statement was made with regard to Portugal, the exception in the case of Portugal being confined to arms for use by Portugal in her capacity as a member of NATO. With regard to the use of arms to further her colonial policies there is a prohibition. The Canadian government informed the secretary general on October 18 that no
Supply-External Affairs military assistance has been given by Canada to Portugal since November, 1960; and with regard to sales on a commercial basis, it had been the policy of the Canadian government since 1960 not to permit the export to Portugal or to the territories under Portuguese administration of any arms or equipment which in the opinion of the Canadian authorities would be used for military purposes in Portuguese overseas territories. The Canadian government intends to continue this policy. I made a similar statement along these lines in this house on October 21.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister leaves that point may I ask him this question. How is it possible to make sure that arms shipped to Portugal under NATO commitments are not transferred and used for colonial repression?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It is a matter for each nation on its own responsibility. We have declared what we are doing. We can only assume that formal declarations of policy by other countries are being observed by those countries. It is the responsibility, I suppose, of the collective organizations concerned to see whether or not there is compliance by the various countries which have made replies to the requests of the secretary general.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not know whether the minister has my point.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: With regard to the number of countries, I cannot tell my friend which countries of NATO have placed an embargo on arms for South Africa; I have not that information before me at the moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think the minister has the point I was putting to him a moment ago. I understood him to say that Canada had placed an embargo on the delivery of arms to Portugal or to any of her overseas territories which might be used for repressive measures, but that we still permit the shipment of arms to Portugal if they come within the category considered to be necessary for the fulfillment of that country's NATO commitments. I wonder how the government satisfies itself that arms going to Portugal to meet NATO commitments are not used for colonial repressive purposes. What criteria are used?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: We rely on our NATO partner, Portugal. They know the nature of the embargo. We have no reason to assert that they have not conformed to the requirements of Canadian government policy. If the situation were otherwise we would not hesitate to discuss the matter with the government of Portugal.

Supply-External Affairs


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister assure the house that obsolete or out of date weapons which are replaced by new weapons from Canada are not taken out of Portugal and used for colonial repression?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I would prefer to answer that question by directing myself to what I should think would be a better form of question, I know of no reason for concluding that Portugal is acting contrary to the policy of the Canadian government in this matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I take it that the minister cannot assure the house that obsolete weapons replaced by new weapons supplied by Canada are not being shipped to Portuguese possessions overseas for colonial repression.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The hon. member looks at me with a delightful air of infallibility. I can only assure the committee that I know of no justification for the conclusion that Canadian government policy is not being observed by Portugal. This, surely is an answer which ought to satisfy the hon. member.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister has been giving the committee his opinions about international affairs. He has talked about states of peace and detentes. I ask him again, referring to his use of the word "detente", whether he means to say that the Soviet union has placed an embargo on economic, ideological and revolutionary penetration in Latin America and other parts of the world.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I thank the hon. member for repeating his question. It is true I did not fully understand its implications when it was first put. When I introduced my estimates I dealt with this matter. I said then that while I believe there is an improvement in east-west relations, this does not mean that the Soviet union has abandoned its ideological objectives either at home or abroad. There is serious difference between the Soviet union and the Chinese people's republic. However, this in turn should not lead Canada or any other western country to an unwarranted position as a result of the differences between these two giants of the communist world.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I have one specific matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. As he knows, the United Nations has been placing special emphasis on aid to underdeveloped countries; in fact I believe it was the late President Kennedy who in one of his early speeches to the United Nations assembly referred to the importance of dealing with this matter as quickly as possible. I believe that as a result a special
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).!
designation was given to the programs he espoused, namely the United Nations development decade.
Canada has responded in this area during recent years, particularly under the leadership of the former minister for external affairs, Hon. Howard Green, who was a distinguished member of this house for so many years, and there have been some improvements in this regard. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee enumerating the schemes which were launched during the time of Hon. Howard Green. However, I cannot refrain from doing so. In 1960 the external aid office was established, and about the same time the basic aid to Colombo plan countries was increased from $34 million to $50 million. Unfortunately there was a temporary cutback in this figure following the exchange prices of a year ago. I am pleased to see that the amount of money involved in this cut has now been restored.
Then there was participation in the special fund of 1959, and there was also the program of aid to the West Indies started in 1958, which over a period of some five years has resulted in a contribution of some $10 million to those countries. Then there was the commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan which was commenced in 1960, which amounts to $1 million a year and results in an average of 200 scholarships being made available each year. Then there was the other program which was launched in 1961, designed to assist the newly independent French speaking countries of Africa. It was an education assistance program and involved an annual expenditure of about $300,000 a year directed to 15 newly independent countries of Africa. Then in 1960, in the wake of the challenge presented by the late President Kennedy, Canada agreed to offer assistance known as the special commonwealth aid program to countries like Tanganyika, Ghana, the Congo, and so on. This amounted to a contribution of $10.5 million over a three year period. Then there was the launching of the export finance program in January, 1961, which I believe represented a step forward in this field. So, generally speaking, Canada has endeavoured to carry its load in this area of assistance.
There is, however, one item that I should like to bring to the minister's attention at this time, and it concerns the emergency assistance program which was made available to Hong Kong in 1962 and which amounted to about $485,000, consisting largely of a contribution of skim milk and canned meat products which were in surplus in Canada at that time. The minister knows that I have been pursuing this subject in the house since July 24 of this year. I have asked a series of questions and

the minister has constantly delayed giving specific replies. In the early stages of my questioning he seemed to suggest that he agreed there was a continuing state of emergency. We know the importance of Hong Kong as a bastion of the free world. The most recent statement the hon. gentleman made in this regard was to the effect that he would give me a complete and definitive report during the consideration of his estimates. I wonder if he is prepared now to do that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is *quite correct. The fact is that there is no program of assistance to this area at the present time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My question is, will consideration be given to such a program? I am sure the minister is aware that Hong Kong suffered a disastrous drought last year which *compounded the problems in that part of the world. It was my privilege to visit Hong Kong last May; and even though this country, being on the fringe of the Orient, is somewhat better off than other countries, it was quite obvious that there was a desperate need for assistance of this kind.
I was impressed too by the high regard in which Canada is held there, largely because of this important emergency food program and also because of the visit of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle to that country some two years ago, when he established very important personal relationships with the people there on the occasion of the first sale of wheat to communist China. I am sure that the friendly and cordial relations which were largely established by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle during his visit have made it possible to continue this important wheat market for western Canadian farmers.
I am sure the minister is aware that there is a real emergency there, and in this decade when we are reaching out in every possible and conceivable way to deal with these problems of extreme urgency I am sure he will agree that the problems of the have-not countries, representing 80 per cent of the world, where people are ill clothed and ill fed, is one with regard to which Canada should assist in every way possible. With our surplus skim milk and our surplus canned goods products, it seems to me this is an area where Canada could quite easily provide continuing assistance.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Chairman, I have one question for the minister, and if I put it now it may facilitate the individual votes in his department going through very quickly. Some years ago, primarily as a result of the activities of the Canadian NATO parliamentary group, I believe, an action committee was
Supply-External Affairs formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Van-Zeeland of Belgium to establish an Atlantic institute. That committee operated and eventually did establish the Atlantic institute which I believe now has offices in Paris. One of the distinguished members of the original action committee was the present Prime Minister of Canada. I am wondering what the attitude of the Canadian government is now toward the institute. Do they recognize it? There is no evidence in the estimates of any government support for the institute. What is the attitude toward this body now?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, the government continues to have an interest in the Atlantic co-ordinating committee and makes a grant toward its operations. The grant is in the amount of $2,500. I have had suggestions recently from interested parties in this organization for an increase in the grant, particularly in view of the fact that the institute will be holding meetings in Canada some time in the month of September, 1964, I believe. Consideration is being given to this request.
We recognize that the Atlantic institute, itself and the co-ordinating committee, perform a useful assignment in educating and informing the public about NATO, in research into the various purposes and activities of NATO, and generally in promoting the solidarity of the people of the north Atlantic area. I assure my hon. friend that this matter is one which engages our interest and will continue to do so.
While I am on my feet perhaps I might supplement my answer to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. We have not given any military assistance to Portugal since 1960. Assurances were requested from Portugal that it would not send Canadian NATO mutual aid arms or equipment to its overseas territories. From conversations I had in Paris the other day with the Portuguese foreign minister I have every reason to think that this is in fact being observed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have three questions. They are not related to each other, but it will save time if I put them all to the minister now and he can answer all three at once when he gets to his feet. First, what comment has he to make on the reports that the French embassy in Ottawa interfered in some way with the decision that Trans-Canada Air Lines recently had to make? Second, what comment has he to make on the letter which he wrote to the Canadian Jewish Congress in reply to the appeal made to him by that body? I am referring, of course, to the exchange of letters to which I referred before we broke for lunch. My third question relates to something in the future. It has

Supply-External Affairs been indicated to us that the Prime Minister will be making a visit to Washington some time in January. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us if this has been made firm, and whether the agenda of that metting is something that can be given to us at this time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the French embassy, I made a statement in the house the day before yesterday. I intimated that when I was in Paris on Monday and Tuesday of this week I called the Sud-Aviation Company of France and had what I would call satisfactory telephone conversation with regard to a situation which has reached proportions which should not affect good relations between France and Canada. I do not feel I can usefully add to what I said in the house the other day. I think my hon. friend will understand why I believe the question should be left at this point.
With regard to the matter of the Jewish congress letter, I share with my hon. friend, as every member of the house does, a dislike for any form of discrimination practised by any country toward minority groups. We have expressed our condemnation of apartheid in South Africa. The Prime Minister and I as Secretary of State for External Affairs, have in the United Nations, in this house and elsewhere expressed our concern about discrimination which is practised in many areas. Indeed, when I spoke on the question of apartheid in the United Nations I pointed out that it was against Canada's policy to expel any member from the United Nations because of such policies. One of the reasons I gave was that if we were to adopt this practice, we would have to direct our criticisms and take similar action against certain other member states in the United Nations.
The fact that anti-Semitism exists in the Soviet union today is condemned by us with as much vigour as by the hon. member, and I am sure he will agree. This question was dealt with not only in the correspondence between myself and Mr. Michael Garber, president of the Jewish congress; it was also dealt with on November 20 of this year when the Prime Minister made the following statement, as reported in Hansard at page 4957:
I find it particularly unfortunate that any government should find it necessary to resort to those penalties for economic crimes which were abandoned in many countries of the world at least a century ago. Although the penalties have been levied against persons of various nationalities and faiths within the U.S.S.R., the disproportionate number of Jews given severe sentences may reflect the historical tradition of anti-Semitism which has prevailed among the population, even though there is no evidence to suggest a state program encouraging anti-Semitic tendencies.

Then on page 4958 the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
-there is in the Soviet union a deep-seated suspicion of cosmopolitanism, that is a mistrust of elements in the population and particularly of minority and religious elements which the Soviet authorities fear might have international connections and loyalties which could conflict with their allegiance to the U.S.S.R. Because of this consideration, Mr. Speaker, the present government, as did the previous administration, wishes to avoid any official action which, by emphasizing the Soviet suspicion of the international affiliation of the Jews, might provoke further restrictions against the Jewish community in the U.S.S.R.
I appreciate the attitude my hon. friend took this morning. It is an understandable attitude. I, as foreign minister of Canada, in the light of the information at my disposal, in the light of all the circumstances, believe that the exercise of judgment in this matter which we have made is in the interests of the three million Jews in the Soviet union. However, I have noted what my hon. friend said today. The matter will be reviewed again. I may assure him that the course we have taken in this matter was not taken lightly, but was taken in the interests of the Jews in the Soviet union. Nothing would be gained by resorting to spectacular acts of condemnation or criticism which might have consequences perhaps affecting the welfare of the Jewish people who live within the precincts of the Soviet union.
My hon. friend asked me finally about the visit of the Prime Minister to Washington. It is now settled that the Prime Minister will visit President Johnson on January 22, following his visit to General de Gaulle on January 15, 16 and 17. When the Prime Minister was in Washington attending the funeral of the late President Kennedy he had a talk with the President of the United States. As I mentioned the other day in the house, our Prime Minister was the second head of government to be asked to meet with the new president on that memorable day following the tragic death of President Kennedy. I was present at the conversation, so I can attest to the importance which the new President attaches to the relationship of his country to Canada. It was clearly evident to me that the new President is anxious to establish with the present Prime Minister of Canada the closest relations such as those that existed between the Prime Minister and the late President Kennedy.
When the Prime Minister returned from Washington he wrote a personal note to the President of the United States, thanking him for the generous time given by the President on that busy day, almost the first day on which he assumed the great responsibilities that are now his. Since this note was written in the Prime Minister's own hand I do not

have a copy. It was a friendly note, thanking the President for the opportunity to meet him so early and extending to him on behalf of the government and the people of Canada assurances of friendly co-operation in meeting his heavy responsibilities.
I should think it would be desirable, and with the approval of the White House, I now place on the record the reply of the President of the United States. It is dated December 13, 1963 and reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have been heartened by your letter of December 3. It has been a very great encouragement in these last hard weeks to have the sympathy and support of such a neighbour and leader as yourself. Even at the end of that longest of days, it was a help to have a chance to talk with you, and I now look forward with pleasure to the prospect of our meeting in the new year.
Relations between our two countries are so intimate, numerous and varied that for each of us the relationship is really unique. I fully agree with what you were the first to say-that the intimacy of our connection in no sense permits us to take our relations for granted. I have been close to a number of the specific questions which have been pursued with new understanding and energy on both sides since the meeting at Hyannis Port, and I can assure you again of my determination to keep our relations moving in the spirit which President Kennedy and you established then.
Both in this purpose and in wider problems of our common concern for peace, it is already a help to me to know that you and I can talk to each other frankly and work easily together. It is true that the burdens of this office are heavy, and its responsibilities not limited to the boundaries of this nation-and that makes it all the more important that the man who works here should have the help of friends like yourself.
This brings my warm thanks and the very best wishes of Mrs. Johnson and myself to Mrs. Pearson and you for Christmas and the new year.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the committee will recognize the importance of the visit of the Prime Minister not only to France but to the United States on January 22. I had a discussion last Sunday with Mr. Rusk about this visit. It will be a working visit. The subjects under discussion will cover a wide area. It is of course not possible at this stage to talk about those. I thank my hon. friend for asking this question and giving me an opportunity to make this statement.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, as the minister seems ready to answer in great detail the questions which are being asked, I am going to remind him briefly of the one I asked a little while ago. Does the minister intend to appoint soon an ambassador to the Vatican?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows very well that when an announcement has to be made by the government, the occasion and the time for that announcement are its own choice.
Supply-External Affairs


Edward Nasserden: Could the minister tell us if any effort is being made at the United Nations to resolve the problems faced by Palestinian refugees in the Near East?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend has referred to efforts at the United Nations, and I assume he also means efforts elsewhere, on the part of Canada to try and help resolve the differences between certain countries in the Middle East. With regard to the United Nations, may I, first, say that I am very grateful to my parliamentary secretary, to the members of the Canadian delegation and to the observers from the House of Commons who attended the last general assembly, for the distinguished and valuable services they rendered to Canada at the general assembly.
We continue to harbour a sincere interest in trying to bring together the representatives of the United Arab Republic and Israel. This has been the object of Canadian policy for a long time. I can only say to my hon. friend that our efforts in this connection are continuing.


Edward Nasserden: Could the minister tell us whether any progress is being made toward a permanent solution of this problem?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I do not think I can add to what I have said.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In his earlier remarks the minister made reference in summary form to a few of the situations in southeast Asia. I did not hear him make any reference to Malaysia and the situation which has arisen between that country and Indonesia, with the so-called confrontation by President Sukarno. What assurances of assistance or help has Canada given to Malaysia as a fellow member of the commonwealth?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am sure the committee generally would agree with me when I express the hope that there will be no deterioration in the situation which confronts the new Federation of Malaysia. It would be tragic if any initiative taken by any country in southeast Asia were to interfere with the development of the new federation. Malaysia, of course, is a member of the commonwealth. At the United Nations, commonwealth members had occasion to discuss Malaysia's problems and its present concerns vis-a-vis some of its neighbours. This matter is one that engages the interests of the commonwealth as a whole, particularly those of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand; the problem is being carefully watched by members of the commonwealth, including Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Legislation
44a. Contribution to the Atlantic institute, $4,000.
Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I would like to ask the minister whether this vote is in addition to the $2,500 grant he referred to in reply to my earlier question. This is a vote for $4,000 for the Atlantic institute. Is this an additional grant?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Consideration is being given to an addition. The money was provided in the supplementary estimates of 1963-64 in the amount that my hon. friend mentions, and consideration is being given to a request for further assistance, but no decision has been taken.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
SO. Salaries and expenses, $652,600.
Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister was not able to be present in the committee on external affairs when we put the report together, but I am sure he has read it and found it a useful and interesting document. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that two main recommendations made by the committee related to external aid, and that increased money be found to recruit personnel for this important work. I would like to enlist the minister's support for these recommendations.


Mr. Macdonald:: In connection with the external aid office, I would like to congratulate the minister for his interest in and support of the Canadian university service overseas, and to enjoin upon him that he continue his earnest efforts to soften the hearts of treasury board and get a grant for this very worth-while organization.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: That completes the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, if there is anyone who should extend Christmas greetings and wishes for a period of peace it is the foreign minister of the country, and this I do with many thanks to members of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
1. Allowance In lieu of residence, $3,000.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to go into this quite extensively, but I do not think the house is disposed that way so I will forgo my intention. However, we have done this a number of times. Legislation is always the last item, and I would like to say a few words on it because it is a very important field and we have not considered it extensively for some time. As I said the other night, when the Secretary of State felt I was only holding this up for one of my

colleagues, that is not true. There is a decision to be reached in the matter of legislation. The Speaker of the house has this matter under consideration, and the report would indicate that there is an investigation contemplated that would allow the civil service commission to investigate it. The committee had this to say:
Mr. Speaker has requested the organization division of the civil service commission to undertake a complete survey of the Speaker's establishment. This survey, which has been approved by the commissioners of internal economy, is now in progress-
It is rather a study of the structural organization of the House of Commons staff to be followed by an examination of the work methods and procedures.
As I pointed out, we are running an establishment here equivalent to that run by a municipal government with a population of
5,000	to 10,000 people in the municipality. With the 1,000 or more employees we have in the house in various departments, it is an obvious fact that the Speaker and the internal economy commission cannot be expected to act as employer, supervisor and look after the other business that the Speaker obviously has to look after. It seems to me that we are operating under a very archaic system where we have the government itself, in the form of the internal economy commission-


An hon. Member:: Infernal economy commission.


William Arnold Peters: You can call it infernal, if you wish, because I am quite sure that some of the members of that commission have so much to do that they certainly have not much time to participate in this particular field. One of the problems that arises is the fact that many members of parliament have not really considered the establishment of the House of Commons and parliament hill at all. I have a summary of some of the legislation that affects the parliament buildings. I should like to table it, because I do not wish to take up the time of the committee by reading it. It was prepared by the law branch and refers to the title of the establishment of the House of Commons. I would like to table this document, Mr. Chairman, for insertion in Hansard, if there is no objection.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Platt Lambert: By whom was this prepared, and under whose authority?


William Arnold Peters: I said it was prepared by the law branch of the House of Commons. It may have been a former Speaker's authority. Well, I could read it, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: He isn't the Speaker any more.


William Arnold Peters: Is there any objection to that course being followed, Mr. Chairman?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Arnold Peters: It is a history of how the property, particularly of how the House of Commons itself, has developed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Before the hon. member proceeds, perhaps the Chair could look at the document that is submitted. Is this to be inserted as part of the hon. member's speech, or attached as an appendix to Hansard?


William Arnold Peters: As an appendix, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be perhaps less of a precedent if we had it printed as an appendix to Hansard rather than actually in the text, because putting it in the text creates a rather difficult problem.


Lucien Lamoureux: That is the impression of the Chair. Is it agreed that the document which has just been submitted to the Chair shall be printed in today's Hansard as an appendix?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For documents referred to above, see appendix.]


William Arnold Peters: Hon. members will have an opportunity to see this and assess what the intention of parliament with regard to the establishment may be in the future. This affects, of course, some of the things I shall mention. I would be willing, if it were thought desirable, to table it as part of my remarks concerning parking facilities and other facilities in connection with the house. This document also deals with the R.C.M.P. services on the hill and some of the duties of the protective staff. The protective staff of the house has grown rapidly since its inception. It is a highly trained and, I think, a very satisfactory staff. It is now handling an immense number of tourists each year as well as the other duties that are allocated to that branch. They have now had added to their number a staff which is servicing the west block, and I suggest they should also have added a staff to handle the east block of the parliament buildings. This staff should be given a higher status than it now has. These officers are not allowed to make arrests. They are not given any authority and do not, of course, have to assume certain responsibilities that a normal police force is asked to assume. These officers should have a status equal to that of our federal police force, because they
Supply-Legislation
are a federal protective staff and should therefore have some of the protections that normal police forces enjoy.
I would suggest that a municipality having 72 constables and officers is a fairly large municipality and this requires the force to be given the same protection as a regular police force. There should be a system whereby grievances can be dealt with and which will deal with the relationships between the force and the body it serves. There have recently been difficulties in the force. These come to the attention of members of parliament, and it seems to me this is not a satisfactory manner in which to handle this problem. I will not go into the details of some of the things that have happened; but it seems to me this is not a good way of operating this force. I am only using it as one of the examples, because there are 15 or 20 departments of a similar nature. I suggest that it may be necessary to bring them under the civil service, as is the case with the other branches, or it may be necessary to organize them into a union and allow them to operate within a union structure.
If it is decided that this problem can be settled in this manner, I personally will be quite happy to act as their agent on a temporary basis until they are organized. I would ask one of the unions of this country for the right to act as their agent, and organize them. I would be happy to do that early in the next session. This of course would create certain problems which I think should be discussed before this is done, because I can see some difficulty in my position, dealing with agents of the crown and applying to the federal labour board for certification. However, I think the problems involved are sufficiently great that if we cannot arrive at a more satisfactory solution I will attempt to do this early in the next session.
There are many other problems. One problem affects the Secretary of State and I think he has perhaps not paid too much attention to it. I refer to that hard working group of people in the house today, the 10 or 11 members of the translation bureau. This bureau comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. As I understand it, it is part of a larger bureau of translation, but most of them are employed here. I think it is true-and the Secretary of State certainly agrees with this, because he has said many times that it is very difficult to increase this particular staff-that they number-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether the hon. gentleman would allow me to interrupt him for one second to give him a piece of what I regard as rather good news. I was not able to go to treasury board this

Supply-Legislation
week, but I have just been told that treasury board has approved an increase in pay for the translators, in the hope of making recruiting a bit easier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: How much will they receive under the new scale of salaries?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not carry the figures in my head; I am not quite that bright.


Gilles Grégoire: I see that in this morning's edition of Le Devoir the Quebec civil service is asking for translators and offering salaries starting at $8,400. I should like to know whether this is the same initial salary for translators employed by the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will answer that question when the estimates for the civil service commission come up a little later in the afternoon.


William Arnold Peters: We thank the Secretary of State for this information. I hope this goes through because I am suggesting that the translators connected with the House of Commons be transferred to the Speaker's department on the hill. I suggest that this is a very good reason for doing this. These translators are highly skilled and have a very difficult job to do. They operate in an international sphere and can transfer from here to many international agencies, including the United Nations. There are approved methods of operation and rates of pay. It is interesting to note that their approved rate of pay in international work is $75 a day-$50 if they work for government. They are supposed to translate for 15 minutes and have a break period; and the hours they translate per day are regulated for. The rates here, until the Secretary of State made his statement, ranged between $7,500 and $8,000 a year.
The problem is this. These ten or eleven people-I will leave out of my consideration the other matters referred to of which I understand Mr. Speaker is well aware-are handling the business of this house. I think it is about this number who handle the translation both in the House of Commons and the Senate. I understand that three out of the ten are usually employed in the Senate. In addition to this there are 12 House of Commons committees and 30 outside commitments. When an agency asks for the services of these translators, even though the House of Commons may be in session they are supplied. I would point out that for the federal-provincial conference on September 9 and 10 five of them were employed on duties outside the House of Commons. Between August 22 and 29 the internal statistical institute employed all ten

of them. If you check the figures, Mr. Chairman, you will find that this has been a problem which has recently resulted in a translator having to go into a committee and translate for four hours, on occasion, without a break. It is bad enough sitting in some of these committees for four hours without having to perform the mental gymnastics of translating from one language to another simultaneously. We have got to the stage where we are not using trained people as technicians. Messengers are operating electrical controls. Caucus rooms are being used for committees without microphones being installed in the right place. The situation is most unsatisfactory. One of these messengers could electrocute himself by using equipment he does not understand. I think we have a responsibility to train them, or to do something with these people before some serious accident occurs through no fault of theirs.
I have used these two examples, but I could go right through the staff. I have been here for some time now and have met many people here. I have talked to quite a number and I think I am safe in saying that I have met some four or five hundred out of the
1,000	employed. I think that whoever does the job which has to be done would have to know all thousand of them, which would be a fuH-time occupation.
I suggest, and I suggest this in all sincerity, that we set up a committee of an interparliamentary nature to assist the internal economy commission. The hon. member for Skeena has a bill to change the structure of the internal economy commission but this has never received much support. I give the government credit on each of the occasions when something has been done. It usually involves money, and therefore there is a government responsibility at stake. But I do not think we should expect to limit that responsibility or to remove it because we are on the legislative side of parliament. I think representatives of the various parties could represent much better the problems existing on parliament hill than is the case today.
There is trouble, Mr. Chairman, in every branch of the House of Commons. We have on standing orders, for instance, a rule which states there should be bilingual law clerks. This has not been the case for some time and this has caused considerable difficulty. The reason that that regulation is on standing orders is because we in this country operate under two completely separate types of legal history, and those trained in the Napoleonic code are not necessarily capable of handling the common law practices enjoyed by many of our provinces. So that we have two distinct types of civil law in this country, as parliament long ago decided on

the matter. We have discussed this question previously, but unfortunately it was in the dying days of the last session, and it was decided that there was insufficient time to settle the matter and it should be discussed in some other way. But the problem is still with us. I suggest it is no one's fault except ours, and I think it is time we did something about it because we have gone beyond our rules in this connection.
There are many other spheres in which we need technical assistance in parliament today. We also need-and I think this is something we ought to look at very shortly-television of our proceedings in the House of Commons. It seems to me rather foolish to have television equipment kept outside in the hall with signs saying "Watch for cables". We spoil the appearance of the parliament buildings with the facilities which are provided. I think it would be wonderful to see television cameras all the time in our public galleries. I should like to see much of the work of parliament televised for the nation. But I think on occasions when parliament does need some coverage we should have proper facilities installed in this building so as to eliminate the temporary facilities provided under the present arrangements.
We have also asked for studios where interviews can be conducted. We also require facilities for radio broadcasting from the House of Commons. We have already mentioned the United Nations and their satisfactory set-up. Those who have attended the United Nations are well aware of it and I imagine are appreciative of it. We also know there should be some research in this regard, and while I am scared of too much research I think the research which would be available to members of parliament in a political sense would assist a member in the performance of his duties and would be of great value. I do not mean that this research should be available to cabinet ministers only. Every time we discuss estimates we see three or four highly trained and certainly highly qualified gentlemen advising the ministers, yet none of this advice is available by way of research to individual members.
Another problem is the translation of letters received from constituents. There is no service provided for this. Unfortunately I am not fluent in either one of the official languages; in one I am at a complete loss. It seems to me that, rather than making arrangements with messengers and other officials in the House of Commons, whom we have to trap in a corner and ask to translate a letter for us, when they are already busy on other duties, there should be a branch capable of doing translation of correspondence for the members.
Supply-Legislation
The fact is that we come to this house early in the morning and leave it late at night. We are living here, so to speak, and outside this building we have only our sleeping quarters. This causes all types of problems. One of them arose recently in relation to refreshments. I received some credit for the discontinuance of this particular service, but I want to make it clear that I shared this with the Auditor General. I am not alone responsible; I am willing to take only my share of the responsibility. If these matters were discussed, we could arrive at a reasonable arrangement. The arrangement of hiding things for years in odd corners has proved unsatisfactory. I compliment the Sergeant-at-Arms and others who have taken some initiative on their own. I am sorry I may have had some interference in this initiative.
I think the initiative itself was commendable and that the results they are trying to achieve are commendable. However, there has to be support, and a decision reached which is acceptable to everyone in regard to these matters. I believe this could be achieved.
We have been very hard on our Speakers in the last few years. I imagine that in no period of five or six years within the history of parliament have there been more calls on Speakers to make decisions and prepare judgments on particular matters, including subjects which are not normally considered to be part of a Speaker's responsibilities. I believe that for this reason the leader of the house should give us an assurance that a committee will be set up composed of representatives from each of the parties to sit down and discuss some of these problems. I think the time is ripe when this should happen and I may say I intend to write to a number of the international unions involved in regard to these people in the House of Commons. I may be able to secure credentials from many of them and if the problem is not solved in any other way we shall organize the staffs in the House of Commons. It will be a ridiculous situation if a member of parliament stands up and says to the house: Mr. Speaker, you have only until tomorrow night to settle this problem, otherwise there will be a sit-down in these different departments. Maybe this will not happen, but I am personally willing to try it.
I have been interested in this question for some time. In the dying days of parliament we are always making pious statements on this subject but nothing comes of them. I think the only way to bring it to a head is for somebody to do something drastic about it, and I am prepared, if necessary, to be the one who will do something of that nature.


An hon. Member:: Resign.

Supply-Legislation


William Arnold Peters: If the other business becomes lucrative enough, I may be able to do just that. Without being facetious about this question, it seems to me that the Secretary of State has certainly shown a remarkable capacity for playing chess with the House of Commons. This is a facility which does not come to most people.


An hon. Member:: We are all pawns.


William Arnold Peters: No, I was not thinking in that sense. I used the expression I did in the sense that the hon. gentleman has been able to make arrangements, to trade and to do the other things necessary to accomplish his purpose. The same procedure could be followed with regard to the matters now before us, and then these problems would cease to exist. I believe that when a problem arises affecting the operations of this house, a problem for which we are, in total, responsible, we should be able to face it and arrive at a solution in a very short space of time.
There is only one other matter I should like to mention and it concerns the training of our staffs. We are seriously in need of assistance. I believe the suggestion made by the Speaker that the head officers at the table be sent to other countries to examine the situation in those countries is an admirable one. It could be a calamity every time we lost an officer of the house, because we have no training, anywhere in the country, which produces men able to fill these positions. This is true with regard to other branches for which a high degree of training is necessary and in preparation for which no satisfactory apprenticeship is possible in another related field. This has been illustrated in the last few weeks by the regrettable illness of one of the officers of the house who sits at the table. I suggest we should complete the complement of our staff and provide a certain amount of stand-by training for others, so that when a vacancy occurs we might be able to fill it with the most competent people available. We must remember that a great deal of the responsibility for the decorum of the house rests with these officers.
If the house would consider these matters and agree to some changes on the lines I have indicated I believe the work of parliament could be carried out more expeditiously and that some of the problems to which I have drawn attention would not occur. If we really think of it, is it not true that the bringing in of staff on a political basis, because a political government was in office, lowers the morale of the department concerned in each case where this happens, because they know that no matter what their competence may be, political considerations, the friends they have, are more important. This is a situation

we do not wish to encourage. It is one we are not going to encourage and I am sure the Speaker will give full consideration to seeing that this problem is solved so that efficiency can remain at a high level.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to bring two matters to the attention of the committee. The first has to do with the report of the standing committee on debates which was filed yesterday morning, pointing out difficulties in connection with the Hansard staff. There are, in essence, two difficulties, one relating to a shortage of reporters and the other to the question of salaries. I would ask that the commissioners of internal economy take action upon these recommendations in the committee's report as quickly as possible.
The second item relates to parking. This is a general question, not a particular one. There is a considerable amount of irritation caused among members of the staff regarding persons who are not connected in any way with parliament but who have parking permits in and around the west block. These people are observed parking their cars and then going to departments downtown somewhere.
I have intended at different times to ask for a return of the individuals who do not have employment on parliament hill but who, nevertheless, have traditional parking permits here. I think this is a situation which can produce a good deal of irritation, particularly at a time when we are short of parking space. It may turn out that there is no one in this category, but I have made inquiries from time to time over the last five or six years and I am convinced there are people in no way connected with parliament who are in possession of parking permits. I should like very much to see this situation resolved, because it causes irritation among staff members, particularly those who live some miles from parliament hill and who have to drive to get here and then seek parking away down behind the Confederation building, though there might be other accommodation available. I should like to see something done about those people who must drive to their work, as opposed to those who do not need to. Those are the two items I should like to mention at this time. The hon. member for Timiskaming has said that there are difficulties in parliament and I am sure there are. But I want to pay a tribute particularly to the protective staff who give courteous consideration throughout the year to the members and to visitors, particularly in the very difficult summer months. I should also like to pay tribute to the excellent work of the supporting services that keep parliament in operation.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I merely want to mention a few facts. For instance, section 4 of Bill No. C-91, which was passed at the end of July or at the beginning of August, reads as follows:
*-there should be allowed to each member of the Senate and House of Commons such actual moving or transportation and travelling expenses between this place of residence or his constituency and Ottawa, and such actual telecommunication expenses incurred while in Ottawa, as each house may by order prescribe for its own members.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, like all hon. members, we constantly have to make phone calls and send telegrams to our ridings, especially on the occasion of winter works, when we must keep in touch with the secretaries and treasurers of municipalities, in order to be informed of any new development.
We note that this legislation was passed at the end of July and that up to now, at the end of December, nothing has been done along the lines I just indicated. We hope that the authorities concerned will be kind enough to take into consideration the fact that members of parliament were requested to pass this act-and it was passed by all- which says, in section 4, that telephone calls and telegrams made or sent to our constituencies, in the ordinary course of a member's business, are to be paid for by the government.
So I ask Mr. Speaker to see that this state of affairs is settled as soon as possible, or at least that we are told why it is not done.
I see that my friends on the Liberal side seem to approve this request, and I am sure all hon. members in this house will ask unanimously that section 4 of Bill No. C-91 which has been passed be put into effect.
We are now considering the Speaker's estimates. I think this is the only opportunity we have in the session to ask him questions. We are happy to do so but, we do not want to take undue advantage of it.
Certain decisions were taken during this session. We accept them and we do not intend to revive the discussions. However, I should like to remind the house of some events which have occurred since these decisions were taken, one of them being the official recognition or non-recognition of the group of 13 members making up the Rallie-ment Creditistes, under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who sits on this side of the house.
It will be remembered that a decision was reached giving precedence to the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) over the group of the hon. member for Villeneuve. Now, here
Supply-Legislation
is what transpired since then. The hon. member for Red Deer no longer receives the allowance of $4,000 granted to every political party leader in this house, while the hon. member for Villeneuve is in receipt of it. On the other hand, this order was decided upon ostensibly to comply with seniority. In this connection, I would like to quote a few figures. The 11 members making up the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Red Deer won a total of 23 seats; the group of 13 members under the hon. member for Villeneuve won 27. Moreover, amongst those members, the one who has been at the house for the longest time is the hon. member for Villeneuve, who was elected for the first time in 1946. Moreover, all the members making up the Ralliement Creditistes have been elected at least twice, while two members of the Social Credit party have been elected once only.
I also wish to point out that the leader of the Ralliement Creditistes now receives the $4,000 indemnity, that he has his offices like all party leaders, his secretarial staff, and is entitled to speak on motions like the other leaders of the parties recognized in this house, is entitled to delegations to foreign countries, is a member of the "Head Leaders club", a member of the "Whips club", which means that he is recognized exactly like other party leaders. Besides, we have seniority, as indicated by the figures I quoted a moment ago, the hon. member for Villeneuve having been elected as leader in 1958 while the hon. member for Red Deer was only elected in 1961.
Mr. Chairman, all those arguments give evidence of our seniority and I think that at the next session, the Speaker of the house will have to take his responsibilities and allocate to each group, according to its number and seniority, its rightful place.
I think that at the opening of the next session, the Speaker of the house will have to take his responsibilities and give the Ralliement Creditistes, under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve, the place to which it is entitled.
I respectfully submit this opinion and these arguments which cannot be contradicted because they are facts, and I hope that the Speaker will take them under serious consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I have only one word to say concerning the estimates of the Speaker.
First of all, I wish to congratulate the Speaker for his patience towards me. On occasions, he suggests that the period provided for questions in the house be shortened. From time to time, we do not have the same

Supply-Legislation
opinion. In any event, I wish him to show the same patience during the year 1964.
My remarks will be brief, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask you first whether it would not be possible to provide with simultaneous translation not only the public galleries, but also the second level of the press gallery.
Now, I would ask Mr. Speaker whether it would be possible to give more space to the press gallery. I submit that the members of the press work in difficult conditions, and it seems to me the ideal solution would be to provide them, not only with an individual office, but also with a telephone just like the members of the house, since, like them, they serve the public.
The members of the press gallery organized themselves in an association. I therefore wonder whether it would not be wise, in future, that they have their problems settled by their own association and not by the committee on privileges and elections, or by a member of the house, or by Mr. Speaker himself.
Here is my suggestion. Since journalists are grouped in an association, I think it would be advisable that we, members of the house, should not meddle in their affairs and that they should settle their own problems themselves. Whether a journalist should be admitted or not to the press gallery, I think that journalists are efficient enough to decide that by themselves, according to their own regulations.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I intend to concentrate on one item, the whole question of the Raymond Rodgers case vis-a-vis the press gallery, and my remarks are not for my fellow members so much as for the Speaker.
He will remember that there was a motion of this house to refer the matter to a committee. The committee considered the matter and has presented a report which appears in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. Pursuant to the order referring to the committee the question of Raymond Rodgers' right to use the facilities of the press gallery, the committee held four meetings and heard the following witnesses: Mr. Raymond Rodgers, Mr. G. J. Connolley, Mr. Arthur Blakely and Mr. Clement Brown. The report states:
The evidence given by Dr. Ollivier before the standing committee on privileges and elections on December 11, 1962, was also tabled before the committee and reproduced as an appendix-
The committee has considered Mr. Rodgers' right to use the facilities of the Canadian parliamentary press gallery and has agreed to recommend:
That while this committee recognizes that parliament has jurisdiction over the public facilities granted the members of the press, we feel that this jurisdiction over the public facilities must 
be exercised through the Speaker or his delegated representative. Therefore, the case of Mr. Rodgers is referred to Mr. Speaker for decision.
The committee further recommends:
That the special committee on procedure and organization, at the next session of parliament, consider the expediency of reviewing the relations now existing between the Speaker and the Canadian parliamentary press gallery on the one hand and the relations now existing between the House of Commons itself and the Canadian parliamentary press gallery on the other hand.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking with caucus support on this matter. We are very anxious that a decision be made, and we are prepared to support it now or support it at the next session, that will give Raymond Spencer Rodgers, as long as he is the full time correspondent for the St. Catharines Standard, access to the public facilities of the press gallery. There were a number of ironies developed in the evidence and in the voting that went on in the committee. I suppose the most interesting thing was that the voting tended to cross party lines, and I do not believe I am giving away any secrets when I say that this particular recommendation was not unanimous.
I suppose the thing I found most intriguing was the fact that it took us so long to get going because the president of the press gallery, Mr. Connolley, was off to NATO. The whole matter, therefore, was postponed. Then, it turned out, even when Mr. Connolley got back, the press gallery found it necessary to have its main defence presented by a member of the press gallery whom I cannot find either on the executive or the directors of the press gallery. I refer to that great ex-columnist of the Montreal Gazette, Mr. Arthur Blakely. Mr. Blakely carried the defence for the press gallery. The evidence in which I am most interested can be found at page 756 of the report of the proceedings of the committee.
Now, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Speaker too, I have a particular personal interest in the operations of the press in Canada, and because of that I may say that I was quite intrigued by the Prime Minister's statement today that the government is considering legislation which would prevent the takeover of our press by foreign interests. However, that is an aside. In connection with my interest, I should like to say that I did not want to bring before the committee an individual examination of the basis for belonging to the Canadian parliamentary press gallery and, as a consequence, have the use of the facilities.
I want to put Mr. Blakely's opening statement on the record, to put into context some of the things I want to say about the people who now have the right to use the public

facilities in the press gallery which have been denied to Mr. Rodgers. Mr. Blakely says this:
The term "press gallery" means, in Canada, at least three things. Even in speaking among ourselves, we have to be careful to make it clear which one we have in mind.
The words "press gallery" mean:
1.	The gallery overlooking the House of Commons from which we observe parliamentary proceedings.
I know that many of my colleagues will agree with me when I say that the most outstanding feature about these gentlemen is that when our attendance is criticized during the day or night, we have often found the gallery up there has been bare. The second point is:
2.	The office space, provided to us on the third floor of the centre block, also at public expense, in which we write or otherwise prepare reports on what we have seen and heard in parliament;
I think some members must be aware of the fact that this is one of the worst blocks of housing, it is one of the worst examples of government planning that I have ever seen. It indicates either that the press gallery or the Speakers have been tremendously conservative to allow those conditions to continue, but they are conditions provided at public expense.
The third item Mr. Blakely put forward was:
3.	The Canadian press gallery itself, a professional association which, while not of parliament, has been so close to parliament since confederation that William Lyon Mackenzie King defined it as an "adjunct" of parliament.
Now, those are the three descriptions that Mr. Blakely puts forward. Here, we have a situation where a young man, as the full time correspondent of the St. Catharines Standard, is denied these facilities. This is not his full time work, but so far as the St. Catharines Standard is concerned, he is their full time correspondent. This is a relatively small newspaper in a very prosperous town. They have hired him to do this particular work which consists, usually, of three or four stories a week and sometimes as little as two. However, he does send copy from this place to a legitimate daily newspaper and that copy appears several times a week. I might say that the copy he sends tends to be topical, that is it tends to follow things going on in the house. This is important to the point I want to make.
Now, the press gallery is denying Mr. Rodgers entry on the basis that he does not meet membership qualifications under article II, section (a) of their constitution. This is really the key point. The article reads:
Active membership of the Canadian parliamentary press gallery, hereinafter called the gallery, shall
Supply-Legislation
be restricted to persons who earn the major portion of their income through the writing or broadcasting of parliamentary or government news or comment as full-time salaried staff representatives of one or more daily newspapers, radio or television stations or systems, or a recognized news service, sending thereto dispatches regularly; and to persons assigned to work in Ottawa as a resident correspondent of a periodical of national and international standing.
This section, Mr. Speaker, embraces a very wide range. You have broadcasters, telecasters and writers for daily newspapers, weekly newspapers and periodicals both national and international. Every one admits that the St. Catharines Standard is a legitimate Canadian daily newspaper. We have it put on the record that the newspaper wants Rodgers as its representative. Rodgers fails to meet these membership qualifications because he is candid enough to admit that being correspondent for the St. Catharines Standard is not his full time job. It brings him in, he said, somewhere around 40 per cent of his income. One of the contentions Rodgers put to us was that he does not belong to the press gallery association, that is, the part Mr. Blakely had in part 3 of the club. He does not particularly worry about having access to the gallery, but he wants access to a mail slot and to the distribution facilities that are provided through public expense in the press gallery down the way.
I want to go through some of the members of the present press gallery to point out the discrimination that exists in this case through the denial and our failure, or Mr. Speaker's failure, to give this accredited person from a legitimate daily newspaper the right to access. I want to start off the list with Blair Fraser of Maclean's magazine. He is a very well known writer and he writes for a periodical which as I understand it, and I got this information from one of his colleagues, has a two and a half to three weeks deadline. In other words, his need for current copy or, say, for press releases or the blues, is really not very large. Even his need to be in his seat in the press gallery watching the House of Commons, and even though he is often in it, I suggest has nothing very topical about it and there is no great urgency for him to be here, because he has this two week deadline. One other point needs to be mentioned. Mr. Fraser and another man from Maclean's, Mr. Newman, write on very many other subjects relating to public affairs and not necessarily related to the House of Commons.
The next name I want to point out is Walter Scott who writes for the Toronto Star Weekly. This is a large newspaper which comes out once a week and has a circulation of about 800,000. He is down here part of

Supply-Legislation
the time and, incidentally, he wrote an article recently about the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On the average he turns out, relating to parliament and its activities, according to what I can find in an analysis of that paper, no more than one article every month or so. Here again he has been accepted. He is fine, even though most of his duties do not relate to the house, and I am sure he does not earn most of his income as someone covering parliament. But he is fine; he is accredited; he is in. I have nothing against Mr. Scott, who happens to be a friend of mine, but this is an example of the discrimination.
Now I want to go a bit further and pick out a gentleman for whom I have a great admiration and who has been very kind to me. That is Mr. Robert McKeown who writes for Weekend magazine. He is an active member of the press gallery. He is fine. He roams the world doing stories for Weekend magazine, but again I have checked up and on the average he writes less than six stories a year that have any application to the House of Commons or even to work here in Ottawa. A great deal of the kind of work he is doing has nothing whatever to do with Ottawa and the Ottawa scene, but he has membership in the press gallery. Rodgers cannot comply with this magic constitution but Mr. McKeown can. I put it to you that Mr. McKeown's deadline must be at least six or seven weeks. There is no need for him to have this access to blues or press releases. He is not in any kind of a hurry as compared with a man working for a daily newspaper, but it is O.K.; he has got them; it is fine.
I am hoping to put into hon. members' minds the thought that when you examine the range of people working in the press gallery and the kind of work they are doing, there is discrimination here that was not brought out in the committee. That was partly my responsibility because I did not want to get into this question of who does belong to the press gallery.
I want to take a couple of other people, Mr. Warren Baldwin for the Financial Times and Mr. Clive Baxter who works for the Financial Post. Both are well known, capable writers. They write for weeklies and happen to be in competition with each other. Both of them do report the day to day happenings but they tend to be at a little more than arm's length from the average radio or newspaper reports. My point here again is that these men have a deadline that is set for them, and it is not the daily deadline Rodgers may have to meet. Yet they have the advantage. They qualify for membership in the press gallery, and not Rodgers.

Now I want to turn to Time magazine. Time magazine has two members in the press gallery, Jack Beal and Richard Gwyn. I have no quarrel with the fact that they are entitled to the same privileges as many of these other fine gentlemen I have mentioned; but what I point out to you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Speaker, is that they prepare copy that goes into some kind of masticator, some master digest in Montreal or Toronto, and that in no real sense are they anything more than, you might say, humble people who prepare the basis for what Time finally puts out in its mint condition. There is no urgency about the kind of work they do except in relation to their own weekly deadline.
There is no great need for them to have these facilities, current facilities, that are denied to Rodgers. In fact these gentlemen, and this is understandable, spend a great deal of their time going around Ottawa interviewing people; in other words, getting background, this depth that Time is always searching for. This is fine. This is what their publisher wants them to do. That is part of the Time approach to things. That is great, but their need for having the use of the facilities that are denied to Rodgers is not comparable at all, and I want them to know that.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things when you look at this list is that you realize that the facilities in the gallery-and Mr. Blakely was candid enough to acknowledge this-tend to be hogged by the big newspapers. The Toronto Star and the Toronto Telegram are examples, where they take up much more space, maybe space in relation to their circulations, but that of course should not be the basis on which public facilities are supplied; and I put it to you that the St. Catharines Standard is every bit as important as the Toronto Star and the Toronto Telegram to the member of parliament, to the constituents and to the country as a whole, and yet they cannot qualify.
The Star usually has three to four men circulating around here. They have the use of the gallery but here is this young fellow from the St. Catharines Standard and he cannot even get in to have a little position about four inches by six inches, where he can pick up his mail, press releases and the blues. If you look at this matter in this regard and look through this list-and I challenge the Speaker to do this-and look at some of the people who have membership, and then take a look at the fact that Rodgers is producing copy for a Canadian daily newspaper, there is something terribly discriminatory about the kind of constitution which comes up with this kind of block.

There is one other very touchy element I want to get into, and this relates to the fact to belong to the press gallery is not necessarily, as Roy Thomson found on getting a television licence in Scotland, a licence to print money, but it is a fact that to belong to the press gallery and have the use of its facilities gives you an opportunity to extend your income, and to diversify, as some members of the press gallery have done. Gerald Waring is an outstanding example of this and his colleague, Peter Stursberg is another. There is no criticism of this, but the point is when the use of these public facilities is denied to someone it also means he is blocked off from developing his own income in this particular field. When a press gallery association refuses its membership, and refuses to consider the sharing of the public facilities with someone who is an accredited representative of a daily newspaper, it raises in my mind and in the minds of others the feeling that perhaps they do not want anyone else to get in on their opportunities. I may be exaggerating on this particular point, but it is certainly in the mind of Mr. Rodgers and it is one of the reasons he feels that in this matter he has been discriminated against. I think it is important for hon. members to appreciate this.
I want to point out that any member-and I hope in this particular case it will be the Speaker-who goes through this membership list will realize what a relative minority of this membership really needs the full range of the facilities that the public supply-that is, that we supply-to these gentlemen. I am not suggesting that any of them should be excluded or limited in the use of these facilities. But I am very annoyed, and I think it is a definite injustice, that this chap from the St. Catharines Standard cannot have the right to use those facilities. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker-it has been put back to you; it is in your lap-to extend to Rodgers the use of the facilities that he has requested, and that is not the right to belong to the press gallery association. I want to ask you to do this as soon as possible. I want to tell you that if you find it impossible, this matter is going to be raised when the next session starts, and next session we are going to approach it in a much more co-ordinated cohesive way, because if the facts remain the same, as far as we are concerned an injustice will have been continued.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, as a working Canadian newspaperman of over 40 years experience in the field in Canada, I wish to state that I endorse in every word and gesture the remarks just made by the hon. member
Supply-Legislation
for Port Arthur. I have sat in the press gallery of the Canadian House of Commons on three separate occasions, for three different newspapers. In every case the publisher sent a communication to the Speaker of the House of Commons asking for permission for me, as a representative of the paper, to be seated in the gallery. The publisher did not ask the members of the press gallery whether his representative could have the right to sit in the gallery. The privilege of seating people in the press gallery belongs exclusively to the Speaker and should be exercised by the Speaker. I want to go on record as endorsing the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur in this regard.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I have a very few remarks to make on an entirely different subject matter. I will be very brief in connection with it. One could not have been around the parliament buildings for the last month without being impressed by the extent to which committee work has become such a very important section of the parliamentary process. For that reason I wish to say that I am very pleased indeed to see the report brought in by Mr. Speaker, which recommends the appointment of committees for the term of a parliament. I think this will have a very considerable beneficial effect on committee work.
There is one more suggestion I would like to make and it is ancillary to this recommendation. I hope that when the committee resumes, it will consider this matter. I refer to the extent to which a committee can in turn delegate its authority to subcommittees. It has been my experience that there are many matters included within the four corners of what is referred to a committee which lend themselves very well indeed to being treated by a small subcommittee of three, four, five, six or seven committee members, who in an informal way around a table, with the assistance of members of the permanent civil service, are able to direct their attention to these particular subject matters and then come back to the main committee with a report.
In my submission this is something which in due course might be worked out by a simple amendment to our standing orders which would provide-or should provide, I would hope-that a committee would have inherently the right to appoint such subcommittees. I would refer only to citation 294 of Beauchesne. I will not go into detail in this regard, Mr. Chairman, but there is raised by the contents of this paragraph, and by some research which I have carried out, some doubt as to the extent to which a committee can in fact delegate its authority to a subcommittee.

Supply-Legislation
I would hope that for next year the house leader will give some consideration to establishing committees in the general terms of reference which apply, and I hope these terms of reference will include the right to appoint subcommittees for the purposes I have mentioned.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about this matter of Raymond Rodgers and the press gallery association's denial of access to certain things that he feels he requires. I am not going to go back over the evidence. It is all contained in the proceedings of the committee on privileges and elections and even in the report that committee tabled in the house yesterday. They accept the fact and restate that the facilities provided at public expense in the press gallery, and all this involves, must be under the jurisdiction of the Speaker. There is no point in going back over that.
But when we get down right to the nub of the point in question as to whether or not Rodgers should be in the press gallery, I would point out that we asked the spokesman for the press gallery during the committee meetings, "What is the criterion that is used to either accept or reject an applicant for membership in the press gallery?" Of course the witnesses referred to article 2, subsection
(a)	to which the hon. member for Port Arthur referred. I am not going to repeat it, but it provides that this right shall be restricted to persons who earn the major portion of their income through the writing or broadcasting of parliamentary or government news. When I was examining Mr. Blakely, who appeared before the committee, I put the question directly as to whether he knew anything about the income of the members of the press gallery. He said, in effect, that of course they did not look into anybody's income, and he said, "We do not care how much money they make". Yet this is the criterion they use to admit or reject people who apply for membership of and access to the press gallery and its facilities.
Under further examination the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the press gallery said that the income was not important; it was whether or not they were full-time. So I asked, "Full-time what? Full-time salary?" They said no, they did not care whether they earned $10, $40 or $200 a week; this was not important. But they had to have a letter from the managing editor or the publisher of the newspaper stating that this individual was in fact working for him full-time, or for the major part of his time. Well, Mr. Chairman, we know, as the hon. member for Port Arthur has pointed out, that there are a number of cases of members of the press gallery who

do not spend most of their time, or perhaps do not even earn most of their income reporting in the press gallery. For example we have members of the press gallery who report for agricultural papers, weeklies and even monthly agricultural publications. These people are interested in anything that takes place here that has to do with agriculture, and I presume they write about that whenever it is discussed. On the other hand, they are full-time observers and they do not know whether something respecting agriculture is going to be raised on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. So certainly with regard to the matter of time it cannot be said that they apply this section of their constitution to applicants. They admit that they do not apply the income part of it to applicants. Therefore I am convinced that it means nothing. They say it does not mean anything in regard to income, because they do not look into income. Nevertheless it refers to major income and says they do not care how much time is spent writing up there about the proceedings in parliament.
What actually happens is that the question of the acceptance or rejection of an applicant to the press gallery association is reduced to one of complete discretion on the part of the executive of the press gallery association. If the members of the House of Commons do not want to accept that kind of tyranny, I do not think we should allow it to go any further. I also want to say that as far as the committees work is concerned, and the recommendations they made, I think they did the Speaker an injustice, because the motion which was referred to the committee on privileges and elections was in these terms:
That the question of Raymond Rodgers' rights to use the facilities of the press gallery be referred for quick study and report back to the house on its merits by the standing committee on privileges and elections.
What the report in part said was that the committee refer the matter back to the Speaker for decision and for further study by some other committee. And this, after we had five meetings. It is a prime example of not making a decision when asked to.
To get back to Mr. Rodgers, he told us that he needs the press releases, and needs access to them quickly so that he can meet the daily deadline of the paper to which he reports. The press gallery association said that if Mr. Rodgers would come to them with a letter from his managing editor or publisher stating that he is a full-time employee of that paper, they would accept him. Mr. Rodgers, as was pointed out, is a candid man, perhaps stubborn too. Perhaps he is too stubborn to lie, which in my opinion is an attribute rather

than something to be discriminated against. He has said that he needs these facilities, which are provided at public expense.
There is a rather interesting precedent for this matter which is founded on a question of privilege set out in "Parliamentary Procedure" by Saint-Maurice, at page 669. This precedent bears a striking similarity to the present case. As a matter of fact I drew this matter to the attention of hon. members when I moved the motion which referred this matter to the committee. In this particular case an editor and proprietor of a newspaper had been commited by the Quebec legislative assembly to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms for allegedly traducing a member of his newspaper, and he remained in custody for some time. In the present case the individual has not been deprived of his physical liberties but he has been deprived of certain liberties which he had and which he ought to have to enjoy, because he relies on them to make his living. The speaker in the case cited ruled that to entitle a motion to waiver of notice and to precedence, the matter of privilege to which it relates must be urgent in point of time. This is exactly the point, Mr. Chairman: with each day of each week of each month that there is delay there is in fact a denial of liberty. The Speaker of the Quebec legislature went on to say this:
His liberation depends upon the judgment to be pronounced upon his case by the house, and as the British constitution is jealous and vigilant for the individual liberty of all who live under its sway, the question proposed is urgent in point of time...
Mr. Rodgers has been deprived of the things he thinks are his right, as a Canadian citizen and newspaperman, for several months.
I am going to close now, Mr. Chairman, because we have had much discussion on this matter; but with every day of every week of delay which deprives Mr. Rodgers of his rights there goes a serious injustice, in my view. By delay we allow the press gallery executive, or whoever is responsible for keeping Mr. Rodgers out to win their case.
Now I want to turn to one other matter. I understand an hon. member wants to speak on this subject.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York-Humber, the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the hon. member for Port Arthur and others have expressed eloquently the feelings I have on this matter, as well I am sure as the feelings everyone in the committee have, and I think some course of action should be taken immediately to deal with it, rather than delay any longer. Accordingly I move:
28902-5-402
Supply-Legislation
That the committee rise, report progress, recommend that Raymond Spencer Rodgers, as a correspondent of the St. Catharines Standard, be granted the use of the facilities of the press gallery, which are provided at public expense, and ask leave to sit again later this day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, have you given any consideration to the question whether the motion is in order?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am ready to give a ruling on it. In the committee of supply the type of motion which is allowed is one to reduce an amount of money, or for the committee to rise. In this particular case the motion asks the committee to rise. So far as it goes to that point I believe the motion is in order. But the attachment to the motion of words which tells the committee what it will do when the committee rises I believe makes the whole motion out of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee desires, as does the house, to make a determination on this point. I will gladly withdraw the central part of my motion referring to the recommendation that Raymond Spencer Rodgers have access to the facilities of the press gallery, so that it would read:
That the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again later this day.
Then when we rise and report progress with Mr. Speaker in the chair the house would be in a position to deal with the matter.
The Depuiy Chairman: Then the procedure would be for the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw his present motion and to move a motion that the committee rise.


Frank Howard: I would so move, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the motion would have to be withdrawn before the other was made. The hon. member would have to get agreement to withdraw his motion; I am sure it will gladly be given.


Frank Howard: I would gladly withdraw it and bring in the other motion if I might have time to spell it out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might take a moment of the committee's time, while the hon. member is producing his motion, to raise a question which the hon. gentleman might answer before he goes further. It is this: Can he tell us what he thinks the house could do if the committee did rise and the Speaker went back into the chair? It is true that making this motion and giving leave to sit again does not impede the business of the house except for the brief period-if it was a brief period-during which the motion would be before the Speaker. I am not an expert on the rules, and the expert on the rules among the hon. gentleman's

Supply-Legislation
friends is, I regret, not here at this moment. He will be able to give us some guidance on this point. Indeed, I feel this is one of the occasions when we ought to send for him. But I will try, in my poor way, to fill in. It does seem to me that it would not be possible for the house to do anything of a substantive nature with the Speaker in the chair without a substantive motion of some description being before it. That would require unanimous consent in the circumstances which exist today. Perhaps a good deal of the time of the house and the committee could be saved if, before the hon. member went to the length of moving his motion, he would tell us what kind of motion he would propose to make after the committee has risen. Then he could ascertain from those of us who are here-and I do not think the composition of this chamber is likely to change materially in the course of the next few minutes- whether he would get unanimous consent for his motion after the Speaker has resumed the chair. Needless to say, I am in a mood to cooperate as far as it is possible to do so. But the hon. gentleman, who is very ingenious, has presented us with a surprise and perhaps he could tell us what the surprise is going to be before he makes his motion for the committee to rise.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I could deal with that. I may say that if there is any ingenuity on my part it is only because I have attentively watched the Secretary of State over the months, both in his present capacity and before that. Undoubtedly the motion would have to be a substantive motion and it would require unanimous consent, since notice is difficult to give at this late stage in the proceedings. The motion to which I would be glad to have the house give its approval is as follows:
That the Sergeant-at-Arms, pursuant to standing order No. 88, be instructed to grant pro tern a card admitting Raymond Rodgers to the press gallery of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. member for Edmonton West wish to say something?


Norman Platt Lambert: As far as procedure is concerned, obviously this would be a debatable motion. It is a substantive motion and would require notice unless unanimous consent were given.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think everybody recognizes that, unless there were unanimous consent when the Speaker was in the chair, the Speaker could not entertain the motion. I suggested that we find out now, before the motion to rise was made, whether there would be unanimous consent to the motion being made. This would not imply that we would support the motion.


Norman Platt Lambert: On that point, I think it would be quite improper to ask what would be the desire of the house with the chairman in the chair.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I should like to point out that the procedure we are embarking on now is somewhat irregular. The Chair is not very disposed to rule in advance. The duty of the Chair is to rule on what happens, not on what might happen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I defer to Your Honour and to experts like the hon. member for Edmonton West in these matters. It only seemed to me that if there was a plainly negative feeling expressed in the committee it might save a little time. However, perhaps it would be better if the hon. member were to put his motion, which he has a perfect right to do at any time, that the committee rise and report progress. We can see what happens when his motion is made. That does not imply that the other motion would be acceptable or that unanimous consent would be given if the committee should decide to rise. I may say that I would prefer-and I offer this suggestion to the hon. member-to let this stand over until we have disposed of the estimates and we have risen in the normal course of things. There will be a certain interval of time, then, during which the government has undertaken to allow one or two other matters to be brought up and I would certainly be willing to see that before we went to the other place the hon. member, or the hon. member for Medicine Hat, were given an opportunity to ascertain whether there was unanimous consent to consider the matter at that time. This would avoid any interruption of our present proceedings. If that would be satisfactory I would certainly give such an undertaking. This could be done after the appropriation bill had been disposed of and before we came to the other matters. The hon. gentleman could seek unanimous consent at that time and we would be able to continue.


Norman Platt Lambert: There is one further problem which I should like to refer to the Secretary of State. If the committee should rise, and if the Speaker were to come back into the chair, is the minister sure as to how the house would get back into committee of supply?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that the hon. gentleman was going to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit later this day. So that problem is taken care of. But the position would be safeguarded by the suggestion I have made, and I hope the two hon. members who are particularly concerned with this matter will be disposed to accept it.


Frank Howard: My approach to matters of this nature is not how we are bound by the rules, but whether we can take a reasonable course toward reaching a solution. That is what I have in mind, rather than what happened in 1890 or on various occasions in the past. I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat and others would agree to the course suggested by the Secretary of State, that is that we should wait until we have concluded the business before the committee, then rise in the normal course and ascertain what the views of the house are at that time. I would therefore ask leave to withdraw the motion which I placed before you a while ago, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am most grateful to both hon. members for being accommodating with regard to a matter about which they obviously feel strongly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Since, later on, he may be in the chair and it may be difficult for him to express any views, may I ask the Speaker whether he has any comments to make on the questions I raised with regard to the Rodgers case?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I have quite a few comments to make. Up to the present time there have been nine speakers, all raising matters of considerable interest. Certainly, they are matters of great interest to me. I do not "think it would be fair at this time to concentrate on one subject. I would prefer to make a general statement at the end.


Mr. Priitie:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the index of Hansard.
I wish to suggest that those people who receive Hansard on the basis of lists sent in by members should receive the index as well. I know that people who subscribe to Hansard can get the index by paying an extra dollar, but many members send Hansard to schools and local libraries and I should like to suggest that the index go along with the regular subscription where the names are submitted by members.
My other point has to do with the indexing staff. My office is located next to the indexing branch, both English and French, and I notice that they seem to put in very long hours and very frequently work on the week end and particularly at night. It seems to me there is a very large amount of indexing to be done these days because of the increase in questions on the order paper and the many speeches being made. I have the impression that branch is understaffed and I should like to have this situation investigated.
28902-5-402J
Supply-Legislation


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring up again at this time a matter I raised earlier with regard to the capitalization and punctuation methods of the Hansard editors. I should like to bring it up now because I have noted that the Senate Hansard editors apparently follow, to my mind, a more literate and a more proper system of capitalization. This was brought quite sharply to my attention when I found that the hon. gentlemen in the other place had been discussing the same thing I had been discussing in the speech about which I complained. I refer to the capitalization of "international monetary fund" which the Senate Hansard editors quite rightly capitalized, as it is a definite organization and which our editor refused flatly to capitalize, leaving it in a perfectly ridiculous situation in that the reference might be merely to an abstract concept of a world fund of some sort. I should like to suggest at this time that Mr. Speaker take under advisement a review of the methods of capitalization and punctuation in the editing of Hansard because today they are far from satisfactory to anyone who has any care for the use of the English language.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item No. 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Before it carries, Mr. Chairman, I thought Mr. Speaker had some comments to make on some of the suggestions that have been made. I think some of them are fairly current and warrant immediate attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the few but very pleasant opportunities I have to say something in the house in the present circumstances. I should like to seize the opportunity and begin by conveying my appreciation of the good work that the staff of the Speaker has done in rather trying circumstances, shall we say, since September 30. In that connection I want to single out particularly the Clerk, who has carried a very severe load since September 30, Mr. Montgomery who, due to a little overwork, shall we say, had to leave us for a few weeks, and Mr. Dubroy who has been of tremendous assistance. The three gentlemen at the table in the centre of the Commons, as you may well judge, have carried more than their fair share of work this session.
I should also like to mention the Sergeant-at-Arms who is burdened with a great deal of detail, some of which has been referred to today. Then there are the various heads of departments, the head of Hansard, the interpreters, with whom we work very closely, although they do not actually come under our jurisdiction, the head and clerks of the committees branch-and I think all members

Supply-Legislation
know the difficulties under which they have been working this session-the constables, the pages and all other members of our staff.
I should also like to thank members of the house for their constant co-operation, which has been very necessary and very much appreciated by me. At this time, although it may be a little forward, I should like to thank members once again for the honour they have done me in sustaining me as Speaker on more than one occasion.
I would be remiss if I did not refer to the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of committees who is in the chair now. They too have carried quite a burden.
It will be seen from what I have said, I think, and from the discussion this afternoon that times are changing in the House of Commons, and I am all for change. Eleven members this afternoon have shown a great deal of interest in the organization of the House of Commons, and I will not say that I am unsympathetic in any way with many of the views presented, but on the contrary the more constructive criticism we get the better I like it. With that in mind we have already been making a few changes. Things do not move quite as fast in the public service as they do in private organizations and I confess to periods of frustration, just the same as some hon. members. But we are building up a good working team in the Speaker's establishment and I am rather proud of it at the moment. We hope to improve.
Many questions have been raised. I am sure hon. members do not expect me to deal with them all in detail; but to show that I do have some comprehension of some of the problems I would refer to the fact that, for example, reference was made by the hon. member for Timiskaming to staff, and in particular to the protective staff and the fact that we have 72 members on that staff. One of the new problems which have arisen within the last three to five years is what to do with the increasing volume of tourist traffic on the hill. Five years ago we had 500 tourists a day. In July and August this year we ran between 6,000 and 7,000 a day. All of them want to get into the galleries. This is a new problem and it points up that times are changing and a new approach has to be considered.
Other questions had to do with the translation bureau. This morning I had the opportunity of visiting what I admit are very poor quarters that they are occupying at the present time. Already I have dictated a letter at 12.05 p.m. today to the Sergeant-at-Arms to raise this question immediately and see what we can do about it.

There is the question of committees and whether or not the messengers should be trained to operate the radio facilities. This matter has already been discussed on two or three occasions, and again another letter was dictated today with a view to seeing how we can improve the facilities for the next session.
There were a great many other questions. The hon. member for Timiskaming referred to the fact that the internal economy commission was perhaps outdated and should be replaced by a joint party committee to help the Speaker. This is a very interesting suggestion. It was dealt with more or less fully in 1962 by the hon. member for Skeena. I have the record here and I have read it very carefully.
However, I would point out to the hon. member that it is not up to the Speaker to decide this matter. The Speaker is bound by the House of Commons Act, which makes it a statutory matter. If the hon. member wishes to change the act, let him do so, but certainly the Speaker has no power in that regard. Section 16 of the House of Commons Act reads as follows;
The governor in council shall appoint four members of the Queen's privy council for Canada who are also members of the House of Commons, who, with the Speaker of the House of Commons, shall be commissioners for the purposes of this section and sections 17 and 18.
It might interest hon. members to know that the members of the internal economy commission are the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Secretary of State.
With regard to television and radio facilities, I will have more to say about that in connection with the press gallery. Someone mentioned research facilities. This is one of the things I am extremely keen about and perhaps I am giving my personal views but surely once a year I am entitled to do that. We have in mind to review from the ground up or from the top down-it does not matter .-the library of parliament. We feel that at the present time the library of parliament, good as it is, is not necessarily fulfilling the function for which it was set up. We have in mind the congressional library in Washington and the facilities provided in the United Kingdom. For that reason I have already on the desk a report on certain improvements which could be made. This question, of course, will be considered by the committee on procedure and organization which has been set up.
In so far as the Hansard staff is concerned, their salaries and numbers, I may say that this year we have been in particular difficulty as a result of the number of committees, the

level of salaries which are paid, and difficulties in recruiting the staff. For that reason, the question of whether tape recording should replace the present system was referred to a committee.
Several other questions have been brought up today. There was the question of telecommunications raised by the hon. member for Lapointe. I understand that at the moment the internal economy commissioners have not reached any conclusion as to whether it would be a good or a bad thing to pay for the telegrams, long distance calls and all the rest of it. I am sure that hon. members will appreciate that they have not been too badly treated as of the moment.
In so far as the recognition problem is concerned, the hon. gentleman who raised it is not here so I am going to take advantage of the fact and not deal with the question.
Various other points were raised, not the least of which was the one raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur, joined by the hon. members for York-Humber, Medicine Hat, Skeena and one or two others. This question related to Raymond Rodgers and the press gallery. In view of the discussion here this afternoon, which I found very helpful and useful, I must say that I think hon. members know that I am not at all unsympathetic to the person concerned. I doubt if he has received as much attention from many other people as he has received from me during the last few months. The question is not an easy one to decide, and should not be decided on the basis of emotion or personality but on the basis of principle. For that reason I have told him, and told anyone who wanted to listen, that in due course when the principle has been established in the proper way and all factors have been considered, that will be the right time to render a judgment.
In so far as the press gallery is concerned, Mr. Rodgers is not alone in complaining. Many members of the press gallery are complaining constantly about the space problem. I am well aware of the conditions under which they work. I am well aware also of the fact that within the last few years the numbers in the press gallery have increased from 30 to about 110 or 120. This, in part, results from the development of communications by radio and television. The point is that the system under which we have been working up to the present time, vis-a-vis the press gallery, is very much out of date. Only yesterday I had the president, and perhaps the past president, of the press gallery in to discuss the constitution. I said that the constitution needs to be re-examined, reassessed and brought up to date. The same remarks apply to the bylaws under the constitution.
Supply-Legislation
The question of space is a very pressing one. We thought at one time the taking over of the west block would be the answer to the problem. However, the problem seems to get worse every day. One idea that we have toyed with is that of dividing the membership of the gallery into two categories, those who are connected with daily papers and those who are connected with weekly papers or magazines. At the moment we have under reservation considerable space in the west block. We are trying to negotiate a solution between the press gallery and the Department of Public Works which will be of use to both sides.
There is also the question of visiting pressmen from other countries and other capitals. They arrive here and there is no place to entertain them. Perhaps the members of the press should construct their own building, as is done in Washington. Perhaps the owners of the large newspapers should, themselves, look into this problem and assist the rest of us.
In any event, it may be possible to work out a solution by which the members of the press gallery would get more space by splitting them into two parts, the daily and weekly or magazine sections, and thus make better facilities available. Amongst the better facilities, I include the need for a room in the basement or some other convenient place in this building to be used as a television and radio studio. I think all of us agree that it is ridiculous that the C.B.C. should go to the expense of hauling equipment up here every time they want to televise some proceedings, thus cluttering up the halls. It should be possible for members to go to a room downstairs for television or radio broadcasts. This is another thing we have in mind.
If I may summarize the whole question, I may say that the problem of the press gallery will be thoroughly considered by the new committee on parliamentary procedure and organization. I have already suggested that we set up immediately a small subcommittee, as was suggested by the hon. member for Peace River, to do the necessary research on this problem of space, constitution, bylaws, membership and all the rest of it. So far as I am concerned, until I receive a carefully thought out and well documented report which has been discussed with our advisers, I do not believe it would be right to jump in and give an emotional decision, no matter what I may think personally, nor is it the right time to give a decision on this Rodgers case. It may be decided later on. You cannot act as judge and jury at the same time.
I believe I have covered most of the points that were raised this afternoon in a very cursory way. There are a great many problems. One thing I should like to bring to the

Supply-Legislation
attention of hon. members is the desire which I know you have, and which certainly the Speaker has, of making a complete review of the Speaker's establishment. This is long overdue, for some of the reasons I have given this afternoon. Things get out of date when built-in systems of doing things continue from year to year. The purpose of setting up the committee on procedure and parliamentary organization was precisely to examine the standing orders of the house, try to modernize and streamline them for what it may be worth, and the most important factor involved is the modernizing of the way in which the institutions work in the house. I feel that inasmuch as we are in an industrial age, in a mechanical age, we need every mechanical gadget we can get to speed things up; that is the way things are done. I told you that I thought the library should be carefully examined. I told you I thought the committee system needed to be carefully reexamined. I have always said, from the beginning, that the committees are too large and smaller committees, as suggested by the hon. member for Peace River, are more effective. Well, this idea may be right or it may be wrong.
These are some of the outstanding problems, and anything which will make parliament more effective, which will create a better image vis-a-vis the public, must be considered and must be brought into force. This is the purpose of setting up the parliamentary committee on procedure and reform, if I could call it that. I assure you that the committee, consisting as it does of highly qualified members experienced in this house, with sufficient finances to find the necessary papers to study, with a desire to examine the system at work south of the border and the source of parliamentary inspiration in the United Kingdom, with all of these things and with these ideas floating around, will surprise me if it does not bring about a revolution in many of the procedures which we are following at the present time, something which is long overdue.


Frank Howard: I am sure the applause indicates the feeling of everyone in relation to the reception of the comments by Mr. Speaker. It is always a bit inhibiting, because we have the highest regard for that office and for the person who holds it, to get involved in a controversial debate over matters under the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker.
There is one point I would like to follow up, and it deals with the question of research assistance. The only research assistance that is available at the moment is that referred to in standing order 87 which says:
It is the duty of the joint law clerks of the house to assist members...in drafting legislation-

I think it is particularly important to draw attention to the words "joint law clerks''. The background for this, as was mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Timiskaming is such that there should be joint law clerks, one familiar with the civil code as it is in Quebec, and the other familiar with the common law as it is in other parts of Canada. It also is connected with the two founding races who entered confederation, and is connected with the current interest in bilingualism and biculturalism.
Unfortunately we do not have joint law clerks. We have one law clerk in the person of Dr. Maurice Ollivier who is, I am sure, well known to everybody in the house and who has appeared before a number of committees. Dr. Ollivier for the last few years- I could not say offhand how many, but eight or ten years-has filled the position set out in standing order 87 as "joint law clerks". I submit he is not. He is a singular person, and his background is that of the civil code of Quebec. I submit there should be another person appointed to participate with Dr. Ollivier in filling the position stipulated by standing order 87 of joint law clerks, so that there will be an English speaking and a French speaking person filling his office, having equal stature, status and standing, and so that members can go to whomever they choose to assist in the preparation of bills.
This matter was of great concern to many hon. members before the summer recess took place. It was discussed at a variety of meetings in which a number of people participated. We hoped that before the summer recess ended a solution would be found and that there would be appointed joint law clerks.
Speaking personally, I have a bit of a grievance with respect to this because the experience I have had with respect to Dr. Ollivier in assisting in the preparation of bills, has not been too good. I have only had occasion twice to go to him specifically to seek assistance in the preparation of bills. In one case he refused, saying it was not possible. In another case he prepared a bill for me which I filed and presented to the house. I subsequently discovered there were three errors in that particular bill and I am glad it did not come up for second reading, because it would have been a bit embarrassing for me to deal with a bill containing three errors, incidentally all of them on the same page.
I draw this to the attention of the committee because I think hon. members are not getting full assistance from the law clerk of the law branch, for the simple reason there is not in that office two people, one of French speaking descent, familiar with the civil code

of Quebec, and another of English descent familiar with the common law of England and Canada, both having equal stature and status. This situation has been going on too long so far as I am concerned, and I hope Mr. Speaker will make a decision about it within the next few moments and indicate that there are going to be joint law clerks as provided by the standing order, so that every one will be on an equal footing.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the vote carry?


Frank Howard: This is a far more serious matter than meets the eye and I hope Mr. Speaker will reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to make just a few remarks as I realize time is passing. First of all, I want to say I have the highest confidence in and most pleasant relations with Dr. Ollivier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: He is, as is well known, besides being a good attorney a professor of constitutional law at Ottawa University, and I can testify that in my short term as Speaker so far, he has been of tremendous use to me personally, both with regard to preparing bills and opinions, and advice generally. As an attorney, myself, of a fair amount of experience, both in business and in law, I value his views.
I realize there are difficulties in that department. The hon. member and myself have discussed this on more than one occasion. I have done my best to try and regulate some of these difficulties, not too successfully; but while there is life there is hope. It is one of the problems that I referred to inferentially when I said there were a lot of problems in the Speaker's establishment; but this is one problem I am going to refer to the special committee. It is their job to examine it and help and advise me in reaching a conclusion. As of the moment I just want to say, so far as the gentleman referred to is concerned that he has my full confidence and will continue to have it so long as I am Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: Could I ask the intentions of Mr. Speaker to maintain the office of joint law clerks?


Mr. Speaker:: That is asking for a decision. I am not afraid to make decisions, but I am afraid of not making the right decision, and that takes time and consideration. As I have said, it is a difficult problem to answer and it is one which is under close study at present. As to whether there should or should not be more than one, I am going to seek the advice of this special committee which
Supply-Legislation
was set up to examine these problems. If we are going to use the parliamentary system at all and if we are not to have dictatorship- even though as I say I am not afraid of making decisions, I have made them all my life-we should use this committee. It was set up to consider these problems, and surely courtesy and justice dictate that the committee be consulted so that it may advise the Speaker. That is the democratic way to do things.


Mr. Otto:: I was very happy to hear Mr. Speaker say that this committee, of which he is chairman, will introduce great reforms in the house. It is about time. However, I am sure hon. members will recognize one problem has not been touched upon, and that concerns the page boys, our great helpers. Of necessity they are enrolled in their own schools up to noon hour. That is half a day; and when they work here for the rest of the day they are denied the education that they should have, with the result that in a great many cases they drop out of school at a very early age.
Surely the time has now come when we should consider a completely new system of page boys, through which their education could be provided here, possibly along with living accommodation, and then page boys could come here from all over Canada and not of necessity just from Ottawa and Hull. I would like to bring this to the attention of the Speaker and his committee. It is a problem that deserves consideration as quickly as possible.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, just a few brief remarks to thank the Speaker and the Clerk for the co-operation they have extended to me and the readiness with which they received my suggestion to put French and English titles on the books and reference records on the table of the house.
I would not miss this opportunity either to mention that the two preceding Speakers have always been very kind to me and have always shown their willingness to implement my suggestions to the effect that both in the house and on parliament hill bilingualism be more and more widely recognized.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you would permit me, before we embark upon the estimates of the Minister of Finance, to find out what the wishes of the committee might be with regard to the hour between six o'clock and seven o'clock. If it was thought that we could complete the remaining two

Supply-Finance
departments and one item by 7.15 or something of that sort, perhaps there would be a disposition to sit right through. If it was thought we were going to take rather longer, it might surprise the committee to have me suggest that we should rise either at six o'clock or 6.30 and do what we did at lunch time, that is take half an hour in order that we might stretch our legs and relax a little before going on. If we could have the sense of the committee at this stage, it would be helpful.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that the committee sit right through?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I put two alternatives, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, at noon today some of us were suggesting that we should have an hour, and the Secretary of State came back with half an hour. I think we should be fair about this. He has now suggested half an hour, so I suggest an hour.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if it would not be better to wait until six o'clock and see what progress we have made. I think most of us would feel that if we are rolling along and could finish by seven o'clock, we would rather sit through until seven o'clock and finish. But if at six o'clock it appears it will take a couple of hours, I think we should recess for dinner.


Mr. Nowlan:: That is what I was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we see what progress has been made and decide at six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps it could be settled at about five minutes to six o'clock, because hon. gentlemen in the other place are making one of their periodic reassemblies to find out what progress we are making, and they would like to have some prognostication at six o'clock. So perhaps at six o'clock I could interrupt the proceedings and we could then decide this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are working hard today.


[Stage Direction]
25. Tariff board-administration, $207,800.
Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I thought the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was going to speak on these estimates. I have a few things to say about them. I should not have let you go so quickly.


Lucien Lamoureux: On what vote does the hon. member wish to speak? We are on vote No. 25 at this moment. Shall vote No. 25 carry?


Reid Scott: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has some remarks that he wants to make. If the committee will not wait for a moment while he finds his notes, then some of us will have to start making speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Colin Cameron: I can say what I want to say on vote 40, Mr. Chairman. I will wait until we get there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
35. Royal Canadian Mint-construction or acquisition of equipment, $178,600.
Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks in connection with item No. 35.
Even if, on several occasions, we voiced criticism concerning the national debt and the interest paid thereon. I feel certain facts have to be brought out at this time when the committee is asked to approve an expenditure of $854,624,300.
The estimates of all departments are important but the present ones are of major importance since they amount to more than $1,300 million, $800 million of which will be used to pay the interest on the national debt.
Mr. Chairman, it is our duty to make a few suggestions at this point. All of us have not had the opportunity of getting a degree in political economy, but some of us have found the time to read and to make a close study of our economy, more particularly as regards its financial structure.
You can go back to the time of Adam Smith, the father of economic liberalism, you can read and study Karl Marx's theory or scrutinize Mr. Beveridge's theory or those of various contemporary authors, nowhere will you find any significant mention of the interest on the national debt. Yet, the Canada Year Book, especially the 1962 edition, contains appalling figures; in fact, they are a sign of an unacceptable and intolerable situation in a country like ours.
Thus, under the heading-
Summary of the public debt and interest payments thereon, years ended March 31, 1952-61
-we find that the gross national debt has increased from $17,257,668,676 in 1952 to $21,602,826,960 in 1961.
On the other hand, if this debt is distributed on a per capita basis-I am now referring to the net debt-this table shows that it has gone down from $773.59 in 1952 to $681.92 in 1961.
However, it is noted that the interest per capita has gone up from $30.87 in 1952 to $42.34 in 1961, in spite of the decrease in the per capita debt.

Mr. Chairman if under our present system we are required to pass estimates as important as those now under consideration and to appropriate some $800 million to the payment of interest on the national debt, it is high time we did something more than to follow this simple parliamentary procedure which allows us to criticize the estimates of the various departments.
What we have come to, nowadays, is that we raise loans to pay the interest on loans that we cannot even pay, under the present economic system, out of the taxes of all kinds which are imposed at all levels of government.
If we are ready to spend $854 million to pay the interest on the national debt, I feel it is time that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) should set up a committee to probe deeply into the workings of our monetary system.
We will be called upon, in 1964, to amend the Bank Act. It seems to me that, at that time, it would be appropriate to approach the problem from a new angle to make of the Bank of Canada an institution that will really serve the Canadian parliament. When things have come to the point where we talk about paying interest amounting to $854 million, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance should give serious consideration, when the Bank Act is amended, to the possibility of using the Bank of Canada.
But no, it would seem this thing is sacred. When the accountants check public accounts, it is always that particular item which is the least discussed; the amount of the debt is computed, the percentage of interest is established, and the interest is paid on the obligations incurred by the issuing of bonds or by some other means of contracting a debt. The total amount of interest paid is so great that it is nearly twice the sum earmarked for social security.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that when he prepares his next budget, the Minister of Finance should consider having the Bank Act amended so as to use the Bank of Canada to operate a complete conversion of the Canadian public debt, to avoid devoting most of the taxation revenues exclusively to the repayment of interests on the national debt.
We are not the only ones in this house to have recognized the need for putting into circulation, at some level or other, interest-free credits, or at least credits bearing but a small interest. Last fall, members of the N.D.P. admitted that it was necessary to find a formula for putting into circulation credits at a reduced rate of interest, in order to finance the development and the conversion of a public debt which has become such a 28902-5-403
Supply-Finance
heavy burden. I feel that this suggestion should be considered by the Minister of Finance.
To my mind, all our economists are inclined to become too technical and to forget hard facts. The Bank of Canada should be thought of as being an organization in the service of the Canadian parliament and of the Canadian people. In that way, instead of devoting such large amounts to the issuing of new bonds, the proceeds of which go partly to pay the interest on an outstanding debt, we could find a formula to put the Bank of Canada to the service of parliament and the nation as a whole.
Now, Mr. Chairman, with these few remarks, I would like to put on the official record table No. 13 of the 1962 Canada Year Book, published by the dominion bureau of statistics, but my hon. friends, the members of the house, perhaps would not allow me to read all these figures. However, I would like to put on the record some significant figures so that the numerous readers of Hansard may realize to what degree the national debt has become today an unbearable burden for the Canadian taxpayers.	-
If we consider carefully that table, we find that the interest on the debt has reached a more and more frightening level, now being close to $854 million.
We find that the total interest on the outstanding debt has increased from $432 million in 1952 to $756 million in 1961, which represents an increase of more than $300 million over a period of ten years.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if more people in the general public would read Hansard, they would know about all those figures, and j. believe that we would all be more anxious then to amend our monetary policy.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I realize that it would be a bold person who, at this particular juncture, would say very much so I will not take up much time of the committee. However, it seems to me that perhaps this is a suitable occasion to celebrate, shah we say the final obsequies of some rather unfortunate financial adventures which we have had over the past six to eight months.
I feel that one should not let this particular opportunity go by without making some comment on the attempts of our Minister of Finance to cope with a very serious problem which is facing Canada. His attempts were perhaps not very successful, but let us give him an "A" for his efforts to deal with the problem of the ownership of Canadian industry and resources. I do not think there is a member of this committee who does not

Supply-Finance
sympathize with the minister in his attempts to cope with this problem, although we may have had a rather sardonic entertainment out of watching him rush to one door to close it, and then rush to another door on the other side of the building to open it because of the problems created by shutting off the inflow of capital from abroad.
This is a serious problem which cannot be dismissed by pretending that it is not important to Canada. My only regret is that the minister was unable to achieve some more effective method of safeguarding Canada's economic, and I think eventually political, independence than he was able to achieve. I think the trouble perhaps lies in the context in which he attempted to do it, and that the only method of solving this problem is by a method which will be repugnant to the Minister of Finance and his colleagues; that is, a massive program of public investment.
For that reason I regret another angle of government financial policy in this regard, and that is the terms under which the portable pension plan has been set up. I feel that here was the opportunity to cope with two problems at once; one to provide suitable retirement allowances for the Canadian people, and the other to pool Canadian savings for investment to achieve this purpose of independence. I think that there are matters with which the government will have to deal within the next few years. I know of no other way to do it than by the method of heavy public investment, and I hope that before long we may be able to applaud the minister for following that policy.
There is one other matter I want to mention while on my feet, and I think this is also a serious problem for Canada. I have been a little disturbed in noting the results of the recent dominion-provincial conferences. It seems to me that the federal government has been coming perilously close to the danger line with regard to the relinquishing of fiscal authority in the hands of the central government. I may say that I was particularly disturbed at the acquiescence on the part of the federal authorities to the relinquishment of a great part of the succession duty imposts. Because it seems to me that if there was one field of our federal fiscal policy which should have been maintained it was the retention of that particular impost in the hands of the central government, both from the point of view of equity and from the point of view of financial management. From the point of view of equity I think there is no doubt that large estates in Canada are usually derived from investments throughout the whole of the country, and it is manifestly unfair to permit the province in which the testator happened to be living at the time of his death

to reap all the taxation benefits from it. But I think that even more important is the whole general problem of the care the federal government must take to see that it retains in its own hands sufficient fiscal authority to enable it to embark on programs of economic expansion from which the provinces can benefit.
Also I suggest that if this process is allowed to go too far it will impair the ability of the federal government to manage the Canadian currency effectively. These are matters on which the federal government should stand firm and it should not allow other considerations to be brought into the picture. I have been concerned to notice the way in which these strictly economic questions have become involved with emotional considerations such as biculturalism, bilingualism and provincial rights. As one who has a great sympathy with our French speaking compatriots with regard to the concern they feel for their language and culture, I must still point out that these demands to establish complete provincial autonomy so as to support emotional considerations are fraught with great danger to Canadian confederation. I do hope that the minister and his colleagues will place this question firmly before, not only the province of Quebec, but my own province of British Columbia, which to my mind made much more separatist demands than did the province of Quebec itself. And the government of British Columbia had less excuse for doing so because the province of Quebec is subject to emotional considerations which operate in this field, whereas I regret to say in the case of the province of British Columbia and, to a lesser extent, the province of Ontario, it was sheer greed and selfishness and a dislike of sharing burdens of bringing the least fortunate parts of Canada up to the status of the three wealthiest provinces.
I would say the government has gone as far as it can safely go in acceding to the demands for autonomy which have been coming from the three largest provinces of the country, and I hope that all members of the House of Commons from whatever part of Canada they come will support the government in firmly resisting any further dangerous diminution of federal power in the fiscal field. These are the matters which I thought we should be considering and I hope the minister will come before us early in the new year with firm proposals which will, perhaps, be more successful than some of those presented in the past, and that he will bear these things in mind. We rely on the Minister of Finance perhaps most of all to

maintain a firm economy and a sound financial foundation for confederation. He should not allow himself to be swayed from that position by demands from different parts of Canada to balkanize the country under the guise of local autonomy, or even for ethnic or racial considerations. There is a price to be paid for maintaining Canada. It is not a price imposed by English speaking Canadians or by French speaking Canadians or by any province. It is a price imposed by federation itself. It is a price we cannot avoid paying without heading for the rocks of disintegration and balkanization.


George Clyde Nowlan: I refrained from speaking on the first item, since the minister did not open on that. I thought it would be advisable to defer the few words I intend to say until somebody else has spoken. After all, I am in a position of having prepared these estimates. I can vouch for the fact that they are well and truly prepared. Undoubtedly, no better estimates were ever prepared than these.
The Christmas spirit prevents my discussing any administration of the items and it is obvious there is little I can say about the estimates themselves. I know there are editorial writers who may say it is unfortunate that parliament passes provisions for expenditures totalling hundreds of millions of dollars in such a short space of time, especially as these sums affect the whole economy of Canada, but I think these writers should be reminded that there have been many discussions concerned, directly and indirectly with these estimates of the Minister of Finance during past months. Aside from the speech from the throne there have been the budget, the budget resolutions, the resolutions preceding the income tax legislation, the income tax debates and all the others which have gone on for month after month.
There is a very popular word today; I think its original meaning has been confused. We hear a great deal about dialogue. It is an impressive term. I think there has been a widespread and fairly well developed dialogue with respect to the fiscal policies of the minister and the department during the past six or eight months. There is another word which is also in popular use today, the word consensus. I am not suggesting for a moment that there has been any great consensus as a result of the dialogue. Nevertheless, these things are in the course of discussion and, I hope, of fruition, and I do not see any point in discussing them at any length on this occasion. One could spend minutes or hours in discussing them, but I think most of the subjects which have arisen in connection with the hon. gentleman's policies regarding taxation, fiscal matters and the rest have been 28902-5-403i
Supply-Finance
well debated in this house, in the press and in various organizations outside, both nationally and internationally and, frankly, I cannot see any great point in continuing at any length now.
After all, we can almost hear the sound of Christmas bells as the reindeer are harnessed, or as the jeep is prepared, and before we know it we shall be back here again. There will be another budget. The minister's policies will again be given careful scrutiny, and, this time, we shall have more experience of them. When another budget comes down, and I presume this will be fairly early in the fiscal year, it will be much more expedient to discuss these matters rather than to go into great detail at this time.
I agree with the previous speaker as to the necessity of maintaining the unity of Canada. I agree that the maintenance of Canada demands a price. We accepted that when Canada was formed. Our forefathers knew it, and it is well we should recognize it today. We have paid that price for almost a century and I am sure we will continue to do it.
There are one or two questions I might ask. When the minister does speak he might tell us whether any discussions are going on with respect to the renegotiations of the tax conventions, the one with the United States being probably the most important. We should like to know what stage these negotiations have reached. The hon. gentleman might also tell us about the progress of legislation in the United States affecting the so-called Kennedy tax measures which are somewhere in congress-I guess congress adjourned early this morning-and the probable effect of this legislation on the inflow of capital. The minister might have an opportunity to refer to these questions when he rises to reply.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As has been suggested, members of this party have had many opportunities to present their views with regard to the Department of Finance in the course of this session. It is apparent to members of the committee that we are particularly interested in these public debt charges, so I should like to ask a couple of questions about this particular item. We note that there will be an increase of $92,783,000 in the interest on the public debt in the 1963-64 fiscal year compared with the 1962-63 fiscal year. This changes total debt charges from $761,840,000 to $854,624,000. I should like the minister to give us the reasons for what appears to be a very large increase from one year to the next. We should like to know whether it has come about as a result of an increase in the total indebtedness or whether it is because of higher rates of interest on the national debt. Another reason could perhaps be that there has been some conversion from

Supply-Finance
bond issues of a lower yield. There is one more thing I should like to ask, and I am going to be very brief. Can we expect this kind of increase to occur again next year and in ensuing years into the future?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, as we face a new year I would make the suggestion to the Minister of Finance that he use discretion and generosity in the preparation of his new budget for 1964-65.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
40a. Payments, computed in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to the government of each province, in respect of income tax paid by corporations whose main business is the distribution to or generation for distribution to the public of electrical energy, gas or steam; the said payments to be made in respect of such part of the income of the corporation for the taxation year ending in the calendar year 1961 (as determined under and for the purposes of the Income Tax Act) as is derived from the said distribution or generation in the province to which payment is made-to extend the purposes of this vote to authorize payments with respect to the taxation year 1960, $1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the minister has readily available a succinct and clear explanation of 40a?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply later to one or two of the other questions that have been raised, but I will reply to this particular question now. This supplemental vote is to enable payments to the provinces to be made from vote No. 40 with respect to the prior taxation year 1960. Vote 40 of the 1963-64 main estimates had authorized payment to the provinces of the half share of income tax collected from certain privately owned public utility corporations with respect to the 1961 taxation year. The amount payable to the provinces as determined by the Department of National Revenue on March 29, 1963, amounted to $10,172,096. The amount provided in item 40 of the 1962-63 main estimates was $6J million and the additional amount of $3J million by governor general's warrants for a total of $10 million left a further amount of $172,996 unprovided for. That is what this is for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
7la. To authorize the governor in council to make regulations, providing for the extension of a retroactive increase in remuneration, payable out of the consolidated revenue fund and granted in the current and subsequent fiscal years, with an effective date of July 1, 1963 or later, in whole or in part and under such conditions as may be specified in the regulations, to all or any persons who would have benefited from the increase if it had been granted on the day to which it was made retroactive, notwithstanding that they would not be included in the class of persons who would have benefited from such increase if it had not been retroactive, and prescribing to what extent payments made by virtue hereof may be included

in the calculation of pension, superannuation or other benefits under any act, and to authorize payments in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with such regulations, $1.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Minister of Finance expects me to speak on item 71a. What is more important, I should like to hear from him in a more humane way than he has yet dealt with the subject matter that I believe is covered by vote 71a. As I understand it, this is the vote under which authority is provided to make pay increases that were granted later retroactive to employees who were still in the public service, provided they were in the public service on July 1, 1963. Am I right so far?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what this vote is all about. I want to say something about the application of this decision in the current situation, but I should like to go a step further and see if I understand this gobbledygook which is placed before us. Am I right in believing that this $1-one always has to look at these $1 votes more closely than at votes for several millions-also settles this question for the future in the sense that it provides for regulations to be made covering the same kind of situation if it happens again? Again may I ask the minister, am I understanding it correctly?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, if I may recapitulate, this $1 vote does two things. It makes the provision so far as the last increases were concerned that people now out of the public service can get the increase on a retroactive basis only if they were in service on July 1, 1963, and then it also lays down regulations for the future. I have more to say but I will be glad to hear from the minister now.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I was just going to say, as I think I have said before in reply to questions from the hon. member, that the problem we were up against was to find some date from which this new approach would apply and, as I think I have explained before, there was an attempt made to make it retroactive but we did not know where it should be retroactive to. It was decided that it should apply from the 1st of July, 1963, but the hon. member's interpretation is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far the minister and I are in agreement, but so far we have only been interpreting what the vote means. I want to say to him now that I think it is most unjust, inhuman, and all the other adjectives that one would throw in if he had the time, that the government has taken this decision with respect to those immediately affected. The result is that there are cases of

civil servants who in January, February or March of this year worked alongside each other, did exactly the same work, were classified in the same way and so on, but because one of them retired before July 1st he does not get the increased pay that was awarded retroactive to last October or whatever the date was. But the person who is still working or still in service gets the increased pay on a retroactive basis. In both cases the period under consideration is a period when both of these individuals to whom I am referring were working.
I think it is completely unfair to deny these increases retroactively to people who have since retired or may have left the service for any other reason. After all, it is not the fault of the civil servants concerned that the making of the increases was delayed so long. In this respect both governments are the same. They both took a long time to make the decisions with regard to these increases. I will give the government credit for making them retroactive once they made the increases.


George Clyde Nowlan: It was not a very easy thing to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I grant it was not an easy thing to reach a decision as to what the increases should be.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I hope the hon. member is not suggesting the government took a long time to make this decision. We made it almost immediately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the decision to make the effective date July 1?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, that was not what I meant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can remember that at least as long ago as last December I was asking the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings when he was over on the other side if this provision was not going to be made retroactive, and he was giving the matter consideration. The present Minister of Finance gave the matter consideration, and finally in June or July we got word that it was not possible to make it retroactive. I do not know who it was who talked to me about this just in ordinary conversation, but I know one of the arguments put up was that it was difficult to find some of these people. They have retired and left the service and in some cases have moved away. It would not be fair to pay some people and not to pay other people. Some of them might have died in the meantime. So the argument goes. My colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, says it would not be much trouble finding those who are still alive. If you put an ad in
Supply-Finance
the newspaper that there was money available, people would turn up very quickly.
All facetiousness aside, it does seem to me that this is a grossly unfair decision to make, to cut out those people who have left the service from getting their increases on a retroactive basis. I have an uneasy feeling that they are looked upon as a group of people who are out now; they do not have any particular pressure to exert. They do not have any bargaining power that the civil servants have-which is not very much. I hope they will have more when they get collective barganing. These retired people are a group of has-beens. It is a case of their not being able to exert any particular pressure, so we cut them off. Out of sight out of mind. They do not get the increase.
As I say, I think it is a most unfair practice. The minister admitted several times on orders of the day that it was a problem which was being studied. I hope even yet the government will find a way to make these increases available to those people who have retired on a retroactive basis to cover the period when they were at work.
The other point I want to make, and perhaps it will lead to a question or two, relates to what the situation is going to be in the future. One always has to look at these $1 items and realize that we are not only making a decision for the present, but that we may be setting a precedent that will last for a long time. I recall that away back in 1932 the cabinet ministers received their motor car allowance, instead of a car and chauffeur, by means of an item in the estimates. This practice was followed until this year, for 31 years, on the basis of an item that was passed in the estimates of 1932. I say, therefore, we are settling for the future what is going to happen when increases are made. I should like to know what is going to be the retroactive period next time. I think the retroactive date for the last increases was October?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, it was July 1, 1961, if I remember correctly. They were taken up in groups and some were studied early but the last ones were October, 1962. If the principle which is being suggested were implemented, it would have to go back to July 1, 1961, I think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. Here are people who have money coming to them for as far back as, I would say in terms of justice, two years. They are being denied that and a cut-off date is being put into this vote. In addition, we are also, it would appear, making regulations for the future, covering the situation in the future. Is it the implication that people can go through this two-year cycle

Supply-Finance
because we go through the various groups, and be denied the increase, or is there any possibility that because this issue has been studied and talked about in the house, the regulation may be made in such a way that a decision could be made in advance to enable people who are leaving the service to receive increases made on a retroactive basis?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is the intention from July 1, 1963.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is, from here on?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: From here on, that will be the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If a year from now increases are made which are retroactive to July 1, 1964, but they are not announced until January 1, 1965, the people who retire between July 1, 1964 and January 1, 1965 will get the retroactive pay for the period of time they worked in that interval?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, that is good. It certainly justifies, if it needed justification, the institution of questions on orders of the day. This question, in my time here, has seldom been discussed in debate but it has been discussed often by means of questions and answers on orders of the day. Apparently this process has caused the minister to think about it and come up with a solution to the problem for people in the public service from here on. Those now in the service are going to be delighted to get this news. If this situation occurs again, they will be looked after. However, this is cold comfort to those who left the service during the last two years. As a matter of fact, the people who have written me, and they have been many, are mainly those who have left since last October and who had two or three months of work during the time the increases were in effect. They did not get them. It is rather cold comfort for them to know that the government has found a way to cope with the matter in the future.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It did not take the government all that time. These decisions were made within two or three months of the time the government took office. There was a very careful study made, as I indicated to the hon. member on orders of the day, to see what the problems would be if we made this retroactive. Now, I think the hon. member's original suggestion was that we should go back to October, 1962. I can assure him I looked into that very carefully. The difficulty was, why single out these particular people when the cyclical review had taken a couple of years to complete?

Now, I agree with him, if it could have been done without a great deal of difficulty; perhaps the answer would have been to have gone back to the beginning of this particular cyclical review which I recollect began in July, 1961. There were difficulties, which I have explained on previous occasions in doing that. It seemed to the government that the next best thing to fixing up these things back to the beginning was to at least make a good start from now on, and this was done. The announcement was made some time ago.
The only other thing I want to say is to assure my hon. friend that I think this makes it clear the principle he is advocating, and that I am just as much in favour of-I suspect -as he, will apply from this time forward. I agree with him that I have some reservation about seeing these $1 items in the estimates. When these particular acts come up for review, I should like to see this provision incorporated in them, so that they will be there and it will be clear to everybody where they stand. However, if we tried to open up all these acts now it would take a little longer, apparently, than we have between now and Christmas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to make it very clear that I am not detracting one bit from the genuine use of the word "good" that I offered a while ago when it became clear what the decision was in respect of the future. It is perfectly true that on several occasions on orders of the day the minister indicated that the problem was being studied, and I am even prepared to say the government deserves good marks if it comes up with a solution in two or three months; but I do not think the minister has given a satisfactory answer to cover the last full cycle.
The difficulty is that these people are now retired. Many of them retain a connection with civil service organizations and that sort of thing, but they are out of the picture, and somehow or another when people are out of the picture they do not seem to get the attention and consideration they seem to get while they are in the picture.
I congratulate the government on the decision made and I am glad the minister was able to say, without any ifs, ands or buts, that from here on any pay increase that is announced will go to all people who were working at the time the pay increase became effective, even if they retire a week or a month from that date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
85. Government's share of surgical-medical insurance premiums determined in accordance with regulations made pursuant to vote 124, Appropriation Act No. 6, 1960. $8,500,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before vote 85 carries I wonder if the minister would care to make a comment on the item which is just above it, even though it is a statutory item. Will consideration be given between now and next session to possible amendments to the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act along the lines requested by the civil service federation of Canada and other organizations?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not in a position to give any assurance of that, but I can say that the superannuation act will have to be considered and probably adjusted when the Canada pension plan is introduced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is aware of the problem and he will keep it on his mind?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
95. Institute of public administration of Canada, $6,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What is this organization, what is its membership composed of and why does it secure a grant from the federal government any more than, say, the barbers association or certified accountants association?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not happen to be a member of the certified public accountants association or I might feel that remark had been directed to me. This particular organization was established to enable the civil servants of Canada at all levels to improve themselves and it was felt that a modest grant by the government of Canada would be a very useful investment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Several of the provinces also make grants.


George Clyde Nowlan: It has been in existence for many years.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the institute was started about 1948. If I recollect correctly, a very experienced and able civil servant from Saskatchewan is the president of the association and he has approached me to ask, not only that this grant be continued but that the federal government and all the provinces study the possibility of increasing the grants in the future. This matter is being considered by the government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not objecting to the grant, but I do hope the minister gives consideration to other groups who want grants to improve themselves.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not have any questions on this item, but I would like to know whether the minister is going to answer the questions I asked with regard to the debt charges.
Supply-Finance


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would like first to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. As he pointed out, these are his estimates. He is a little more fullsome about their purposes and their contents than perhaps I could be, as they are not mine, but I do want to agree with him that they were well prepared and I have no hesitation in joining him in endorsing them and thanking the members of the committee for approving them.
With regard to the charges on the public debt, all I can say is that the total amount of the interest payable on the public debt depends on two things, the size of the debt and the current rate of interest. There is no way I know of that governments can incur deficits without increasing their debt. I have pointed out to a few people outside this house that this is one of the prices we inevitably must pay when we have deficits-and I think, as was so clearly stated the other day by the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Prime Minister, that there are times when we should have deficits. The net result is that the debt goes up and of course, the interest charges go up too.
As to the level of interest rates, as we all know it is controlled by a number of things, but one of the practical facts of life in this country is that if our interest rates are lower than those prevailing in other countries, there would be an outflow of funds which would be very damaging to the expansion of the country. The fact is that the debt has been going up and the interest bill has been going up proportionately.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This increase from the 1962-63 to the 1963-64 fiscal year is $92 million, somewhere between 12 per cent and 14 per cent, and certainly this is away out of proportion to the actual increase in the total debt. I am just wondering if there are some other reasons for it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The other factor, of course- and I think the supplementary question is very well taken-is that there have been a number of refundings of issues that were sold during the war years when interest rates were very low. They have had to be refunded at current interest rates, which are substantially higher. That would account for a big part of it.
I would like to say a brief word about the two points raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. He referred to the need in this country of taking steps to see that we control our own affairs and our own economy. I agree with him. I think he would agree with me when I say it is easier to say that than to do anything effective about it. I think the action that has been

Supply-Finance
taken will prove to be more effective in the years to come than some of the critics of these policies yet realize. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings talked about dialogues and consensus and one thing and another. I am glad that somebody else is uncertain about this word "dialogue" that seems to be worked to death these days.


George Clyde Nowlan: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I thought it had something to do with marital affairs, but apparently it has not. Anyway, let us leave it alone. I suppose that whenever new policies are introduced, and certainly new policies of the kind to which reference was made, there will always be differences of opinion, and strong differences of opinion. This has certainly been true in this particular case. Many people who were opposed to these policies have called me up lately and suggested they have come around to a different way of thinking. I am not suggesting this is by any means unanimous as yet, although I am hopeful that it may be at some time in the near future.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not called you yet.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, but you may. Another point raised was about the importance of the federal government retaining a position where it can influence the economy of the country and perform its clear responsibilities in this field. With regard to this I can only say that I agree completely with the hon. member. I have said this on many occasions publicly. I think we would all be very remiss if we allowed the federal government to become weak so that this country did become balkanized and there were no government left to give leadership. I certainly do not think this has happened and I do not believe it is going to happen.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings asked me two questions. The first was as to what steps were being taken respecting the renegotiation of certain tax treaties. We are having exchanges with the officials of the United States treasury now to set the time for detailed discussions of this matter. While I would hope these discussions might take place even before Christmas, I will be disappointed if they are not begun within the next couple of weeks. We are in communication with the United States treasury officials on the subject.


George Clyde Nowlan: If we are not careful we will not get out of here before Christmas.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think on that note, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I will be excused from answering the other questions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, we still have the estimates of the Secretary of State and one item of northern affairs. I doubt that we could finish by seven o'clock or 7.30. I would suggest, therefore, that we rise for half an hour and come back at 6.40.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the consideration of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in accepting the half hour suggestion, and I hope it will be accepted by all. We could then come back in a relaxed mood. I am sure that every member of the committee has seen so much of my face and heard so much of my voice that they will not want to hear any more from me.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that we will suspend the sitting until twenty minutes before seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At nine minutes after six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 6.40 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: House in committee of supply, estimates of the Secretary of State. Before we start discussing the estimates of this department may I suggest that we should go through the department itself, then to the different agencies, boards and commissions which come under the jurisdiction of the minister, leaving till the last the C.B.C. and the B.B.G., on which I assume there will be more discussion.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I thought that we adopted the position with other departments that we had a fairly free-wheeling discussion on item 1 and then proceed to the individual branches and pass them rather quickly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since this is not like other departments, and as these agencies have no relation whatever, apart from the Atlantic development board, to the department, it would certainly be much more agreeable to me if we took the Department of the Secretary of State, the Atlantic development board and then the agencies in order. Because there is not much relation between them.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Board of broadcast governors-
1. Salaries and other expenses, $349,800.


Erik Nielsen: I will be as brief as I can, Mr. Chairman. The only method I have of

communicating with my constituents in the Yukon is through the medium of the C.B.C.
I have no private radio stations to help me in the Yukon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman's point which he is raising would not more properly be raised on the C.B.C. than on the B.B.G.?


Erik Nielsen: I thought we were on the C.B.C.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, this is the B.B.G.


Lucien Lamoureux: This is vote No. 1, board of broadcast governors.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise at this point a matter which has been receiving very widespread publicity in the Toronto newspapers, and I presume other similar news media, and that is the decision of the C.B.C. to convert the programs of radio station CJBC in Toronto from English speaking to French speaking. The reason I raise the matter under this item is that the suggestion I want to urge on the government is properly brought, I think, under this particular item of the board of broadcast governors. It is always difficult to talk of the C.B.C. because one does not like to be put into the category of attempting in any way to exercise political interference with a crown corporation. But at the same time this corporation has taken a decision and instituted a procedure in Toronto which appears to be widely opposed by a good many people. I think it is our duty as representatives of some of those people to raise this matter and to draw to the attention of the government the seriousness with which this move is being viewed in some very significant quarters in the city of Toronto. The background is well known to all and it has been set out in a release issued by Mr. R. C. Fraser who is a vice president of corporate affairs of the C.B.C. This document, released on September 20, traces the background of CJBC and its position in the C.B.C. national network and it outlines the reasons advanced by the corporation for the initial decision to carry French language broadcasts over CJBC. It also sets out reasons why the corporation has now reached a decision that by October of 1964 the station shall become completely French speaking. It is most unfortunate that this document was not published some considerable time ago. One of the difficulties, now, is that the C.B.C. has to some extent botched the whole job of public relations. I think there is a case to be made out for a French speaking station in the city of Toronto. All the statistics indicate that a fairly wide audience would be interested. But because,
Supply-Secretary of State at the beginning, this was sprung on everybody without a good deal of advance preparation and public relations work, this matter is now being blown up into a great issue in the city.
I want to make it clear that as a representative of this party and of one of the Toronto constituencies I am not taking the position that French speaking or bilingual people should not have a station in the Toronto area. But station CJBC has built up a wide listening audience. It has developed a high calibre of programming and attracted the loyal allegiance of a large number of listeners-between 165,000 and 170,000, I think. Because of the manner in which this change has been announced by the C.B.C., the whole argument in its justification has become misunderstood. The most serious aspect of this situation is that many of us are coming to the conclusion, from work in our constituencies and surveys made, that there is growing in Toronto an increasingly widespread anti-Quebec feeling. This is a disturbing element, but it is a real one and it is easily perceived by anyone who tries to assess the feelings of his constituency. I recently completed a survey of my riding and the most significant thing about it, as the returns came back, was the growing antiFrench sentiment. I think this arises because all that is being heard in English speaking Canada are the voices of the demagogues, the voices of the extremists-the people who are saying to English Canada: You must do this, or that, or it is the end of confederation. It is only because an extreme point of view is getting through to English Canada that this reaction is building up. But because of the way in which the C.B.C. is handling this matter, its decision to make this station French speaking is likely to be caught up in this anti-Quebec move which is developing, and I do not think we should permit this to happen. I do not think this is a decision about which we should make inflammatory speeches.
It may be that the case of the C.B.C. is unassailable. However, to date they have been unable to convince us that there is no other way of meeting the needs of the French speaking or bilingual people in Toronto. No satisfactory explanation has been given why we should be deprived of one of our largest and best English speaking stations. If an examination of the circumstances convinces everyone that there is no other technical solution which would provide a French program, then I think the C.B.C. would have a strong case, perhaps even an unassailable case. But this has not been done to date and the whole question has been so botched by the C.B.C. from a public relations point of view that

Supply-Secretary of State the public has not been convinced of the need for this change. They do not understand the issue or the reasoning behind it.
For these reasons I would urge upon the minister as strongly as I can the proposal that the board of broadcast governors should hold a hearing into this whole matter. The board should undertake to have this whole matter reviewed and to let the C.B.C. come forward and make its case over again-to bring forward all the technical information which the rest of us must have if we are to justify the change.
When this matter first came up on December 12, I placed a lengthy question on the order paper, question No. 1,868. Had I been able to secure answers to that question quickly I would have been in a position to discuss this subject with the dozens and dozens of people who are continually calling every week end, wanting to know why this change is being brought about. But because we do not have this information we are not in a position to discuss this issue in a rational way with our constituents. That is why I feel the only way of preventing this thing from blowing up into a major issue between English speaking and French speaking Canadians is to have the whole question reopened by the board of broadcast governors so that all of us who are interested may give and receive information. Then, perhaps, if there is more light, there may be less heat generated. I do not think this is a subject on which we should all get up on white horses and make inflammatory speeches. There is too much wild talk about it in the city of Toronto at the present time and I do not think any of us have the necessary technical information with which to deal with it.
We all recognize the legitimate desire of the bilingual and French people in our area to have a station of some kind, but many of us are convinced that there are other technical solutions possible. If the corporation can convince us that there are no other solutions they will have a strong case, but until then the whole issue will be misinterpreted and misunderstood. Already we are getting ridiculous inflammatory documents mailed to us. Some are so ridiculous one hesitates to make them public. But they are symptomatic of what I mentioned in the beginning, and this is a misunderstanding of French Canada that exists in the minds of a lot of English Canadians. This misunderstanding is growing day by day because the voices of reason and the voices of moderation are not being heard. All that is getting through are the wild, extreme statements, and this is stirring up our people. While we have heard a lot about the rights of the French people, I want to make a plea for the rights of the English. We want

to understand the problems of the French Canadians. We want to be sympathetic to their needs in our area. But I plead with the government not to let this issue sit because it will not just sit still. It will get worse and worse. More inflammatory remarks will be made and misunderstanding will continue to grow.
I hope the minister will very seriously consider whatever approaches it is proper for him to make to have the board of broadcast governors announce soon that they intend to open up the whole matter and rehear it. As a matter of fact, this suggestion was made when the initial decision was made to have some programming. At that time Carlyle Allison, I believe, made the suggestion that there might be further hearings in the event the decision for French programming was taken very much farther, and I think the answer he got at that time was that there would be if the board desired. I think this is an appropriate case for the board to reopen the matter, so that those of us who are vitally interested in it can get all the necessary information that is needed and, more importantly, so that the English and French people in Toronto will understand each other's problems, try to meet each other's needs and get to understand each other's difficulties before this thing gets blown out of all proportion.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make a few remarks on the subject discussed by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott). In my opinion one should refrain as much as possible from delivering inflammatory speeches on this subject, especially since everybody has been hoping for a few years that some tolerance would be shown to the different ethnic groups of the country.
Allow me to quote from a report of the C.B.C. which is self-explanatory and which has been reproduced in the newspapers today. On the front page of he Droit, under the title: "The record of station CJBC", we find this:
The broadcasting of French programs within the transmitting zone of CJBC is in the national interest and in keeping with the mandate entrusted to the C.B.C. by parliament.
This shows that the matter has not been under consideration only for the past week. The whole principle is almost in effect at present.
The article goes on to say:
The C.B.C. has been considering for several years the means of providing this service, as recommended, besides, by the Fowler commission in 1957.
So, that problem was studied almost six years ago by the Fowler commission, which

looked into the problem of the C.B.C. and of French programs in other provinces than the province of Quebec.
It is neither intolerance nor extremism to quote those few remarks.
On page 2 of the same issue, one can read this:
In August 1962, the C.B.C. requested from the board of broadcast governors, at a public hearing, "the authorization to have CJBC, its AM English radio station in Toronto, broadcast French programs on a full time basis."
It is not only since last week that Toronto citizens recognize the need of such a radio station.
Perhaps I could give here an example of comprehension on our part, since in Quebec city, radio station CKMI broadcasts a certain number of programs on the English network which is nearly equal to the programs broadcast by CFCM-TV on the French network. It gives the same number of broadcasts if we take into account the number of hours it is on the air, while the English people represent only 3 per cent of that population of 300,000.
According to the statistics, there are, I think, 167,000 possible listeners in the Toronto area, 63,000 of whom are French Canadians.
I do not think it is exaggerated to say that the people of Toronto will easily accept a French station. Indeed, there are as many tolerant people in Toronto as in the province of Quebec, people who accept the existence of the two major cultures. It is therefore possible to set up a station of the C.B.C.'s French network in Toronto, without going back on a decision which was taken by the B.B.G. after serious consideration.
In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to accept the decision of the C.B.C. and to ignore the extremists who are against a French station in Toronto.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, there are a few remarks I should like to make on the C.B.C. estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are on the B.B.G. at the moment. If it is the C.B.C., I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would wait.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
1. Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service, $78,439,000.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, as I started to say on the wrong item, the C.B.C. is the only radio outlet in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories and in order to get information to my constituents I have to use this medium of communication. There are no private radio stations there. The Broadcasting Act lays down guideposts for the making of
Supply-Secretary of State political broadcasts over the C.B.C. Provision is made in the act for the broadcasting of communications of a political nature, whether by politicians or by newspapermen or by commentators. The routine for me and for my colleague, the member for the Northwest Territories, is to go to CBO in Ottawa and make a tape. That tape is then sent home to our constituencies and produced over the local network.
The regulations have always been such as to prohibit the production of political commentary of a partisan or controversial nature. How any politician or, indeed, any political commentator can say anything on the C.B.C. that is not controversial or of a partisan nature I do not know. I do not think it is possible. The issues of the day, the debates of the House of Commons, are all controversial. Otherwise our debates would not be debates.
On Thursday, December 12, just last week, I produced a tape at CBO at 10.45 in the morning. I was telephoned by one of the officials of the C.B.C. the following day but was not able to communicate with him again until December 17, five days later. At 4.30 p.m. I had a conversation with that official of the C.B.C. This was after I had received a letter from him dated December 17 and delivered to me by hand.
I am going to read the letter because it is important to the case I want to make, and the case I am going to make is to charge the C.B.C. with censorship of my broadcasts. One hon. member at the other end of the chamber said a moment ago it was a good thing that there should be no political interference with the C.B.C. With this I agree wholeheartedly. But conversely there should be no political interference by the C.B.C. with broadcasts which are made by commentators or members such as myself who have no other means of communicating with our constituents. The letter that was written to me on December 17 reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
I am writing you since we seem to have been unable to come together on the telephone. The matter I want to raise with you concerns the script of the report on the work of parliament which you recorded Friday last-
He is mistaken there, it was recorded on Thursday.
-produced by Gordon Bruce, the senior public affairs producer in Ottawa and to be broadcast on the Whitehorse station CFWH.
He is mistaken there because it goes over the whole Yukon network which consists of more than simply the Whitehorse station:
I felt it would be useful to talk to you as I think a confusion may have arisen about the purpose of the time provided over CFWH to report on the

Supply-Secretary of State work of the house to your constituents. Perhaps I might draw to your attention the relevant parts of the C.B.C.'s manual of policies and regulations concerning political and controversial broadcasting.
"The C.B.C. is prepared, if requested by a member of parliament or of a provincial legislature, to broadcast talks by him to his constituents on corporation stations which serve an area not covered by any privately-owned radio stations, under the following conditions:
(a) The talks will be reports on the work of parliament or the legislature and will not be partisan or controversial.
The first part of that statement of policy prohibits talks from being partisan or controversial. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how a politician can say anything concerning the business of this house that is not controversial?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It can be done, and it is done by the C.A.B.


Erik Nielsen: If most of these debates are not controversial, then I am mistaken as to the purpose of debate. Surely, the placing of both sides of an issue before anyone is, in itself, an indication that the matter is controversial. If I am going to place before my constituents over the C.B.C. any matters that arise in this house, surely I should be allowed to state the position that is taken by one side. It might not be the position taken by the other side, but that is the whole purpose of debate, and that is why we are here.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Let us hear your script.


Erik Nielsen: I will read my script in just a moment. I intend to do that to indicate the absurdity of the regulations that are laid down in this manual. I can read from Hansard as long as I wish, so I can put this speech on Hansard and then go back to the C.B.C. and read it over the air. This, I cannot do at the moment and, so far as the C.B.C. is concerned I am censored out of existence.
The second part of the rule-I have just read the first part-is as follows:
They will be given only when parliament or the provincial legislature is sitting.
I made this broadcast on December 17, in time for the tape to be sent for my broadcast over the Yukon network before this parliament adjourned. I must, in fairness, give the C.B.C. credit here. They tried to communicate with me sooner, and I tried to call back, but the official in charge had gone to Montreal and I could not communicate with him until the Monday. The net result has been that I have been prevented from reporting to my constituents by the lapse of time.
Now, paragraph (f) of the C.B.C. manual states this:
(f) The producer of the program, whether in Ottawa or at a local C.B.C. station, will be responsible for seeing that the broadcast conforms with

these policies. If in his opinion it does not, he will refer the script to the office of the regional director or, in the case of northern stations, to the director of northern services in Ottawa before putting it on the air.
The hon. member for Skeena has the same problem that I do, because he reaches the northern part of his constituency by a low powered relay station that is hooked into the Yukon network. The upshot of this whole matter is simply that the producer of my talk has referred it to the supervisor of public affairs in Ottawa. He winds up his letter with this sentence:
I think this should be as soon as possible-
That is getting together for a discussion of this matter.
-since I am not anxious to hold up the broadcast any longer than we must.
In speaking to the C.B.C. official, I was informed that the broadcast was not going to be sent along to Whitehorse because, in his opinion, it was controversial and partisan. I sent along to the C.B.C. and obtained a photostatic copy of my script, and this is what I am going to read tonight. I know that many members are not going to agree with what I am going to say because it is a debatable matter. Nobody on this side agrees with the things that are said on that side, and the same situation exists between the political parties in this house. We all have different views on subjects, and therefore those subjects are controversial. How on earth can they be anything else? This is what I said in my remarks to my constituents:
Once again, I am reporting to you from Ottawa on the activities of the House of Commons and my work on behalf of Yukoners everywhere. Much has happened since you last heard from me and my activities on your behalf have indeed been varied.
I am sure that you have all heard a good deal lately, by way of radio broadcasts, and that which you have read in your newspapers, a good deal about the operation of the House of Commons. There are some who have said that there has been obstruction of the government's legislative program and there are others who have said that the house is operating inefficiently, due to the slow speed with which various legislative measures are passed through parliament. I do not believe this since I believe debate to be a very necessary instrument for the preservation of our democracy. Without full debate, and without free debate, we would quickly become a government by dictatorship.
I am not so sure we have not, but I did not say anything about that.
Anyone who is close to the activities of the House of Commons would agree with that, and I need not leave my opinion unsupported. I believe the best authority that I could quote as to the truth of my own beliefs in this regard would be Mr. Pickersgill. Mr. Pickersgill, of course, is a Liberal member of the government, and is the Secretary of State in the cabinet. He was very active in debates when he was in opposition,

and he has said as recently as last November 29 precisely what I have stated concerning freedom of debate. In Hansard, on page 5268 for November 29, 1963, Mr. Pickersgill said this:
"So far as I am concerned, no one in the government has made any such allegation. Certainly, I have not, and I want to make that very clear. I have not made any such allegation at any time about the opposition. I think there has been a reasonable measure of co-operation."
And again, Mr. Pickersgill, on the same page of Hansard for November 29, said this:
"Perphaps the honourable gentleman will remember-and here perhaps I am breaking the rules myself by referring to the debate on redistribution the other day-that I am one of those who think there ought to be debate in parliament, and I do not regard debate as obstruction. I have not said and I have not thought that, taken by and large in this session of parliament, particularly since we met in September, there has been anything I would be inclined to describe as obstruction."
Even in Whitehorse, there have been references -and I can recall them appearing in one particular newspaper published in Whitehorse-that I have been rising to my feet too often in parliament. The particular newspaper if it can be called such to which I refer has certainly not been one of my ardent supporters and it seems rather puzzling to me that the editor of that newspaper would not want in fairness to his readers to publish statements such as that which I have just quoted by Mr. Pickersgill-not only supporting full and free debate in the House of Commons but also, frankly stating that there has been no obstruction by the opposition during this session.
I have also been criticized recently for saying too much in the House of Commons-for rising to my feet too often. Well, it seems to me that I would not be discharging my responsibilities to the people of the Yukon as their elected member of parliament, if I did not just as often as I possibly could rise and state the views of Yukoners, not only on those matters affecting our life in the Yukon, but also, on all those matters which affect our lives as Canadians generally. I do not believe that the people of the Yukon want a silent Sam sitting in parliament, saying nothing-doing nothing. It is time that the voice of the Yukon is heard and this the view that I have adopted ever since being elected your member in 1957. I have spoken just as often as I could and it is my intention to continue to express the views of the people of the Yukon with force and with frequency. There is, of course, the old adage that "the squeaking wheel gets the oil".
The most recent speech of any length which I have made in the house concerned the announcement by the Minister of National Defence with regard to the cut-backs being made in defence spending. I expressed views on the policy of the government with regard to national defence generally, and with regard to the cut-backs as they affect the Yukon specifically. I refer, of course, to the proposed changeover of the responsibility for the maintenance of the Alaska highway from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Public Works. I have stated before and I say again that, in the long run, I believe that this changeover will result in not only a more stable economy for the Yukon, but in time will result in the enlargement of our economy and in the growth of new businesses, which will grow up in order to serve the many requirements that the Department of Public Works will demand. D.P.W. will not be operating like the army has in the past in the maintenance operation with all sorts of various branches and divisions supporting
Supply-Secretary of State the main task of highway maintenance, such branches and divisions being staffed and operated by the army. D.P.W. will be farming out many phases of the maintenance operation, thus causing the growth of new industries and businesses in the Yukon. This is a good thing but it will take time. The initial economic shock of losing the army pay roll will have to be absorbed, and there is no doubt in my mind that this can be done, even though certain hardships will be experienced until D.P.W. has the opportunity of infusing new capital into the economy of the Yukon by farming out their various requirements for goods and services in the maintenance operation.
Another matter to which I referred was the all weather maintenance of the Haines road which you know is to be done on an experimental basis this winter. I have said before and I do so again that it would be my hope that the experiment proves to be economic and that the feasibility of continuous all weather maintenance will become a reality. I am, however, disappointed that Canadian dollars are being paid to the government of Alaska for the maintenance of a Canadian road by the use of the United States equipment and labour. I have felt that Canadian dollars would more properly be spent in relieving the chronically heavy Canadian unemployment and in utilizing Canadian equipment. The argument is that it would cost more if we were to direct our efforts to this end, but surely it would be better to spend a few thousand dollars extra if we can put more Canadians to work, using Canadian equipment. However, the maintenance is on an experimental basis for this winter only and perhaps the government will have a change of heart and policy by using Canadian labour and equipment for next winter's operations. Certainly, that is what I am working toward and I have no fear that I will eventually be successful.
I have been extremely active in two committees in the House of Commons. These are the standing committees on privileges and elections, and on mines, forests and waters. The standing committee on privileges and elections is now considering amendments to the Canada Elections Act and the Canadian forces voting regulations. There have been several major changes which will be recommended by the committee to the House of Commons and I expect there will be full debate on all of these changes. The mines, forests and waters committee is now considering the two bills of the House of Commons which proposed the division of the Northwest Territories into two separate units. The western portion of the division would be called the MacKenzie territory and the eastern portion would be called the Nunassiaq territory. The purpose is stated to be that each of the territories would advance more rapidly toward self-government and it would improve administration of the Northwest Territories. These committees have not yet completed their work, but I expect they will do before the session ends.
There has been more interesting debate in the house in connection with patronage. Just yesterday it was suggested by Mr. Fisher, a member of the New Democratic party, that the House of Commons should refer the whole matter of the Post Office Department patronage to the committee on privileges, for the purpose of investigating the many, many charges that have been laid since the new Postmaster General took over-that patronage is running wild in his department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I hear hon. members say oh, oh, but I can find many worse expressions

Supply-Secretary of State regarding this patronage on Hansard than any I made here in this talk of mine.
There appears to be every reason to believe that patronage is rampant in the Post Office Department since the new government took office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would like to ask the hon. member this question. When he reads this speech over the radio on the basis of reading it out of Hansard, will he read all the interjections as well?


Erik Nielsen: I could do this, because I am sure that the C.B.C. would not censor any omissions.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: Another area in which patronage appears to be appearing once again is in the activities of the Department of Public Works.
This comes as a surprise to the minister because I did not speak on his estimates. I did not because I wanted to save the time of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I did not speak on the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Survey, or on the estimates of every other department active in the north because I wanted to save time; but this is something that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. I agree with the principle that there should be no political interference with the C.B.C., but the reverse holds true as well. There should be no C.B.C. interference on commentaries made by myself or other hon. members of the house.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Go on with your bedtime story.


Erik Nielsen: I will continue reading my bedtime story to the Minister of Public Works.
I had a question placed on the order paper which has recently been answered showing that since April 8, 1963, there have been 131 contracts let by the Department of Public Works concerning goods and services supplied for the government in the Yukon. Of these 131 contracts, 103 were awarded without public tender call. There may be reason for awarding one or two contracts involving smaller amounts for goods and services without calling for public tender but to award 103 out of 131 without public tender call seems to me to be beyond reason. Of these 103 contracts which were awarded without calling for public tenders, 69 of the contracts involve goods and services which were supplied by Yukon firms. Thrity three of these contracts involving well over $100,000 were awarded without public tender call to firms and individuals outside of the Yukon territory for goods and services to be supplied inside the Yukon territory. My position is this, that if public tenders were called for these contracts, the firms and individuals in the Yukon who could have supplied these goods and services would have at least had the opportunity to a competitive bid with those outside firms. My position is still that I believe this sort of precedure to be wrong

and it should be rectified and I really don't care whether it went on under the last government or the previous government 20 years ago, or this government-the system is wrong and it should be rectified, and I will continue to work to that end.
It looks like this session of parliament will wind up its activities some time around the 20th of December. If the legislation has been completed by that time, the Prime Minister has said that there will be approximately a month's holiday but if the legislative program is not completed, the Prime Minister has said that it is his intention to call parliament back on December 27 to carry on until the work is completed. I think this is a proper approach and that since the job is full time, there can be no question about paying attention to completing the work before thinking of any holidays. It will result in my not being home for Christmas and also, perhaps, New Year's. It is my hope, however, that I will be able to get home at least for New Year's and for the first week or two in January to speak with as many Yukoners as I can. If I do not have the opportunity of personally wishing you a happy holiday season, I do so now, with my very best and sincere wishes for a warm and happy Christmas for all, and for a successful and prosperous new year.
My point to the Secretary of State is how absurd it is, now that that speech is on Hansard, I can give it; but I was censored out of this speech by C.B.C. officials who put their own interpretation on these words as being partisan and controversial.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: They put their own interpretation on practically everything.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman let me ask him a question. Now that he has read it to us, would he give it?


Erik Nielsen: I am prohibited from doing it now because parliament is going to pack up tonight, and the ruddy regulations say that I cannot make a speech on the radio after parliament packs up. I can only communicate with my constituents while parliament is sitting. I am not imputing any motive to the C.B.C. officials on this delay. I would not think of such a thing, but I remember how indignant the Secretary of State was a year or two ago when the Preview Commentary came off and he alleged political interference because of the discontinuance of that program. Let him now be just as indignant when the C.B.C. is preventing me from conveying fair comment on the debates in this house to my constituents. That is all that can be said about it. I think it is fair comment. The Secretary of State does not. In fact all the members sitting over there do not think that what is said on this side of the house is fair comment, but by George, when the day comes that we are prevented from expressing our views on debates over the radio, which is the only means for me to reach my constituents in the north, then we have come to a sorry pass indeed in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder would the hon. gentleman let me make a very brief comment on what he has said. This is of course a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the C.B.C. and I did not know anything about it until I heard a rumour the day before yesterday that the hon. gentleman was going to raise this matter in debate. I then consulted the regulations of the C.B.C. and was rather surprised to discover something I had not known, and which would have been quite useful to me to have known when I was in opposition, namely that the C.B.C. was willing in these areas where there were no private stations to let members of parliament broadcast to their constituents. I could have used that in Gander and Grand Falls myself if I had known, but the hon. gentleman seems to be more alert and better informed than I was, and for that I give him full credit.
I am merely speaking here as another member of parliament, because I have no responsibility in this matter, when I say I think it is rather an invidious thing for an organization like the C.B.C. to attempt to censor the speeches of politicians or anybody else. They have an editorial function, of course. They have the responsibility under the laws of libel, and certain other laws, to scrutinize in advance what is read, and to make certain something obscene or illegal is not broadcast. I am not one of these people who are much worried about partisan speeches, even when made by my opponents. But I thought there was one point raised by the hon. member which made a great deal of sense. Perhaps the hon. member quoted me-I am not quite sure-


Erik Nielsen: I did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but he said something about "full debate and without free debate". It does seem to me that perhaps the board of broadcast governors should take a look at the regulations of the C.B.C. and give consideration to these remote areas where the private stations do not exist, where the C.B.C. is the only outlet and where therefore the service of broadcasting reports from parliament hill by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which is given to most of the rest of us, does not exist. I certainly would not want to see hon. members deprived of that privilege. I say that in these remote areas there should be an opportunity for the people to hear full and free debate. If only the elected member is to be heard, it does seem to me these people do not have much opportunity to get that full and free debate of which the hon. gentleman himself approves so much.
Perhaps the board of broadcast governors would look at this matter and see whether
Supply-Secretary of State some arrangement could be made whereby various political views could be expressed in the area during the period of a session of parliament. I think that might be helpful. I am told that the C.A.B. are thinking of doing that. In the province in which I was elected, all the members are Liberal. I think it would be a good thing if we had some Conservative broadcasting in that area, because up to now-to put the matter on a low political plane-they have not made much impression. In Saskatchewan nobody is elected but supporters of the Leader of the Opposition. I think it would be a really good idea to have a little fresh air injected into that province.
I think the hon. gentleman may have done us all a service by raising this matter, and perhaps the board of broadcast governors, which under the Broadcasting Act has the jurisdiction, would look at these regulations and see that these reports from parliament hill give more than one point of view in all parts of Canada, including the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a brief word here. The board of broadcast governors has made provision for the situation described by the Secretary of State. I read from the most up to date copy I have of the "Political and Controversional Broadcasting Policies" of the board of broadcast governors issued by the authority of the board and as revised to March 1, 1960. On page 3 they say, amongst other things:
The right to answer is inherent in the democratic doctrine of free speech.
I say, give it, for heaven's sake. Let the Liberal party in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories get sufficiently organized so they can answer. As the Secretary of State said, it would be like a breath of fresh air to have the other side of the story put before the people. I would ask the Secretary of State, when he is asking the board of broadcast governors and the C.B.C. to take this matter into consideration, to have them look at page 3 of this document, where they set out in such pious terms:
The beard does not exercise censorship.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that the treatment accorded to me, in good faith by the official concerned with it, is in effect censorship because I was prevented from making that broadcast to my constituents. Then this document says:
It does not restrict the nature of material to be broadcast, except to see that such material conforms with its printed regulations.
How bureaucratic can regulations and interpretations get? Then it says:
The policy of the board, with regard to controversial broadcasting, is based on the following principles:

Supply-Secretary of State
1.	The air belongs to the people, who are entitled to hear the principal points of view on all questions of importance.
The points I mentioned in my speech were certainly of importance, not only nationally but locally. Then we read this:
2.	The air must not fall under the control of any individual or groups influenced by reason of their wealth or special position.
Not even the C.B.C. or their directorship. The third one I have already read:
The right to answer is inherent in the democratic doctrine of free speech.
Then:
4. Freedom of speech and the full interchange of opinion are among the principal safeguards of free institutions.
It seems to me that adopting the course which they did adopt, with all due respect to the bona fides of their position, was wrong. They should have allowed an answer to be made, if they thought it was controversial, but they should certainly not have prevented me from communicating, as I wished to do, with my constituents. The absurdity is apparent now. I could simply read this Hansard, if the session were continuing; but I cannot now because this session has almost finished. If there were still time I could go over there tomorrow, read the speech right out of Hansard and this would be within the law.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a suggestion to the hon. member for Yukon, it is this. This session will probably last for another couple of hours. Perhaps he could arrange for the C.B.C. to get over there quickly and have it recorded right away.


Erik Nielsen: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, the mails to the Yukon are not that quick.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the suggestions made by the Secretary of State are really accepted already in principle.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are, for national broadcasts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are provincial affairs broadcasts, where the various parties are given time according to a formula to discuss provincial affairs. There is also The Nation's Business, in which program members elected to the federal parliament may discuss federal matters. It seems to me that the same principle could be applied equally to areas such as the Yukon and Skeena, and those remote places where the C.B.C. is the only means of reaching the public. In those areas time could be allocated under the same type of formula as is used for provincial affairs and The Nation's Business.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly my view.


Mr. Choquette:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the establishment, as soon as possible by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, of a French television station in the city of Quebec. It is, I believe, an imperative need, not to say an obviously urgent need.
The city of Quebec is pre-eminently the French city in Canada; it is the capital of the province of Quebec and, I believe, it would be most appropriate that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation establish in that city a French television station.
In the city of Quebec, we have now two television stations, that is CKMI and CFCM, one of English language and the other of French language, evidently controlled and owned by private enterprise.
That is why I am of the opinion it is inconceivable to see the city of Quebec, the capital of the province of Quebec, not endowed with a station of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I remember that a few years ago, in this house, one of the most severe critics of the C.B.C. was none other than the former Conservative member for Roberval, Mr. Tremblay, who made the headlines lately in the Quebec newspapers for having said that the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism was a trap set for the French Canadians. It is this same Mr. Tremblay, the former Conservative member for Roberval, who says "no" to confederation.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether those remarks tally with those of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) or the views of the Conservative party, but I say this without bitterness, just to tease.
If we had a public French language television station in Quebec city, it seems to me that we could help promote unity and solidarity between all Canadians, and prevent people like Mr. Tremblay from making unfair, shocking and unfortunate remarks.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding I stress the immediate need for a French language television station in the city of Quebec.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am told that this station is expected to be opened in September of 1964.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman and members of the House of Commons, I regret very, very much having to be here tonight and speaking on the 21st day of December. I realize that a modified form of closure is being applied and I am quite prepared to admit it. I have been a member of this house since a year ago last September. I have been anxious to speak on C.B.C. matters during that entire

time, but not once has there been an opportunity to express an opinion on the operation of the C.B.C., and I have been on the government side since April 22.
On Friday, December 13, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam rose in his place and quite correctly asked that a mistake in a news broadcast on the C.B.C. be corrected. He was given this answer by the spokesman in this house for the C.B.C., as reported at page 5802 of Hansard:
If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation made a mistake, that could be referred to in debate by any hon. member at any time-
I want to make the flat-footed statement in this committee that there has not been an opportunity to debate the C.B.C. since I entered this house in September of last year. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was quite correct in what he was doing. He was simply trying to make a correction to a wrong news report. I have been associated with the news business long enough to know a wrong report when I see it; and for an accusation to be made that someone is trying to discipline or trying to censor the C.B.C. because an attempt is made to try and correct a mistake is beneath the dignity of all hon. members of this house. I resent the answer the hon. member received, and I wish to say so now.
My reason for rising to speak on the estimates of the C.B.C. is to inquire what we have hold of here. Is it a white elephant which we have to feed, or a cancer which feeds on us? Hon. members can take whichever simile they wish, because either is true. We are being asked here to vote the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the year 1963-64 the sum of $87,644,900. In the fiscal year 1959-60, which was four years ago, the estimates of the C.B.C. amounted to $69,641,975. In four years there has been an increase of $18,002,925, or 25.85 per cent. The expenses of the C.B.C. for which this government is responsible are up 25 per cent in four years, and unless somebody stops them the end is not yet.
I make the statement that I do not believe even the C.B.C. knows what is going on in the field of broadcasting. I happen to be the hon. member for York-Humber and I have an able Liberal colleague in the hon. member for York West, whom you all know as Mr. Leonard Kelly. We happen to be the only two members in the house who have what is generally known as "pay T.V." in our ridings in Toronto or, as it should be correctly called, "theatre in the home". Is "Red" Kelly or this hon. member ever asked for suggestions with regard to television? What do we know about television? We have about 5,000 theatres in the homes scattered about our ridings, and
Supply-Secretary of State we are conceited enough to think that we do know a little about it. I should like to point out that I brought into Canada for the first time closed circuit television sporting events. I was promotion manager for the Toronto daily Star, and six years ago, maybe seven, I brought into Toronto at Loew's Uptown theatre closed circuit television of the world heavyweight boxing championship. I remember our concern as to whether or not it would take. But I learned then that closed circuit television in theatres was bound to be a success. For one thing, patrons do not have to go to the place where the game is being played or the sporting event takes place. They do not have parking troubles, and after the event is over, whether the event be in New York, Boston, Winnipeg or Vancouver, they are in their home town and can get home that same night.
I brought closed circuit theatre television to Toronto twice. The first time was the world championship heavyweight boxing match at Loew's Uptown theatre, on which occasion they had to call out the police to keep the people away from the doors. Seats sold at $6 each and there were a thousand men outside trying to get in. A year later another world's heavyweight championship was held, and we put it on closed circuit television at two theatres, Loew's Uptown and Loew's Downtown.
If anyone tries to criticize the $87 million expenditure of the C.B.C., heavens above, the corporation is defended like the sacred cows of India. We are told that we are interfering with the freedom of the press, with freedom of expression. We are told not to criticize the C.B.C. All my life I have been mixed up in this business of the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press consists of allowing a person to express his opinion on any matter of the day, provided the laws of libel and slander are not breached. But I submit this is not licence to go off to the sands of Algiers and make a film on the sand tracks in Algiers, or to go off to Patagonia to study the love habits of mice in the long grass. Is there no limit to the extent to which the C.B.C. send these safaris around the world, so they can come back to show us pictures which you can buy from any motion picture production house at one-tenth the cost? There has to be some discipline shown on these expenditures.
We have never been given an opportunity to discuss the C.B.C. estimates during the 20 months I have been in the house. I wonder how many members in the committee or people in the country realize that for 30 years the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways have been carrying sound to the 195 radio stations

Supply-Secretary of State throughout Canada, but lost the contract to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada in the summer of 1961? It will interest hon. members to know that in Newfoundland the Canadian National Railways is the only medium by which sound can be provided to radio stations. In the Yukon and in the area from Grande Prairie to Whitehorse and the north the C.N.R. have the only lines available for the carriage of radio sound to the station connections up there.
Hon. members will be interested to learn I am certain that this is the first time this matter has been dragged out into the open, because you simply must not talk about the C.B.C. as it involves freedom of the press. In 1962 the contract ran out and bids were called for from the combined railways who had been providing this service, as I say, for 30 years. They were advised on August 18, 1961 that the railway contract would not be renewed. It had been picked up by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. The two railway companies were somewhat surprised at this, and who can blame them? Here was the C.B.C., a government crown corporation, giving a contract to a private organization, although the Canadian National Railways is supposed to be government-owned. The Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National inquired into the matter and found that the bid of the Bell Telephone Company was approximately 25 per cent lower than they had been able to bid. All they had was their 30 years experience. Is the management of the Canadian National Railways and the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway so inefficient that they do not know their costs after 30 years experience? The Bell Telephone put in a tender which was 25 per cent lower than the tender of the railway companies.
I have a letter here under date August 30, 1961. You know, Mr. Chairman, how long it took me to get this letter from the government files. I tried to get it a year ago, but I was, shall I say, smiled upon and snickered at. I remember Mr. Halpenny, the secretary of state at the time, thinking it a great joke. The week before Christmas he asked me whether I would mind waiting a week so he could produce the letter, and I was so dumb he thought, I did not realize Christmas was the next week and I said that I had no objection. There was loud laughter in the house. This fall I tried to get the paper, and I got it last week. I knew what was in it before I got it, but I want to read the official government record. The letter was addressed to the Hon. Leon Balcer, Q.C., M.P., who was minister of transport, and it was signed by Mr. R. A. Emerson, for the chairman and president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and by Donald Gordon, chairman and
[Mr. Cowan.1
president of Canadian National Railways. I want to read two paragraphs. The writers of the letters were, of course, upset at losing this contract to the Bell, and they write:
Assuming that it is in the national interest to maintain competition in the communications industry, we think you will agree that such competition cannot be preserved if one group is permitted to quote depressed rates in the competitive situation and to obtain recompense through higher rates for other services.
Public long distance telephone rates in Canada are 50 per cent or more above comparable rates in the United States which are regulated by the federal communications commission.
Hon. members will be interested to note that this was the answer which was received from Mr. Balcer:
X have read the letter dated August 30 which you sent me jointly with the president of the Canadian National Railway dealing with the subject of transcontinental communications.
I will be glad to see that the communication is brought to the attention of the appropriate officials in the department.
I am sending a similar letter to the president of the C.N.R.
Yours very truly,
Leon Balcer.
This is a carbon copy of the letter to Mr. Crump.
That was on September 8, 1961, and this is December 21, 1963. That is the last that the presidents of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. heard about the situation where an organization comes in and, in a competitive situation, quotes a rate knowing it can recoup its losses on long distance or local calls. But the contract had been awarded to the Bell company. When they tendered on the prime contract they had to service Newfoundland and the Yukon-and there was only one organization which could do both, or either, and that was the C.N.R. Only after it was announced that the C.N.R. and C.P.R. would not have the contracts for the radio stations did the Bell Telephone Company go to the C.N.R. and ask them how much they would want for those territorial services. What kind of a situation is that, when the tenderer puts in a figure and has not even spoken to the subcontractors? Another thing: the Bell Telephone Company did not pay the C.N.R. for three months, but after I put my question on the order paper for the production of this letter last fall the Bell Telephone Company paid the C.N.R. within 72 hours. I think it was only a coincidence; I would not like to think I could influence a big organization like that. But the C.N.R. had been waiting for payment for three months and I put a question on the order paper and they got paid in three days. I would point out that the charges of the Bell Telephone Company are considered right now in our cost of living index month

by month, but we do not consider in the consumer index the cost of servicing 95 radio stations.
The entire television and radio world at the present time is in a ferment, and for any man to estimate what is likely to happen in the next few years without realizing that cable television and theatre television are here to stay is ridiculous. In the ridings of York-Humber and West York where we have theatre in the home we are fortunate, because we can pick up the away games of the Toronto Maple Leafs. You have to pay to have the picture come on, but you can watch the games in your own home. You pay $1.50 or $2, and four or five men get together and pay 50 cents each and they see the game.
Then we have cable television. My experience of that has been that up at Pene-tanguishene and Midland, where I have a summer home since 1938 it has been in operation for many years. In Guelph I have seen it in operation in the homes of friends. It gives a marvellously clear picture. I came down here last May and attended the annual meeting of the community antenna television association of Canada in the Chateau Laurier to try to pick up a few indications of the future of this marvellous entertainment possibility. Later, on June 4, I spent an entire day in Christ Church hall listening to the arguments on cable television. I think I was the only member of parliament who sat there from the opening of the day to the close of the discussions. There was an argument against cable television put forward in the hall and the sum and substance of it was that when people have cable television in their homes they are not looking at local television stations. The local television stations contend that it is not right for viewers to have freedom of choice of this kind; they should be content to take what is offered by the local stations.
A year ago the hon. member for Port Arthur placed a question on the order paper. I have a return here dated October 31, 1962. The hon. member was a little exercised at the time because football games were being shown in Port Arthur and the lakehead by cable T.V. while others with television sets were unable to get these programs for free. I suppose some of his constituents were worrying the life out of the hon. member for Port Arthur, wanting to know why the fellow who paid for his television on the cable system was able to see these football games. So he asked a question on this score. I made some inquiries with the people who own Lakehead Videon and they advised me that they did not have any intention of putting the games on Lakehead Videon, but the C.T.V. people were broadcasting these football games,
Supply-Secretary of State sending them east and west. Since there was no outlet in Port Arthur or Fort William the manager of Lakehead Videon was smart; he consulted his principals and said: That game is going over my head; let us put it on cable T.V. in Port Arthur and Fort William and please the fans. The principals of the outfit said: That is okeydokey. And this Lakehead Videon concern pulled the game out of the air and the people who were paying $4.50 a month got what they were paying for. But the people who were not getting it for free were complaining to high heaven.
This system is bringing important hockey games to Toronto which are not available on free television broadcasts. In addition, theatre in the home is carrying these games in York-Humber and West York. We also have these games on closed circuit system in Toronto. It started in one theatre and developed a great following. That theatre has 1,200 seats and all the seats were sold out. So popular are these games that they are now being played before audiences in 11 different theatres including one in St. Catharines, one in Hamilton and one in Oshawa and the audiences are terrific. I mention this question of closed circuit games because, throughout Canada, there are remarks made by team owners who point out that free television is not going to be with the Canadian general public long. Mr. Stafford Smythe has made statements in the recent past that there will be no Saturday night television of the hockey games in Canada much longer. What a hue and cry there has been about that. One of our most childish radio commentators-I do not want to refer to him by name; I used to be associated with that paper-says: You can't do this to us. It is astonishing to me that the C.B.C. should make no effort to point out that these sporting functions are being picked up on the cheap, and that this situation is not going to last much longer.
I wonder how many directors of the C.B.C. are aware of a decision which was handed down in the British high court in the case of Eastham v. Newcastle United Football Club, Ltd. et al. Of course, now that I have raised this matter they will no doubt say they knew all about it and are making a study of the situation. This man Eastham is a world beating inside forward in a team in the British soccer league and he is a player who incurred the wrath of his management. He was an outstanding player on his soccer team and I guess the management did not like the way he parted his hair or, as Scott Young says in an article, maybe he was not saluting the coach and backchecking at the same time. They did not play him and this soccer player


George Clyde Nowlan: Marbles.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: They maintain they are entitled to payment for their service and the entertainment they provide in these various sporting events. There is a very interesting thing in the estimates of the Secretary of State. On pages 386 and 387 there is a vote, "copyright and industrial designs division including a contribution to the international office for the protection of literary and artistic works". Here we are making arrangements to pay for literary and artistic works that may be reproduced. We can all remember how people howled when ASCAP came into being and began to demand that radio stations should pay every time they played a record. You will remember how the radio stations raised particular Ned on that score, and said they had bought the record and therefore they could play it. The musicians maintained that the playing of the record robbed them of work because people were using records when they should have hired live musicians. ASCAP was formed, and since then a certain percentage of money is paid by radio stations and anybody else using records for public entertainment into a fund of the musicians protective union.
We have copyright laws to protect writers, we have ASCAP to protect musicians. I say that the professional athletes are entertaining and are entitled to the same protection. They are demanding that the games in which they play shall go on closed circuit television either to homes or to theatres.
It is all right to sit back and say that the world series turns a tremendous sum of money into the pension fund of the players. Here is this morning's Globe and Mail and on the front page we can read about the big football game to be played in Chicago on December 29 between the Chicago Bears and the New York Giants. In the second paragraph there is this statement:
Pete Rozelle, N.F.L. commissioner, said yesterday the reasons for this included the smaller capacity of Wrigley field compared with Yankee stadium and the fact there will be a $450,000 slice from T.V.-radio receipts earmarked for the player pension fund-
Hon. members may sit back and say that $450,000 for the player pension fund is tremendous, but the players are not satisfied. They know that if there is closed circuit television throughout the United States and parts of Canada they will get more money for the players' pension fund by that means than they will ever get from the free television broadcasting of sporting events. I say that the C.B.C. should be inquiring into the remuneration of these players who are appearing on our television screens. A year ago I asked the government of the day how

much money they were going to pay the Grey cup players, because they ordered the players to perform on the C.B.C. network. I got a couple of very knowing smiles, the inference being that I was an ignorant boy who was new in the house, and I was given the answer that this was something I should take up with the C.B.C. I did not have time to take up the matter with the C.B.C. and I asked the question the second time. The C.B.C. had been ordered to broadcast the Grey cup game across the nation. The players in that game were going to entertain the millions of Canadians who look at the C.B.C. network stations, but the players were not getting any extra money from the C.B.C. for entertaining these millions of people.
These professional players are not dumb. We have a very good example of how smart they are in one who sits right in this house. Nobody can question his intelligence or mental capacity.
I have said before that if you start to speak about freedom of expression on the C.B.C. we are told, as was done to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that there can be no censorship, no discipline, not even when they make mistakes. This sacred cow or white elephant has got to be tethered and brought to time. I say to you that the O'Leary report is mixed up in this whole C.B.C. matter. Here we have $87 million being sought for the C.B.C. and questions are being asked: "What has happened to the O'Leary report?"
What about the O'Leary report? What are you going to do for our suffering magazines? I tell you that the magazines and newspapers are suffering because of the millions of dollars in advertising revenue that are being drained away from them by radio and television. There is talk about United States magazines such as Reader's Digest and Time, as though they were wrecking the Canadian publishing business. It is not Reader's Digest and Time that are wrecking the Canadian publishing business. It is the radio and television operations of the C.B.C. with its government subsidy of $87,644,900. The advertising rates that are set by an organization with a government subsidy of $87 million bear no relation to cost. Private television stations have to quote rates that bear some semblance to those quoted by the C.B.C. Newspapers and magazines in Canada have to quote rates that have to compete with the subsidized rates of the C.B.C. and the countervailing rates of private television. I can tell you the reason why our newspapers and magazines are in distress. It is because of the $87,644,900 that is being voted to the C.B.C. They should be out of the business.
Supply-Secretary of State


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has given us a great discourse about soccer players in England and marbles in Canada. We want him to know how much we appreciate it, because we want to hear from him what he thinks about the C.B.C. making CJBC a French station.


Lucien Lamoureux: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I hoped there would be a disposition to give the hon. member more time because he has not taken much time during the session.


Mr. Churchill:: We want him to continue.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I could just indicate, in relation to that latter remark by the Secretary of State, that we do not want to hear any more nonsense from him when other people speak in debates.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was willing to give the floor to the hon. member for York-Humber if we could get unanimous consent. However, I understood there was some objection from the group on my left.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not hear any objection from anyone.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I wish to thank hon. members of the committee for their indulgence. I understand their interest in what I am saying and it indicates to me they would like to have heard some of these facts during the past eight months that this house has been in session. However, no opportunity was given to discuss C.B.C. matters. This is now December 21, and everybody wants to go home for Christmas. There are a few of us left here, enough to make a quorum, but we want to go home for Christmas too, the time at which we celebrate the birth of Christ. How many of you realize that three days after the birth of Christ, in some churches they celebrate the slaughter of the innocents? I might tell you that here we are being asked to vote $87,644,900, which certainly represents the slaughter of innocent taxpayers.
These taxpayers would not need to be subjected to this cost whatever, if the C.B.C. were out of the network business. They should be providing programs which could be leased to private firms for television stations, for cable television or for use in theatre organizations. In speaking on C.B.C. matters,

Supply-Secretary of State I make the statement that there should be an investigation of that organization to let them realize that the people who are paying the money have the right to call the tune, particularly in view of the situation which now exists where television sports spectaculars are going into theatres and such places by means of closed circuits.
I should like to find out a few things about this system. The hon. gentleman who used to report for the C.B.C. is in the house. I recall when he was appointed to that responsible position, and he advised that he did not own a television set. I thought that showed the good sense of the hon. member. I rather agree with the gentleman in the United States who referred to the wasteland of television. He wants to know my opinion about the conversion of the radio station in Toronto on October 1 next year to another language. I thought this was rather generally known, but I should like to say to you, sir, that I consider the C.B.C. a cancer on the body politic of Canada. Some of the work they are doing in Toronto right now is just another cell on that cancerous growth. We have to stop it soon, and we should stop it right now. There should be a rigid investigation of the C.B.C. I do not believe the minister who reports for the C.B.C. in this house should stand up and say:
I do not think that anyone in this house of any party would seriously argue that there should be allowed to take place any development that it is within the power of this parliament to control or to legislate about, which would indirectly undermine what has over a period of 40 years-indeed ever since the beginning of broadcasting, or licensed broadcasting, assumed any real importance in our community life-been regarded as a matter of national importance, a matter perhaps affecting the very existence of our country as a separate entity.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am quoting the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as reported on page 5279 of Hansard for November 29, 1963. I might point out that no reference is made there to the newspapers and magazines that have gone out of business in the last 30 years as a result of radio and television taking the advertising from them. It was the newspapers and magazines that built this nation and provided the cohesion that there is today. Nobody worried about the newspapers. We had the freedom of the press, and we paid the bills. However, the C.B.C. has the freedom of the press and we pay the bills. There is a hell of a big difference between having freedom of the press and paying your own bills and having freedom of the press and having someone else pay your bills. The action taken in Toronto within the last few days is just another indication of the rotten cancer that is

on this body politic of Canada, and the sooner it is investigated right to the bottom, the better.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, taking a look at the clock and the calendar I find that there is not too much time allowed for a discussion of these particular estimates tonight. I should like, first of all, to extend my sympathy to the hon. member for York-Humber because the actions of the Secretary of State, as house leader, have denied him the privilege of dealing with this matter before today.
I believe that the parliament of Canada gave the C.B.C. a great responsibility when that organization was established in the first instance. During the past several years, I believe C.B.C. programming has become a monstrosity, threatening the moral and cultural fibre of this nation. The influence of the United States has left its mark on the C.B.C., and it is no secret that the present management of the C.B.C. has succumbed to that influence. The result has been to accelerate the destruction of Canadian culture and values as separate and identifiable elements in world civilization. The C.B.C. is, in great measure, responsible for the relaxation which denies any responsibility to its original purposes and objectives. I believe the time has come when a real shakeup in the C.B.C. is essential, if we are to salvage anything of value to Canadian institutions and to Canadian culture.
I do not intend to utilize this opportunity tonight to document the degradation and the accompanying dangers that the present trend will undoubtedly visit upon our nation. However, I want to read a letter, which is one of many I have received from my constituents, which indicates something of what I hear as I am going across this country from time to time. The letter reads:
Dear Sir:
This is a protest against the C.B.C. plays that have been presented on television these past two years. Some are nothing but unadulterated filth and a direct waste of taxpayers money. As a mother X refuse to let any such media into our home, and find that anyone I have spoken to feels precisely the same.
Hoping you will exert whatever influence is necessary to stop this waste.
I ask the management and staff of the C.B.C. to take a look at letters of that type and then take a look at the kind of programming they have developed for the C.B.C. They should ask themselves whether they have been doing anything to enrich the culture of this nation.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I do not want these estimates to pass without a word on the other side. After all this "hate the C.B.C.

talk", and talk of a cancer on the nation, the hon. member for Rosthern wonders what the C.B.C. has done for entertainment and for the cultural activities of this country. I will say it has done a great deal more than many of the networks in the United States which are privately owned. Last night hon. members appointed themselves as a group of art critics and tonight we are appointing ourselves as a committee of censors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I would remind hon. members that, by and large, the C.B.C. is doing a good job. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Labour Congress and many other groups support the idea of the C.B.C., and feel that it should carry on as it is at the present time. The minister, I believe, need not pay too much attention to the complaints that are heard occasionally from the Conservative party and the conservative Liberals.


Mr. Regan:: My remarks will be very short and I am sure they will not be in any manner controversial. Having derived my livelihood from the broadcasting business for some years before I entered the practice of law, I have a keen interest in the operations of the C.B.C. and broadcasting in general. While I worked in private radio, nevertheless I feel that the knowledge I picked up there helps me to appreciate the very important role that the C.B.C. has played, and today plays in the development of the national life and the culture of the country.
I have had the opportunity, as most hon. members have had, of observing both television and radio in other countries, and on that standard alone I think the C.B.C. shapes up very well indeed. I think the most significant thing we must remember with regard to the C.B.C. is that, had we not had it in the early years, and in later years in television, had we not had this national organization broadcasting in Canada and seen to it that there was included in the broadcasts matters of cultural interest, and matters for which sponsors could not be found, then our subservience to American culture would be very much greater than it has been.
In my opinion the C.B.C. is independent, imaginative, progressive, active and sometimes controversial. I admit it often puts on programs with which I personally disagree, but I would hate to see its independence taken away, and I think that any organization to be successful in this sort of business is bound to be very controversial sometimes.
I would agree with the hon. member for Danforth that its public relations branch somehow broke down rather badly with regard to the switching over from English to French of the radio station in the Toronto
Supply-Secretary of State area, because the full story of that should have been put before the public at an early date. I just want to make two or three remarks of a regional nature, but before doing so I should like to make reference to the remarks made earlier in favour of closed circuit television. I do not know much about this pay television, but I do hope that in the rural areas of Canada, which probably will never be supplied with this type of television, people will still be able to watch such things as hockey games on C.B.C. television, involving the Montreal Canadiens, the Boston Bruins, Chicago Black Hawks, Detroit Red Wings and the New York Rangers.
The C.B.C. organization or branch in the Halifax area is capable of producing programs for television and radio of a very superior type. Some of these are shown on national television, such as the Don Messer show and King Fisher Cove, both excellent programs, and I thank the C.B.C. for the efforts it has made in developing branches in cities all across the country capable of producing programs of this type.
Before resuming my seat, I want to refer to one specific radio program carried over the maritime radio network which I think has merit to be included on the national network. I would urge the C.B.C. to consider the possibility of having the half hour show At the Opera, with David Murray, which is now broadcast on the maritime network on Thursday mornings, placed on the full Canadian network. This man David Murray not only has an excellent program but he shows excellent selection in his music, and includes a knowledgeable commentary of the proper length. In conclusion I only want to say I feel the C.B.C. has made, and I hope in the future will continue to make, a very valuable contribution in the development of a national culture across this nation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I shall just make one brief remark, although I have quite a number of remarks to make about the C.B.C. In fact, I have a nice long speech, not exactly in the same vein as the hon. member for York-Humber. I do not intend to deliver it this evening but I will on another occasion.
I do not think there are many members of the committee who really object to the C.B.C. as an institution. I for one think the C.B.C. as an institution is an excellent thing for Canada, but like the hon. member for York-Humber, I think there are a number of fields in which it needs rather severe checking up. However, the chief complaint most people have about the C.B.C., most of the people I have talked to, is in the field of public affairs programs.

Supply-Secretary of State
We all agree there should be no political interference with the C.B.C. from this institution, but likewise I do not think there should be any political interference in the public affairs programs from within the C.B.C. itself, and I am not at all convinced that does not take place. There should be a very careful scrutiny made of it, and some arrangement arrived at to see that it does not take place. I am not going to say any more at the present time.
I have some very well documented remarks which I intend to deliver at a later date, but I hope between now and then the officials of the C.B.C., and those responsible, will take a very careful look at the selection of some of the political commentators, and also at the presentation of the news, a matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam the other evening, so that there will not be a twisting or slanting of the news, such as has been going on in an accelerated manner recently. I hope a word to the wise will be sufficient, and that it will not be necessary to bring this up again.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just simply wish to make a brief comment, a passing reference to a regional difficulty, and one suggestion. I am very happy in representing a riding that is very fond of the C.B.C. generally. My trouble is getting enough C.B.C. service to various isolated points in the riding. I am one who appreciates the C.B.C. and believes in defending its independence. I always admired the former minister of national revenue, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, when he defended the independence of the C.B.C., sometimes under pressure from members of his own party. I shall never forget his rising on two or three occasions to defend the independence of the C.B.C.
In the area around Kootenay lake there are large numbers of people, relatively large for an isolated area, who are anxious to get C.B.C. service through a satellite station. They have repeatedly taken up this matter, and so have a lot of people in the Castlegar area, and they are disturbed over the delay in providing a satellite station. I understand this delay is occasioned by some difficulty with the provincial government in obtaining the site required for the station. There have also been representations recently from the Fruitvale district and the Montrose district, all wanting a satellite station, and I mention this to show the rate of demand for C.B.C. service in the area I represent.
Many of these people do not understand why they cannot get service immediately. This is what I rise to suggest. I think the C.B.C. does fall down in some respects with its public

relations. Like the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), I think sometimes its public relations are poor, not only with respect to programming and things of that type, but also with respect to policies and the priorities for the installation of satellite stations.
I suggest the C.B.C. would be well advised to publish their policy with respect to the installation of satellite stations and the priority given to population, density of population and things of that sort, so that persons will understand they are not being discriminated against, that their case is being considered; and when it comes up for review they will know the order of priority in which it will receive attention. This is something that should be considered in regard to the delay in providing services to the people in the isolated districts. I do think they should receive every consideration, because these people are producing revenue for this country in the work they are carrying out, and they are making a contribution to our economy. The C.B.C. possibly means a great deal more to them than it does to people in the larger centres who have other fields of entertainment, news broadcasts and other facilities.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Kootenay West I represent a constituency where people who have not the advantages of the C.B.C. service are clamouring for extension. However, I shall not attempt to go into the details of that question at this hour. I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Chairman, because the hon. member for York-Humber raised the question as to whether we were exporting any broadcasting stations from Canada. I would like to inform him and the committee generally that when I was in Malaysia this fall I heard very high praise indeed for the work being done by some of our C.B.C. technicians in assisting the Malaysians to establish their television system. This system, I might also point out, is being modelled very closely on that of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate somewhat to make certain comments on the estimates now before us, but I cannot leave unchallenged the statement made by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) as well as those made both in this house and outside by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan).
Furthermore, certain remarks made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Piekersgill) lead me to put certain facts on the official record.
The hon. member for Danforth deplored the fact that French speaking Canadians in

Toronto are getting a French radio station and he proposed that a full inquiry be held on this question. What surprises me, however, Mr. Chairman-


Reid Scott: I rise on a question of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman. I know the hon. member wants to be fair. I do not think anything I said deplored the request or the need of the French speaking people in Toronto for a radio outlet. Quite the contrary; I was most emphatic in reaffirming their rights. All I was trying to point out was that we are not convinced this is the best way to serve what may be a very legitimate and laudable purpose.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I think I was stating the position in perhaps a less controversial way than it was put by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Reid Scott: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, we should not continue with the sort of one-sided presentation of these difficulties that we are experiencing. All the hon. member is doing with this one-sided, prejudiced view is making the whole problem twice as difficult to solve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Well, Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think the hon. member for Danforth has given a fair explanation to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, and I am sure he will be willing to accept that explanation.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have nothing to withdraw, Mr. Chairman, because I am just expressing my own opinion. I think I have as much right to my opinion as the hon. member who made that remark from his seat.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Danforth did not, for instance, request that an investigation be made when a permit was refused for the operation of a French language radio station in the city of Ottawa. If the hon. member for Danforth was so anxious to see the French speaking Canadians get a fair deal, he should, at that time, have made the remarks we heard from him today.
I am taking part in this debate mostly on account of the mitigated statements made by the hon. member for York-Humber, more particularly those he made outside the house.
As I said before, I wish also to talk about some remarks made by the Secretary of State. As reported in Le Devoir of December 20, 1963, the Secretary of State said:
28902-5-404
Supply-Secretary of State
In Ottawa, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) refused to say in the house whether or not the Liberal members from the Toronto area had made representations to the government to the effect that CJBC should not become a French language station. The minister had just stated that such representations had been made to him verbally.
Mr. Chairman, those remarks of the Secretary of State prove without any doubt that there is conflict of opinions and that there is opposition, even within the ranks of the Liberal party, to the granting of a French language station to the people of Toronto.
Mr. Chairman, this brings me to tell you and my hon. friends in the house that I am surprised to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who claims he wants to promote the cause of biculturalism in the country, was not able to convince his own supporters of the necessity of the French fact. If we consider the behaviour of certain influential members of the cabinet, it would seem in fact that they took actions that were prejudicial to the ethnic group to which I belong.
How can we explain the refusal of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) to grant a licence for the operation of a private French language station in Ottawa, when that licence had been granted by the B.B.G.
Why, this ill-will?


An hon. Member:: A controversial opinion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have raised a point of order yet in the whole course of the consideration of the estimates. But it does not seem to me quite reasonable that the hon. gentleman, who had a perfect opportunity to raise this matter when the estimates of the Minister of Transport were before the committee, should raise it now. This matter has nothing at all to do with the C.B.C., which the committee is discussing at this time under my estimates. The Minister of Transport is not even in the chamber. I do think there should be a little reason in this matter. If the hon. gentleman wants to complain about me, let him complain to his heart's content; but if he wants to discuss the conduct of the Minister of Transport, that should have been done when the estimates of the minister were under consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the opinion the Secretary of State has just given, I think I am in order since permits for the exploitation of radio stations come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the minister's estimates are not before the committee now.

Supply-Secretary of State


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Also, I cannot dissociate my remarks from what the Minister of Transport said. But if the Secretary of State wants me to end my remarks because the Minister of Transport is not in the house, I am willing to do so in the spirit of Christmas.

Mr. Chairman, with more particular reference to the C.B.C., I must say that for once, in this matter of station CJBC in Toronto, the C.B.C. has taken a stand that is all to its credit. Contrary to my hon. friend for York-Humber and some of his colleagues on that side of the house who deeply regret the position taken by the C.B.C., I can only commend its officers for the action they have taken.
Mr. Chairman, I would be the last person to prevent English speaking Canadians in Quebec from having a radio station in their own language. I am sure to express here the opinion and the feelings of my compatriots in the province of Quebec when I say they would be willing to take measures of elementary justice for the minorities in the province as they do in the field of education, and as the C.B.C. has given us an example.
I am amazed that not one Liberal member from the province of Quebec saw fit to rise and support the decision taken by C.B.C. concerning CJBC station. It is true that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) rose to ask whether a former Conservative member represented the opinion of that party in the house, but if I wanted to be sarcastic and if you gave me permission, I would ask him immediately if he was expressing the views and especially the opinion of his compatriots and colleagues in the Liberal party when he said that Canada should not be governed by a foreign queen.
Those are the few remarks I had to make. Before resuming my seat, I should like to say that we had to wait for the Conservative party to come to power, after 22 years of Liberal administration, to restore effectively some rights which were ignored by those who nowadays claim all over the place to be the champions of human liberties.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot has just claimed that I deplored the introduction of the French tongue into the radio world of Toronto. I do not deplore the introduction of the French tongue into the radio world of Toronto. I have a married daughter who lives in Quebec city and I visit her frequently. I stated that I deplored the conversion of CJBC from English speaking to French speaking. I stated that French should have the same opportunity to run a private

station in Toronto which would broadcast in French in the same way as the English station in Quebec city is owned by English people and broadcasts in English. But I did not deplore the introduction of French to Toronto.


George Clyde Nowlan: Before the minister finalizes discussion on these estimates, I should like to say that I have sympathy with him because from time to time I sat where he is now sitting and listened to some of the criticisms, some warranted, some unwarranted, some abusive, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I do not have to apologize for the fact that I am one of those who have a tremendous respect and admiration for the corporation. I know it has made its share of mistakes, as have all organizations. But it is a corporation of which all Canadians can be proud and without which we would have much more difficulty in maintaining the unity in the country which is essential.
I am not going to make a speech, but I want to ask a minor question to preserve this unity. I am somewhat dismayed when I hear the seven o'clock news. This is a very picayune point I am making amongst all the other weighty matters which have been discussed, but it is one in which the minister is interested, coming from the easternmost province of Canada. I am somewhat irritated at night when listening to the news broadcast at seven o'clock. We find out what the weather is in Ontario. We find out what the weather is in Quebec. We find out what the weather is in Louisiana and what the temperature is in Texas. We know what is going on in Florida and we know whether they are skiing, or whatever it is, in British Columbia. But the announcer jumps from Montreal to Newfoundland and never one word about the maritime provinces.
I do not have to emphasize to this committee that there are several maritimers living in and around this area of, shall we say, upper Canada. Without the maritimers we would never have had an upper Canada. I am not criticizing the minister for this because I raised the matter, though in a very low voice, when I sat in his place. I was defending the C.B.C. from so many attacks at that time that I did not very well have the opportunity to urge my own problems. Now, being an independent observer, I am asking the minister whether he will emphasize to his officials of the C.B.C., casually at any rate, that they tell us whether there is sunshine in Halifax or thunder in Saint John, or what the situation is, as well as telling us what is going on in Tennessee and Louisiana.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can tell the hon. gentleman that it was snowing this morning in Digby-Annapolis-Kings, because I happened

to be talking to someone on the telephone and inquired. I might say it was also snowing in Yarmouth. I do not know whether it was at seven o'clock this evening. I am speaking just as one elected member of parliament when I say quite non-politically that I think this is a deplorable failure on the part of the C.B.C. I join with the hon. member for Dig-by-Annapolis-Kings in a non-partisan assault on this deficiency-if you can assault a deficiency-in the C.B.C.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I have one question I should like to ask the minister, if I may, if now is the time to do so. I should have got it in before but I allowed vote 15 to pass. Could he tell us whether the interpreter staff is included with the translation staff in the increase in salary which he mentioned earlier today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As long as this is not regarded as a precedent, because I do not think the C.B.C. estimates have passed yet, I can tell the hon. member that they are included, I am glad to say. Perhaps I might even give one bit of gratuitous information. Thanks to a number of questions which have been asked in the house during the session I get a steady stream of letters now from people who want to be both interpreters and translators. I am sending them on, not to the C.B.C. but to the civil service commission, and I hope they are all as well qualified as they seem to be.


William Arnold Peters: Could the minister indicate the size of the increase?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thanks to my parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Justice, I am told it is $300 for the lower grades, $800 for the higher grades, retroactive to July 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing many rumours of cabinet shifts. We did not know that this would be one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: This completes the estimates of the Secretary of State.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to be permitted to thank hon. members on both sides for being kind to me and for failing, in the case of one or two members, to recall that I was not quite so kind when I was sitting over there.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We made quite an effort.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be pleased to act for the minister of northern affairs, as was agreed when the item was held at the request
28902-5-404J
Supply-Northern Affairs of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre so that the hon. member for Yukon may make a speech.
NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES Northern administration branch-
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.


Erik Nielsen: I should like to thank the committee for having held this item for me. I was busy in a house committee when these estimates were being discussed and for that reason I could not be here. I do not intend to speak at length. I had prepared a much longer speech but I will await another occasion before making it. I could be controversial in the course of my remarks and I could be extremely partisan if I wished, but I know that the committee does not wish to concern itself tonight with arguments of a philosophical kind.
I am sorry the minister is not here, because there were a great many matters which I wanted to draw to his attention. I will simply place on record some of the more important matters of concern to the Yukon so that he can read them when he returns to Ottawa. First, and most important, is the taking over of the Alaska highway by the Department of Public Works. There is a resolution in the 1963-64 statement of policy by the Canadian chamber of commerce, to be found at page 57, which calls for the paving of the Alaska highway and a similar resolution has been passed in the home province of the minister by the British Columbia chamber of commerce. There is a general policy resolution passed in 1963-64 which also calls for the paving of this highway. Mr. Sinclair, when he was on the cabinet benches of the Liberal government prior to 1957, on the occasion of a visit he made to the Yukon, promised that the highway would be paved and more recently the present Prime Minister while he was in the Yukon during the 1962 campaign certainly left the impression, if he did not directly promise, that the highway would be paved if a Liberal government was elected. I merely draw attention to these promises in the hope that they will be fulfilled by the government and that the paving program will be commenced without undue delay. I am happy to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his place tonight because he, I am sure, will be aware of any negotiations which are being conducted or which are to be conducted with the United States for a joint paving program under which costs would be shared.
There is another matter which I wish to raise. It has to do with the Haines road and

Supply-Northern Affairs it concerns the agreement entered into between the governments of Canada and the United States. I believe this agreement should be tabled, since the minister has made lengthy quotations from it. I think the hon. gentleman should take my remarks into consideration when he sees them in Hansard with a view to tabling this document.
I did refrain from speaking at length on the estimates of the Minister of Transport when they were up for consideration, but since every department is concerned with affairs in the north because of the direct responsibility which exists there as far as the federal government is concerned I might again mention the representations which have been made for the improvement and extension of the several airports in the Yukon.
I did not get a direct answer from the minister this morning when I asked what steps were to be taken to oblige the legislative council which has requested the presence of an official of the Department of Transport for the purpose of discussing these communication links.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice, through the Secretary of State, to the lengthy delay which has been experienced in obtaining a senior legal officer for the Yukon, especially since this post has been established as a first step toward the assumption of jurisdiction in the matter of justice in the Yukon. The appointment will lead the way to the eventual creation of a solicitor general's department in the Yukon, and the longer we delay in obtaining the services of a senior legal officer, whose post has already been approved, the longer we shall have to wait to achieve this purpose. Perhaps the stumbling block is the fact that the category is not high enough to attract a solicitor of the calibre needed to take over this position.
Since this is the first opportunity I have had to do so, I want to draw attention to policies which have resulted during these years from 1957 to 1963 in a dramatic opening up of this portion of northern Canada. I read carefully the statement made by the minister when he presented these estimates and it seemed to me he was telling us that the vision which has been so often ridiculed and derided was not justified, and that perhaps the better course would have been to have made an effort to attract private investment in order to create the development which is desired in the north. This is very true, but government has to create the right atmosphere before private investment is attracted to the region, and in the absence of communication links and large expenditures on roads, private investment will not come.

For the expenditure of slightly more than $22 million which was made in the Yukon between 1957 and 1962 during the period of the Progressive Conservative government there has been substantially more activity of an exploratory and development type in the Yukon and in the territories than ever before in Canada's history. Here again, I was disappointed in the minister's opening remarks. He seemed to be indicating that because of the small population in the north there was no justification for large federal expenditures. Again I would point out that the northern part of Canada is the property of all Canadians and, surely, the government should have the foresight to plan ahead so that the mineral riches of the north will be available to meet market demands which, I think all agree, will arise within the next few years.
It is not much good waiting until the demand is there and see the market taken up by other nations which are more prepared than we are. One of the most striking examples which can be given in this regard is the discovery of iron in Australia and Canada almost simultaneously. If we do not act quickly to obtain markets we shall lose them. The land in the north is being held in trust by the government and by the people who live there for Canadians everywhere. The minerals and other resource riches in the north are capable of being developed substantially, as was shown beyond doubt during the years between 1957 and 1963 and I hope this government will continue the policies which were established under the Conservative government and during the ministry of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who is the author of so many dramatic programs in the north which had the effect of attracting the very type of private investment to which the minister referred when he introduced his estimates. I must say too that the leadership of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was followed through by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris when he became minister and these policies were continued.
I am rather afraid though that there seem to be indications that the minister is departing from those measures that were so well received during the six years to which I have had reference. There seems to be an indication that construction is falling off. There seems to be an indication that policy decisions are being made which are cutting back investment in northern Canada. So many times when my friends opposite were in opposition I heard Liberal members rise and say that we should not be spending so many millions of dollars in the north but rather the money should be spent in the more southerly portions of Canada where more people live. I thinV this is a very wrong principle because

surely this is expenditure on the basis of political expediency. Simply because more votes exist in the south is no reason to ig-more the potential that the north has to offer in assisting our over-all national development. The north does have a good deal to offer and I am sure that if the present government were to follow the long range and visionary policies established by the Conservative government under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition they would be doing a service to Canada.
There are many matters I could mention that might be of small import to this committee which is waiting to finish its business at this late hour but I think they are very important to the people who live in the north. One of the more recent rumours, and I have received correspondence in this regard from the civil service association, is that the isolated post allowances are being cut again. I certainly hope that the minister will take another look at that decision because it may well be that a reconsideration would lead the government to decide that any such cut would not be justified.
I should like to say one last thing about these estimates. The people of the Yukon, and I am sure the same is true of the Northwest Territories, often felt themselves to be isolated in the years prior to 1957. The five years, 1957 to 1962, brought about a new feeling of permanence in the north because the government of that day paid more attention to their problems and to the belief that the resources of the north were capable of development. There were also many other factors which tended to change the feeling of the people who lived there from one of isolation to one of feeling that attention was being paid to them.
I would hope that the government will continue to send officials from the various departments into the north to find out about conditions first hand. One simply cannot appreciate the problems that exist there 4,000 miles away otherwise. People cannot make decisions sitting behind their desks in Ottawa and accepting certain things as facts, no matter how expert the officials believe themselves to be who tender that advice.
At this point I want to compliment the officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, most of whom I know personally and very well. I know they perform a very conscientious and dedicated job in the department. As far as I am concerned, it is a department which exists to eliminate itself at the earliest possible moment, and this can only be done by gradually transferring jurisdiction to responsible government bodies which are encouraged to grow in the northern areas. Incidentally, it
Ways and Means
is my personal opinion that this is not going to be abetted by dividing the Northwest Territories and duplicating services in the area. There are many arguments that can be put forward against such a division.
I do want to make a plea that more attention be paid to the proceedings of the Yukon legislative council. These governmental bodies should be encouraged to flourish and grow and take on more responsibilities and they will not if there is bureaucratic oppression from Ottawa. They will not do so unless there is an eager desire on the part of officials in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and in the government generally to transfer the jurisdiction they now have in order to encourage the growth of those representative government institutions which will result finally in provincial autonomy. The government should not be encouraging the stifling of this growth but rather should be encouraging a strong, viable, representative form of government until the day arrives when these areas can become fully responsible.
I will not hold up the committee any longer.
I want to say I am very grateful that this item was held over so that I could make these few remarks, which I hope the minister will read when he returns. I wish him well in his portfolio and urge him to continue to make visits to the north similar to the one he made last summer with several of his staff in order to learn our problems at first hand.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, may I simply say that this is the last item of northern affairs and although I am only the acting minister I want to assure the hon. member for Yukon that his remarks will be brought to the attention of the minister. It is a unique distinction to have the opportunity to end the discussion of estimates. I simply wish to say that while we have our quarrels I believe that we want to wish each other a merry Christmas and a happy new year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: This concludes the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and also the estimates for this session.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
['Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that clause 1 has been defeated, I presume the same vote will carry throughout and the bill has effectively been defeated. I would suggest, therefore, that we do not proceed.']
Mitchell William Sharp: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account oi certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year

Ways and Means
ending March 31, 1964, the sum of $990,623,771.47, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Sharp (for Mr. Gordon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-132, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1964.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. .Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1.
['Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account oi certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year', 'Ways and Means\nending March 31, 1964, the sum of $990,623,771.47, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund.']
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the bill in the usual terms?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I think the Acting Minister of Finance would be able to say the bill was in the usual terms.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I can give the house the assurance the bill is in the ordinary form.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to E inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
['Yes, I can give the house the assurance the bill is in the ordinary form.\nClause 1 agreed to.\nClauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.\nSchedules A to E inclusive agreed to.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might have what I believe will have to be unanimous consent to revert to government notices of motion? Perhaps, if I get unanimous consent, the motion that stands on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Justice could be dealt with. In doing so, I would, of course, be asking for unanimous consent to have this measure dealt with in all its stages. I think perhaps I should not ask, though there has been a great deal of consultation about this, without informing some hon. members who may not be aware of the contents of the bill. The measure to be dealt with would be one establishing an additional judge of the exchequer court who would be available, if it were desired, and would have authority of an act of parliament to be founded upon this resolution, to have leave of absence to serve as an officer of the other place for the purpose of dealing with divorce petitions, as provided for in the legislation that was adopted last August. That is all, I may say, that is in the measure itself.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act to authorize the appointment oi, and the provision of salary for, one additional judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-133, for the appointment of an additional judge to the Exchequer Court of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe that the house would be disposed, from such consultations as I have had, to give unanimous consent to take certain private bills that are on the order paper, with the exception of' one about which I believe another position is to be taken a little later, in a single motion, and that the house would also unanimously agree to dispense with sending the bills to the miscellaneous private bills committee. Then, we could go into committee on all the bills in a single motion and deal with all of them at each stage in a single motion. If I correctly interpret the will of the house, could that be ordered?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In this connection, I would consent to reverting to private bills, but there has been no other agreement with regard to the final private bill reached. I would consent, therefore, to reverting to private bills, but not otherwise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Pardon?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There has been no agreement reached in respect of the Good News Broadcasting bill, and therefore if we revert to private bills I merely want to revert to private bills, because this would bring on that bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman
willing to have the divorce bills dealt with first?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have no objection to that. I merely indicate the Secretary of State said this would refer only to the divorce bills and not the last bill. I say that if we are to revert

to private bills, I have no objection to taking them in any order, but we should take them all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it we have to revert to private bills.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. L. T. Pennell (for Mr. Wahn) moved: the second reading of Bill SD-357, for the relief of Joyce Evelyn Ranger.


[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-Marriage dissolved.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we are very happy that the agreement of the house has been such that this problem, that we set out a number of years ago to resolve, has finally reached a very satisfactory state, and the government is to be congratulated on the effort it has made to assist in the solving of it.
Over the years the hon. member for Skeena and I have been accused of using the means to justify the end, and to some extent all the people mentioned in these bills which we are now passing are part of that means. On behalf of the hon. member for Skeena and myself, and the other hon. members of the house, I think we should express our sympathy with them in being involved. They have made a contribution to the social change of Canada, and we appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State and several other ministers have been able to arrive at this conclusion, which will be a very happy Christmas for many.
The Secretary of State will be pleased to know I have received a telephone call from Newfoundland, where the weather has been very bad today, but I can tell him that one of his constituents will be a very happy man this evening with the Christmas present given in this legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just want to say a word that is as equally out of order, but I wish to mention I have appreciated very much to help that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has given in reaching, I think, this very desirable goal which I hope is the end of a problem that all of us have been worried about for quite a long time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I only rise to say I think this is an important and red letter day in the history of the Canadian parliament. For years many of us have protested at having to deal with divorce bills in parliament, and all sorts
Divorce Bills
of suggestions were made as to what should be done, but we were never able to produce a satisfactory solution that would be acceptable to all concerned. Those who have been mentioned are to be congratulated, and I would particularly like to express my appreciation, and I believe the appreciation of the house, to the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Skeena who, through long years, have kept this problem before parliament and before the country, and sometimes brought down on themselves a good deal of abuse. But they clung tenaciously to the principle they had in mind, with the result that parliament has now rid itself of this practice and has evolved a much more satisfactory manner of handling divorce for the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland.
Clause 1 agreed to.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-358, for the relief of Mabel Lucille Mills.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-359, for the relief of Gordon Gibb.- Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-360, for the relief of Betty Jane Sockett.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-361, for the relief of Albert Wilfrid Tremblay.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-362, for the relief of Lily Worthington.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-363, for the relief of Leomay Marie Blanche Stratton.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-364, for the relief of Lorna Scher-zer.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-365, for the relief of Elizabeth Shaw Fisher Reid.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-366, for the relief of Marie Gertrude Helene Flamme.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-367, for the relief of Gerda-Sascha Rozwadowski.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-368, for the relief of Stella Leblanc.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-369, for the relief of Cynthia Elsie Scott.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-370, for the relief of Demetre Almyriotis.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-371, for the relief of Agnes Irene Seaman.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-372, for the relief of John Harman. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-373, for the relief of Marion Ruth Catherine Slattery.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-374, for the relief of Bruce Reid Campbell.-Mr. Wahn.
[Stage Direction]
Divorce Bills
Bill SD-375, for the relief of William Metcalfe Watt.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-376, for the relief of Raymonde Vachon.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-377, for the relief of Mary Hilda Hermita.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-378, for the relief of Ellen Alice Nelham.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-379, for the relief of Jean Jacques Aime Picotte.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-380, for the relief of Marie Madeleine Lydia Gauvin.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-381, for the relief of Joseph William Alfonse Morency.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-382, for the relief of Shirley Millar Neal.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-383, for the relief of Irene Ross.- Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-384, for the relief of Aline Helene Smith.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-385, for the relief of Joseph Arthur Norman William Edwards.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-386, for the relief of Edward Brown. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-387, for the relief of Madeleine Priscilla Dean Everall.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-388, for the relief of Magdeleine Geoffrion.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-389, for the relief of Yetta Pomerantz.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-390, for the relief of June Patricia Brown.-Mr. Brown.
Bill SD-391, for the relief of Betty Lillian Patrick.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-392, for the relief of Harvey Stewart Wycliffe Goodwin.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-393, for the relief of Wilfrid Giroux.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-394, for the relief of Herve Gauthier.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-395, for the relief of Micheline McGuire.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-396, for the relief of Gladys Ethel Sarah Bergeron.-Mr. Wahn.
Bid	SD-397,	for	the	relief	of	Monique
Remy.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-398, for the relief of Josephine Suhr Moseley.'-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-399, for the relief of Elsie Jean Delisle.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill	SD-400,	for	the	relief	of	Jeannine
Furoy.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill	SD-401,	for	the	relief	of	Beverley
Anne Jones.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill	SD-402,	for	the	relief	of	Alphonse
Eugene Racine.-Mr. Wahn.

Bill SD-403, for the relief of Marion Richardson.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-404, for the relief of George Hann. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-405, for the relief of Rosi Irma Parrouty.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-406, for the relief of Rose Coletta. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-407, for the relief of Joan Jeannette Krautle.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-408, for the relief of Elizabeth Helen Brown.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-409, for the relief of Dorothy Hazel Neila Beausoleil.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-410, for the relief of Ines Barbara Levy.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-411, for the relief of Dorothy Gladys Faucher.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-4I2, for the relief of Geraldine Ludgarde Romer.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-413, for the relief of Geraldine Cecilia Gohier.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-414, for the relief of Rene Hebert. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-415, for the relief of Elizabeth Lillian Small.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-416, for the relief of Patricia Rose Rankin.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-417, for the relief of Haidy Amalie Madelaine Jack.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-418, for the relief of Sandra Elizabeth McVety.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-419, for the relief of Rose Duval.- Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-420, for the relief of Rosemary Louise Eakins.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-421, for the relief of Germaine Marie Therese Hinksman.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-422, for the relief of Joseph Rene Gerard Michel.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-423, for the relief of Doreen Klara Culmer.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-424, for the relief of Mallie Fanny Newman.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-425, for the relief of Sylvia Aucoin. *-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-426, for the relief of Miriam White. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-427, for the relief of Leonard Greenfield.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-428, for the relief of Helene Denise Vien.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-429, for the relief of Toni Anna, Lydia Weiss, otherwise known as Toni Anna Lydia Weisz.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-430, for the relief of Stephen Alexander Lantos.-Mr. Wahn.

Bill SD-431, for the relief of Frieda Lina Schaub.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-432, for the relief of Colleen Ann Kenny.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-433, for the relief of Edith Rozel McDougall.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-434, for the relief of Mona Pozza.- Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-435, for the relief of Vivian Marjery Cohen.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-436, for the relief of Hilda Desjardins.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-437, for the relief of Sandra Mary Louise Martin.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-438, for the relief of Mary Iris Fournier.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-439, for the relief of Phyllis Manoah. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-440, for the relief of Martin Simeon Levy.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-441, for the relief of Maureen Mary Piercey.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-442, for the relief of Milton Lawrence Trickey.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-443, for the relief of William John Loke.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-444, for the relief of Betty O'Neil. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-445, for the relief of Armando Argentini.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-446, for the relief of Joseph Jean Paul Fernand Blanchette.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-447, for the relief of Karl-Heinz Hans Luedders.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill	SD-448,	for	the	relief	of	Marjorie
Brown.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill	SD-449,	for	the	relief	of	Maureen
Knowles.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill	SD-450,	for	the	relief	of	Rolland
Commoy.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-451, for the relief of Ginette Noela Melanie Soulier.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-452, for the relief of Nora Bridget Lahey.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-453, for the relief of Betty Ankhelyi.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill	SD-454,	for	the	relief	of	Barbara
Patricia Rogers.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-455, for the relief of William Henry Monaghan.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-456, for the relief of Mary Yvonne Giguere.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-457, for the relief of Lois Budd.- Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-458, for the relief of Elizabeth Laptew.-Mr. Wahn.
28902-5-405
Divorce Bills
Bill SD-459, for the relief of Margit Bene. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-460, for the relief of Jacqueline Elfstrom-Mr. Wahn.
Bill	SD-461,	for	the	relief	of	Marie
Antoinette Germaine Mouton.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill	SD-462,	for	the	relief	of	Molly
Krakower.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-463, for the relief of Anita Marie Virginie Leroux.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-464, for the relief of Barbara Joan Sonia Lowther.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-465, for the relief of Arthur Bruce Hann.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-466, for the relief of Fany Ruben-stein.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-467, for the relief of George Cecil Horton.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-468, for the relief of Pierre Lacasse. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-469, for the relief of Edna Anne MacPherson.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-470, for the relief of Pardo Belpulso. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-471, for the relief of Aida Diotte.- Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-472, for the relief of Geralde La-londe.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-473, for the relief of Joseph Philippe Philias Fabien Parent.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-474, for the relief of Marie Green-sell.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-475, for the relief of John Donaldson.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-476, for the relief of Jean Eileen Leath.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-477, for the relief of Stella Eileen Menahem.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-478, for the relief of Gabriel Fortin. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-479, for the relief of Elsie Clifford. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-480, for the relief of Marlene Judith Feinstein.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-481, for the relief of Edie (Etta) Cohen.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-482, for the relief of June Eleanor Holgate.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-483, for the relief of Elizabeth Anne Chadwick-Rider.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-484, for the relief of Della Harriet McGuire.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-485, for the relief of Adrien Tellier. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-486, for the relief of John Lough-heed, otherwise known as John Lougheed.- Mr. Wahn.
[Stage Direction]
Divorce Bills
Bill SD-487, for the relief of Roland Boisvert.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-488, for the relief of Jean Mildred Fillmore.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-489, for the relief of Marie Marguerite Nicole Fraser.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-490, for the relief of Elizabeth Peck. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-491, for the relief of Eileen Myrtle Burns.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-492, for the relief of Helen Doreen Gearey.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-493, for the relief of Iva Baumgartner.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-494, for the relief of Jacqueline Serrati.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-495, for the relief of Jeannette Carignan.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-496, for the relief of Paulette Sauve. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-497, for the relief of Thelma Joan-ette MacDonald.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-498, for the relief of Donat Theriault.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-499, for the relief of Elizabeth Gray. -Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-500, for the relief of Alma Tremblay.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-501, for the relief of Daisy Emily Dorothy Ryan.-Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-502, for the relief of Lise Hogue.- Mr. Wahn.
Bill SD-503, for the relief of Verena Elsener. -Mr. Wahn.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-15 to incorporate the Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada-Mr. Enns- Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No.


Frank Howard: I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask for leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for York-Humber was speaking when the committee last rose. If he does not wish to make any statement at this time, I wish to do so, but I do not want to take any time from him if he wishes to speak.


Lucien Lamoureux: I might point out to the committee that we do not have an amendment before us at the moment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I was in error in assessing what course of action was going to be followed, and inasmuch as I did not put the motion in writing, it does not exist.


Lucien Lamoureux: Then since there is no motion in writing, no motion can be withdrawn.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I wish to make a very brief statement, and after that I hope that the committee and the house will see fit to render a decision on this bill which has been before parliament since early in June, and which has had quite a chequered career. Later today the house will adjourn to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ nearly 2,000 years ago. The news of this event was described at that time as glad tidings of great joy. Later in His life, Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature".
Many people still refer to this event as good news, and so in 1939 the Reverend Mr. Epps and his wife decided to broadcast the good news of Christ's birth by means of radio. He called his organization the Good News Broadcasting Association. To some sophisticates, this may sound corny; in fact it was so called in a committee of this house. But to many people it has real meaning.
In 1950 the broadcasts were started in Canada, and a business office was set up under licence of the Manitoba government. Over a million people each year in Canada, be they shut-ins or others who delight to hear, are so thankful for these broadcasts that they write in to the head office in Winnipeg. All that this organization now asks is that it be permitted to become Canadian by incorporation in Canada.
It falls to the house to consider as its last order of business before Christmas an act to incorporate the Good News Broadcasting Association of Canada. It is the effort of a small group of men to spread the glad tidings as they see them. Now the house must decide either to accept it, to reject it, or like Pontius Pilate of years ago, to wash their hands of it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would just like to say that for reasons stated in the debate on this matter previously I for one, as an individual, am not in favour of parliament enacting this type of bill. I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, but I disagree entirely with this parliament incorporating a company under these circumstances, with this type of provision; and therefore I just want to make it clear I am recording my objection to the

bill on the technical reasons of incorporation, and not in any sense expressing dissent with either the individuals who are promoting this particular enterprise or the objectives they are stating in it.
Clause 1 negatived: Yeas, 21; Nays, 35.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that clause 1 has been defeated, I presume the same vote will carry throughout and the bill has effectively been defeated. I would suggest, therefore, that we do not proceed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	Is it the government's intention to call a federal-provincial conference on highway problems this fall?
2.	Has the Minister of Public Works discussed this matter with the ministers of highways in the provincial governments and, if so. what were the results of these discussions?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. No.
2.	Discussions with all the provincial departments of highways are not yet completed.

INCREASE IN WAR VETERANS PENSIONS Question 1,778-Mr. Irvine:
1.	Is it the intention of the government to consider increasing war veterans pensions in line with the present standard of living and in view of the recent increase in old age security payments?
2.	If so, when will this be considered, and what is the proposed amount of the increase?
Answer: 1 and 2. The War Veterans Allowance Act is under continuous study and review, and due weight is given to changing conditions and related factors. The time when the act will be amended is based on considerable research and any decision to amend the act, which would include proposals for increases in rates and ceilings, will be announced in the house at the appropriate time.


MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO APPLICANT FOR VETERANS PENSION
Mr. Douglas: Have representations been received to the effect that a veteran applying for a pension, or making an appeal to the Canadian pension commission, should, with the consent of the Minister of Veterans Affairs or his nominee, be able to call on the services of a physician of his own choice to assist him in preparing his case and in presenting it
28902-5-405J
Questions
verbally before the commission, such physician to be compensated from public funds, and, if so, what consideration has been given to this proposal?
Answer: Such representation was received quite recently, and this matter is receiving very careful consideration at the moment.


SHORE DAMAGE, STE MARGUERITE GALLIX, QUE.
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	Has the government any information concerning the extent of the damages caused by the sea last November to the North shore of the St. Lawrence river at Ste Marguerite Gallix, county of Saguenay?
2.	Was a request for assistance made by the residents of Ste Marguerite Gallix and, if so, did the government indicate that such requests for assistance should be addressed to the appropriate provincial authorities?
3.	Would the construction of a breakwater prevent further damage, particularly during the period of high tides, in December and January?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. The department suggested that assistance be sought under the winter works incentive program in which the provincial government participates. Since the erosion was not caused by navigation or by other factors involving the responsibility of the federal government, it is felt that this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction.
3.	The construction of a breakwater might remedy the situation, but it seems that a protection wall would also be needed.


SHERBROOKE-MEGANTIC BRANCH RAILWAY LINE
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	In what year was the branch line of the Sherbrooke-Megantic railway opened?
2.	How long did its construction take and what was its cost?


Mr. Canlin:: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advises as follows:
1.	The railway line between Sherbrooke and Megantic was constructed by the St. Francis and Megantic International Railway Company (now part of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company) and was opened for operation in 1883.
2.	Information in the board's files indicates that construction commenced about the year 1872. The board has no information as to the total cost of construction of the section of the railway line in question.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When is it proposed to commence construction of post office buildings in Crapaud, North Rustico, and Mount Stewart in Prince Edward Island?

Questions
2.	When will tenders be called?
3.	What is the estimated cost of each such structure?
4.	What are the dimensions of such buildings?
5.	Is it the intention to construct similar buildings in other centres in Queens county and, if so, at what centres?


Hubert Badanai: 1. If suitable sites are obtained at reasonable costs it is expected construction of new post offices at Crapaud, North Rustico and Mount Stewart will commence early in 1964.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	About $15,000.
4.	The basic plan calls for buildings approximately 20 feet by 24 feet. However this size could vary for each location depending on local post office requirements and where accommodation may be provided for other government departments.
5.	Not at the present time.


USE OF CANADIAN ENGINEERING FIRMS IN AID PROGRAMS
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	In what ways are Canadian engineering services used within Canadian grant aid programs?
2.	How many Canadian engineering firms are currently employed in grant aid programs?
3.	What firms are so employed and where?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. Canadian engineers have been used within Canadian grant aid programs on the making of surveys, feasibility studies, design and supervision of major construction projects, the training of operating and maintenance personnel and in various advisory capacities.
2.	Twenty one engineering firms.
3.	The firms are:
(a)	Stadler Hurter International Ltd., Montreal, Que.; Malaya, Pakistan, Burma.
(b)	C. C. Parker, Whittaker & Co. Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.; Burma, Malaya.
(c)	Canadian Hoosier Engineering Co. Ltd. Montreal, Que.; Pakistan, Ceylon.
(d)	Montreal Engineering Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.; Ceylon, India.
(e)	R. J. Noah & Associates, St. John's, Nfld.; Ceylon.
(f)	Surveyor, Nenniger, Chenevert, Montreal, Que.; India.
(g)	Ingledow, Kidd & Associates Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.; India.
(h)	Shawinigan Engineering Co. Ltd. Montreal, Que.; Malaya.
(i)	N. J. Pappas & Associates, Montreal, Que.; Malaya.
(j)	Forestal Forestry and Engineering International Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.; Pakistan.
(k)	Pelletier Engineering (International) Ltd., Montreal, Que.; Pakistan.

(l)	W. P. London & Partners, Niagara Falls, Ont.; Pakistan.
(m)	Hanright & Co. Ltd., St. Catharines, Ont.; Pakistan.
(n)	H. A. Simons (International) Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.; Pakistan.
(o)	Sandwell and Co. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.; Pakistan.
(p)	Spartan Air Services Ltd., Ottawa, Ont.; Kenya.
(q)	C. D. Schultz & Co., Vancouver, B.C., Kenya.
(r)	Canadian Aero Services Ltd., Ottawa, Ont.; Nigeria.
(s)	Pathfinder Engineering Co. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.; Nigeria.
(t)	Coode, Binnie & Preece, Ottawa, Ont.; St. Vincent.
(u)	Piette, Audy, Lepinay & Bertrand, Quebec, Que.; Leeward and Windward islands.


* CONVERSION TO FRENCH OF ST ATION CJBC, TORONTO
Mr. Scott: 1.	What is the estimated listening audience of radio station CJBC Toronto?
2.	What is the estimated number of French speaking people in the Toronto area?
3.	Briefly, what considerations led to the decision to convert station CJBC into a station broadcasting in French only?
4.	Were other proposed solutions considered to the problem of providing a French station in Toronto and, if so, what were such other proposed solutions, and why were they unacceptable?
5.	What is the estimated amount of revenue that will be lost as a result of the conversion of CJBC from English to French?
6.	Where will the French speaking staff come from to operate the station?
7.	What provision is being made for the continued employment of those people presently working at station CJBC?
8.	How many English speaking employees will lose their jobs as a result of this switch?
9.	Will the present Protestant and Catholic church services now carried by CJBC be carried on another station and, if so, which station?
10.	To what extent will the programs presently being carried by CJBC still be available to the listening public?
11.	Which of the programs now carried by CJBC will no longer be available to the public?
12.	What steps were taken to ascertain the views of the English speaking listeners of CJBC as to the necessity for or the desirability of this change from English to French?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, starred question 1,868 contains 12 parts and stands in the name of the hon. member for Danforth. I apologize for not having it ready for him on Wednesday, as I personally would like to have done. The answer is rather long, and hon. members have heard my voice rather often.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Questions


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the study to determine if some of the present house would consent to having the answer CJBC programs might be inserted in the printed in Hansard.	CBL schedule.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	During an average seven day period CJBC is listened to in 170,000 of the 1,119,000 homes located within CJBC's coverage area- i.e. approximately 15 per cent of them. During an average five day Monday to Friday period CJBC is heard in 136,000 homes-i.e. approximately 12 per cent.
2.	It is estimated that in its daytime coverage area CJBC covers some 67,000 people who have French as their mother tongue and a sum total of 163,000 French speaking people.
3.	(a) The C.B.C. is required by its mandate to provide broadcast service to the largest possible number of Canadians in the two official languages, French and English.
(b)	The conversion of CJBC to French broadcasting is the simplest and quickest way to provide the required service in view of the fact that C.B.C. already has another station, CBL, supplying this area with the national service. No other Canadian city has more than one C.B.C. station operating in the same language.
(c)	There is also the fact that a good, unoccupied broadcast frequency to provide the required service is not available.
4.	Yes; as follows:
(a)	Low power relay transmitter-not satisfactory for use in a metropolitan area.
(b)	FM transmitter-(i) effective radiation area would be less than CJBC's (i) would compel French speaking audience to buy FM sets.
(c)	New AM transmitter to serve same area as CJBC-see 3 (b) and (c) above.
5.	It is not customary to require the corporation to make public such information in view of the competitive business in which it is engaged. However, the loss of commercial revenue will be offset by the reduction of operating costs. No additional requirement from public funds is expected.
6.	Wherever suitable staff can be recruited.
7.	These employees will be absorbed in the C.B.C.'s general Toronto operation through the normal turnover of staff.
8.	None.
9.	This has not yet been decided.
10.	"The Learning Stage" will remain on CJBC. The corporation is now conducting a
11.	See 10 above.
12.	A comprehensive analysis was made of available data relevant to CJBC's English as well as French listening audience. However, as indicated in 3 (above) the primary factor in the decision was the corporation's obligation to provide the national service to the large French language group in the Toronto area, coupled with the availability of a C.B.C. station which was no longer filling its function as the key station of a national English language network.


RADIO TECHNICIAN CLASSIFICATIONS
Mr. Churchill: 1.	When was the classification radio technician 1 to 5 abolished?
2.	Was it replaced by the classification technician electronics 1 to 7 and, if so, when?
3.	In the cyclical reviews of civil service salaries was the radio technician group included?
4.	What was the salary schedule of the classification radio technician 1 to 5?
5.	What is the present salary schedule of the classification technician electronics 1 to 7?
6.	What are the salary schedules for the years 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 for (a) air traffic control (5), and (b) technician electronics 3 (or equivalent radio technician) ?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been given the following answers by the civil service commission:
1.	The class radio technician 1 to 5 has not been abolished. However, instructions have been issued to the effect that it is not to be used for new appointments.
2.	The radio technician class will be replaced by the class technician 1 to 7, electronics, which was established effective October 1, 1962.
3.	Cyclical salary review group "D".
4.	Radio technician 1,	$4,620-$5,160;	2,
$5,100-$5,640; 3, $5,400-$5,940; 4, $6,000-$6,660; 5, $6,420-$7,140.
5.	Technician 1, electronics, $3,780-$4,980;
2, electronics, $4,740-$5,460; 3, electronics, $5,100-$6,000;	4, electronics, $5,760-$6,300;
5, electronics, $6,300-$6,960; 6, electronics, $6,800-$7,500; 7, electronics, $7,200-$8,220.
6.	(a) 1960, $6,000-$6,660; 1961, $6,300-$6,960; 1962, $5,580-$6,960; 1963, $6,720-$8,040.
(b) No single grade of radio technician is equivalent to technician 3, electronics. The salaries of grades affected by movement into this grade are as follows: Radio technician 1, 1960-1963, $4,620-$5,160; 2, 1960-1963, $5,100-$5,640; 3, 1960-1963, $5,400-$5,940; 4, 19601963, $6,000-$6,660.

Questions


STATION CJBC, TORONTO-FRENCH LISTENING AUDIENCE
Mr. Smith: During the time that CJBC was broadcasting a part of its daily program in French, were any tests or surveys made to measure the listening audience and, if so (a) what kind of tests or surveys were made (b) what was the result of such tests or surveys?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Yes. (a) information on the audience to CJBC's French language programs was obtained from an analysis, carried out by the C.B.C. research department, of all the available data relevant to CJBC's present and potential listening audience. This included data derived from C.B.C.'s own surveys and from several independent sources of audience information, (b) The analysis indicated that CJBC's 9.00-11.00 p.m. week day French language programs had an audience, within the station's coverage area, of about 9,000 different households over the course of an average five day week.


STUDIES OF FRENCH LISTENING AUDIENCE, STATION CJBC, TORONTO
Mr. Smith: Prior to the decision to make radio station CJBC in Toronto a French language station, were any investigations or studies made as to the potential audience and, if so (a) what were these investigations or studies (b) what were the results or conclusions from such studies?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Yes. (a) study and tabulation of statistical data on the French only plus bilingual population within the service area of CJBC; (b) it was estimated that a wholly French language CJBC could attract a home audience of about
30,000	different households in the course of an average seven day week, or 20,000 in an average day.


FLUORIDATION
Mr. Lachance: Has a careful appraisal of the advantages and disadvantages of fluoridation been made recently by the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so (a) was a report submitted to the government (b) on what date was such a report submitted?


Miss LaMarsh:: The Department of National Health and Welfare has carefully studied the dental effects of mechanically fluoridated water at Brantford, Ontario, and naturally fluoridated water at Stratford, Ontario during a period of 15 years. In addition the dental effects of naturally fluoridated water at Ingersoll, Ontario was studied in 1962.

It was conclusively shown that fluoridation was beneficial. Water either mechanically or naturally fluoridated to a level of about one part per million was found to reduce the occurrence of tooth decay by about two thirds in persons drinking it regularly from birth. No ill effects were observed.
(a)	The results were widely publicized through departmental reports, press releases, and articles in professional and scientific journals.
(b)	Departmental reports were published in 1953, 1954, 1955, 1958, 1959, 1962 and 1963.


POST OFFICE BUILDING, DUPARQUET, QUE.
Mr. Caouelie: Will a post office be built in the near future, at Duparquet and, if so (a) what lots have been purchased (b) from whom have they been purchased (c) what was the price agreed upon for those lots (d) have building tenders been called (e) who are the tenderers and what is the amount of each tender (f) what persons made representations to the Post Office Department for the construction of such a post office?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.
(a)	Two lots are being purchased on Beattie boulevard.
(b)	From Messrs. L. Dessailly and R. Gilbert.
(c)	$800 each.
(d)	No.
(e)	N/A.
(f)	The Post Office Department advise that they have not received any representations in this connection.


WHEAT OVERAGES
Mr. Rapp: In each of the crop years since 1955 to date what quantities of grain were received by the Canadian wheat board as a result of the difference between deliveries at country elevators where grain is not graded and the outturn at terminals where the grain is subject to weighing and grading under government inspection?
Answer: In each of the crop years 1955-56 to 1961-62 the net country elevator overages of wheat purchased by the Canadian wheat board from elevator companies at the board's initial prices are as follows:
Crop Year	Bushels
1955-56	643,618
1956-57	985,546
1957-58	1,540,775
1958-59	1,343,167
1959-60	1,997,214
1960-61	1,322,717
1961-62	2,142,344


CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS, COLCHESTER-HANTS CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Kennedy: 1.	How many public buildings does the Department of Public Works plan to construct in the constituency of Colchester-Hants during the next twelve months?
2.	What is the nature of these buildings and where will they be situated?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Do government departments, commissions, boards, etc., fill transient and casual jobs through the national employment service?
2.	How do departments, boards, commissions, etc., which do not use the facilities of the national employment service, recruit personnel required?
Return tabled.


B.C. INDIAN COMMISSIONER  OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT
Mr. Barnett: 1.	How many positions are authorized in the establishment of the office of the Indian commissioner for British Columbia?
2.	How many of these are currently occupied?
3.	By classified occupation what, briefly, are the qualifications and duties of each of those in the currently-occupied positions?
4.	What is the authorized number of personnel of the Alberni agency?
5.	How many of the authorized positions are currently occupied?
6.	What, including an indication of whether this position is currently occupied, are the duties and responsibilities of each position authorized in the operation of the Alberni agency?
7.	Who are the members of the crew of the Skeena, the vessel operated by the Alberni agency?
8.	What are the duties and responsibilities of each of the members of the crew?
9.	What other duties, in addition to acting as a member of the crew of this vessel, does each of the members perform?
Return tabled.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the spirit of co-operation which we have had tonight, I would like to conclude one pending matter, which is a decision on a question of privilege raised a few days ago. I hope it will be accepted by the two hon. members chiefly concerned, inasmuch as we have discussed this matter together and I am convinced that the principle which I shall announce shortly is right. I hope both hon. members will be
Question of Privilege
satisfied, although it is not my purpose to satisfy hon. members as long as the principle is right.
On December 13 the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) rose on a question of privilege, to the effect that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) had on the previous day stated the following:
Never before in our history has any member spent so much out of public funds in order to advertise a political party.
He stated that this was an imputation against his personal honour and against his activities as minister of agriculture. In consequence the member for Qu'Appelle asked not only for a complete withdrawal but a very strong apology as well.
In reply the member for Medicine Hat stated that if anything he said the day before could be construed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle as being offensive to him personally, he would withdraw that, and he repeated the same statement later on. In the course of this discussion the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen) had this to say:
In so far as the question of privilege is concerned, when the remark was made yesterday by the hon. member for Medicine Hat I was quite astounded, because what he is saying is that the former minister of agriculture has misapplied public funds. In essence he is making a charge of fraud by misuse of public funds-
It is true, as the hon. member for Yukon said when he quoted Beauchesne's citation 108, that "libels on members have been constantly punished and scandalous charges or imputations directed against members are equivalent to libelous charges". I am not ready to agree that the remarks made in the course of the debate by the member for Medicine Hat constituted, in the words of the member for Yukon, "a charge of fraud by misuse of public funds".
There could not be any fraud because it is evident, and to everyone's knowledge, that every year large funds are spent by each and every department of the government for purposes of publicity. This expenditure may be directed toward giving publicity to laws passed by parliament, to orders in council, to regulations, to the work done in and by the different departments, to statements made by ministers at home or abroad in connection with their official duties, to social or political developments throughout the country.
There is no doubt, also, that all this government publicity under favourable circumstances, may react to the benefit of the party in power and to the ministers administering the different departments. Furthermore, if I correctly interpret what was in the mind of the member for Medicine Hat-this according to his own statements-his intention

Question of Privilege
was to refer to a political party, and then it becomes clear that the alleged libel would be one affecting the party itself rather than a single member of that party who at the time was responsible for the public relations of a department. As May has stated in the sixteenth edition, at page 459:
Expressions which are unparliamentary when applied to individuals are not always so considered when applied to a whole party.
On August 1, 1958-Hansard, page 2981- the Speaker on a similar question of privilege stated the following:
I think the hon. member for Vancouver East is taking more out of what was said than was implied. I remember quite distinctly that although the hon. member for Victoria began talking about the hon. member for Vancouver East, when he made the statement about a policy of shooting capitalists it referred rather generally to a group or party. It has been the practice in the house, as the hon. member will recall, that unless an allegation is made specifically against a member I have not felt it to be my responsibility to compel the hon. member to retract beyond what he himself feels he should retract.
In the present case it is quite possible that the hon. member for Medicine Hat used a metaphor to the effect, as he stated, that money out of public funds had been used in order to advertise a political party. I imagine that in the case of an alleged libel made in the house against a member of the house the test would be whether such declaration would be considered serious enough to give rise to an action for libel before a court, if such declaration had been made outside the house.
Beauchesne in the first lines of citation 108 states that:
-anything which may be considered a contempt of court by a tribunal is a breach of privilege as perpetrated against parliament-
And to repeat paragraph (3) of the same citation as quoted by the hon. member for Yukon:
(3) Libels on members have also been constantly punished: but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity, and the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the house.
May I quote here the first part of citation 113 by the same author:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the house. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy. There are privileges of the house as well as of members individually. Wilful disobedience to orders and rules of parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions, insults and obstructions during debate are breaches of the privileges of the house. Libels upon members and aspersions upon them in relation to parliament and
[Mr. Speaker.!
interference of any kind with their official duties, are breaches of the privileges of the members. But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege. An attack in a newspaper article is not a breach of privilege, unless it comes within the definition of privileges above given, and then a member is bound to lay on the table the newspaper in which the article complained of appears.
Here, if the house will allow me, I would like to refer to a citation in May's sixteenth edition, page 140:
Where the committee recommended that, in view of the explanation offered by the offender, and of his expression of regret for the offence he had committed, the house should take no further action in the matter, or that the conduct complained of was not such a breach of the privileges of the house as called for any further action on its part or that, in the opinion of the committee, the house would best consult its own dignity by taking no further notice of the libel, or that no further time should be occupied in the consideration of the offence, further action was not taken by the house.
In another instance after the committee of privileges had reported that in their opinion a breach of privilege had been committed but that in the circumstances the house would best consult its own dignity by taking no further action in the matter, the house resolved that it agreed with the committee in their report.
Having brought the above comments to the attention of the house, may I now say that the words quoted at the beginning, namely:
Never before in our history has any member spent so much out of public funds in order to advertise a political party-
-are not words that should have been used, but on the contrary, those words might give rise to a question of privilege. However, in view of the explanations offered by the offender and of his understanding of the matter as declared when the discussion took place, the house would best consult its own dignity by taking no further action in the matter.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, through the usual channels I have ascertained that there might be accorded unanimous consent to move a motion, and in a desire to wind up the session and strike a blow for liberty and freedom I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), with unanimous consent:
That the Sergeant-at-Arms, pursuant to standing order 88, be instructed to grant pro tem a card admitting Raymond Rodgers to the facilities of the press galleries of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might be permitted to say a word on this. I feel I should take the responsibility, notwithstanding the offer I made-I do not think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will accuse me

of double dealing-to say that after this matter was brought up Your Honour made certain observations about it, and for that reason I feel that we should acquiesce in the position taken by Your Honour. Therefore, I do not feel I would wish to agree to give unanimous consent, and in doing that I hope I will not be misunderstood.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that unanimous consent is not given and that I cannot receive the motion. Unless there is some other business we will suspend the session till the call from the other place.


George Clyde Nowlan: Did I understand Your Honour to say that we would suspend this session, or are you considering some documents before you before we proceed further?


Mr. Speaker:: At this time of night free interpretation I believe is given to ordinary words on some occasions. If I said "session" I certainly meant "sitting". Usually it is customary to break for a visitor from the other place, but I might read this announcement now.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa, December 21, 1963.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at ten o'clock p.m. today, December 21, 1963, for the purpose of proroguing the first session of the twenty sixth parliament of Canada.
I have the honour to be, sir
Your obedient servant,
A. B. Cherrier, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before Your Honour leaves the chair or suspends the sitting, whatever the proper technical term is, I do not imagine that anyone can call me to order at this stage for anything I say, however foolish. But I do want to say how very much I have appreciated the co-operation of those members of other parties who have met with me regularly throughout the session to try to arrange the business of this first session of a new parliament in which no party had a majority, in which some problems arose which were not even expected when the session began, and where, notwithstanding some of the things we may have said to and about one another in the course of debate, a good deal has been
Royal Assent
accomplished and the order paper has been brought to a pretty satisfactory state at the end. This would not have been possible, sir, without the regular consultation and cooperation which hon. gentlemen opposite have given to me in the management of the business of the house, and I appreciate very much what they have done. I appreciate too the fact that we have been able in these last three weeks to arrange the business of the house, to arrange the sittings to dispose of the business without once having had a motion put to settle sitting hours.
I should also like to say that I believe this parliament has now become accustomed to itself and we have become accustomed to each other, and that it will be a great deal easier in another session for us to get down to business and dispatch the business we are all sent here to do, and perhaps even to criticize to the satisfaction of some members of the press.

And I must say, Mr. Chairman, in the other official language of the country, that I greatly appreciate the co-operation given to me by all members.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is usual at this hour of night before we approach the other place for prorogation to make certain good wishes, congratulations and expressions of mutual respect. This is all the more fitting on an occasion such as this when we are not only approaching prorogation but are also on the verge of the Christmas season.
I am sure the leader of the house will understand, when he says that we are getting adjusted to each other, that these adjustments must be on a somewhat temporary basis. As I told the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) when we were wishing each other a merry Christmas-I wished him a very merry Christmas and a very happy new year, but one not too prolonged in the forthcoming year. Possibly we have to bear some of these things in mind. Seriously, on this occasion I wish to say that we reciprocate what the leader of the house has said about the cooperation which has gone on, despite the criticism. We started in a rough parliament last spring. I think it is true that the Tories were mad and the Liberals were cocky, and it took us a while to get adjusted. But following the series of disasters which they faced, we felt better and I doubt whether any parliament has worked better than this one has in the last few weeks or months since we came back from the summer recess. I am sure that as long as we continue as a parliament this spirit will continue.

Royal Assent
On behalf of the official opposition I wish to extend to the Speaker of the house, to the Deputy Speaker, to the staff of the House of Commons and all those associated with them our best wishes for a very merry Christmas and the best of health and happiness in the coming year. As for our colleagues and associates on both sides of the house-we shall probably be seeing each other during the evening-I wish to all members of the House of Commons, wherever they may sit and to whatever party they belong, the very best of fortune in the coming year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should just like to say, in reply to the remarks made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) that this has been a remarkable session of parliament. It began in uncertain circumstances. It could easily have been a most unproductive parliament. I think history may well show that it has been a remarkably productive parliament, though a parliament in which no party had a clear majority. I think this has been due to the fine co-operation which has existed in all parts of the house and to the diplomacy and patience of the Secretary of State, who has been the leader of the house for the government, and to our patience in putting up with him. I hope the press will notice that although it is close to Christmas and late at night there is a remarkably good attendance of members in the dying hours of this session.
I was measuring the representation qualitatively. I thought it was about evenly balanced. I should like on behalf of the members of this party to express to all members in all parts of the house, to the staff and to the members of the press gallery our best wishes for a merry Christmas.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Without being repetitious I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. members who have spoken and to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. We shall be looking forward to some real results when the next session comes round.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, since our group has been recognized, may I, on behalf of the members of the Ralliement Credistes, in spite of the fact that some are absent, join with the other members who spoke before me and wish to the staff of the House of Commons, to all our colleagues from the various regions of Canada, and to all the people of Canada, peace on earth and good will to men, wherever they may be.
[Mr. Nowlan.l


Lionel Chevrier: Would you allow me to say a final word in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who, I am sure, would have said something had he been here. He is in the other place.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Permanently?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure no one in the house would want him to be in any other place but this one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let me say to the minister that there is a scripture which says: I go to prepare a place for you.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know what the hon. gentleman has in mind but I have a feeling he must be referring to someone else. Be that as it may, I do want, on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank those of you who were so kind as to express good wishes and congratulations on this occasion. I should like to join with those who have preceded me in paying a special tribute to the Speaker of the house for his patience, to the Deputy Speaker and to those who are on his staff, to the members of the press gallery, to the staff generally and to all those who are responsible for the administration of the House of Commons.
I think, too, I would be remiss in my duty- and I am sure no one will take offence at this-if I omitted to say a special word of commendation to the leader of the house for the manner in which he has acted as a negotiator in many of the problems and difficulties which arose. I am sure this would not have been possible, especially since my hon. friend has not occupied this particular position before, had it not been for the cooperation he received from the house leaders on the other side-the house leader of the official opposition, as well as the leaders of the various other groups.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not convey to the house our appreciation for your work and for the work of all those who are responsible for the administration of the house.
If I speak a little longer than usual, it is because we have a few minutes to go before the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod arrives.
I take the occasion to wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
I extend the same wishes to all my colleagues on both sides of the house, and I would add "le paradis a la fin de leurs jours".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if Your Honour would consider suspending the sitting at the

call of the Chair to enable hon. gentlemen in the other place to dispense with the last items of business.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the suggestion made by the Secretary of State?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 10.15 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to repeal the Newfoundland Savings Bank Act, 1939.
An act to authorize the construction of a bridge and a causeway over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Pointe aux Trembles.
An act respecting the executive board of the Canada conference of The Evangelical Lutheran Augustana Synod of North America.
An act to incorporate Royal General Insurance Company of Canada.
An act respecting The Northern Life Assurance Company of Canada.
An act respecting The Canada North-west Land Company (Limited).
An act to incorporate The Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada.
An act to incorporate Family Life Assurance Company.
An act 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.
An act to incorporate the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada.
An act to approve an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario respecting public harbours.
An act to amend the Carriage by Air Act.
An act to amend the National Harbours Board Act.
An act to amend the National Centennial Act.
An act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An act respecting the office of representation commissioner and to effect certain consequential amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
An act to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.
Royal Assent
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1962 to the 30th day of June, 1964, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act to amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act.
An act for the relief of Joyce Evelyn Ranger.
An act for the relief of Mabel Lucille Mills.
An act for the relief of Gordon Gibb.
An act for the relief of Betty Jane Sockett.
An act for the relief of Albert Wilfrid Tremblay.
An act for the relief of Lily Worthington.
An act for the relief of Leomay Marie Blanche Stratton.
An act for the relief of Lorna Scherzer.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Shaw Fisher Reid.
An act for the relief of Marie Gertrude Helene Flamme.
An act for the relief of Gerda-Sascha Rozwadow-ski.
An act for the relief of Stella Leblanc.
An act for the relief of Cynthia Elsie Scott.
An act for the relief of Demetre Almyriotis.
An act for the relief of Agnes Irene Seaman.
An act for the relief of John Harman.
An act for the relief of Marion Ruth Catherine Slattery.
An act for the relief of Bruce Reid Campbell.
An act	for	the	relief	of	William Metcalfe Watt.An act	for	the	relief	of	Raymonde Vachon.An act	for	the	relief	of Mary Hilda Hermita.An act	for	the	relief	of	Ellen Alice Nelham.
An act for the relief of Jean Jacques Aime Picotte.
An act for the relief of Marie Madeleine Lydia Gauvin.
An act for the relief of Joseph William Alfonse Morency.
An act for the relief of Shirley Millar Neal.
An act for the relief of Irene Ross.
An act	for	the	relief	of	Aline Helene Smith.An act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph Arthur Norman
William Edwards.
An act for the relief of Edward Brown.
An act for the relief of Madeleine Priscilla Deane Everall.
An act for the relief of Magdeleine Geoffrion.
An act for the relief of Yetta Pomerantz.
An act for the relief of June Patricia Brown.
An act for the relief of Betty Lillian Patrick.
An act for the relief of Harvey Stewart Wycliffe Goodwin.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Wilfrid Giroux.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Herve Gauthier.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Micheline McGuire.
An act for the relief of Gladys Ethel Sarah Bergeron.
An act for the relief of Monique Remy.
An act for the relief of Josephine Suhr Moseley.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Elsie Jean Delisle.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Jeannine Furoy.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Beverley Anne Jones.
Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Alphonse Eugene Racine. An act for the relief of Marion Richardson.
An act for the relief of George Hann.
An act for the relief of Rosi Irma Parrouty.
An act for the relief of Rose Coletta.
An act for the relief of Joan Jeanette Krautle. An act for the relief of Elizabeth Helen Brown. An act for the relief of Dorothy Hazel Neila Beausoleil.
An act for the relief of Ines Barbara Levy.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Gladys Faucher. An act for the relief of Geraldine Ludgarde Romer.
An act for the relief of Geraldine Cecilia Gohier. An act for the relief of Rene Hebert.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Lillian Small. An act for the relief of Patricia Rose Rankin.
An act for the relief of Haidy Amalie Madelaine Jack.
An act for the relief of Sandra Elizabeth McVety. An act for the relief of Rose Duval.
An act for the relief of Rosemary Louise Eakins. An act for the relief of Germaine Marie Therese Hinksman.
An act for the relief of Joseph Rene Gerard Michel.
An act for the relief of Doreen Klara Culmer. An act for the relief of Mallie Fanny Newman. An act for the relief of Sylvia Aucoin.
An act for the relief of Miriam White.
An act for the relief of Leonard Greenfield. An act for the relief of Helene Denise Vien.
An act for the relief of Toni Anna Lydia Weiss, otherwise known as Toni Anna Lydia Weisz.
An act for the relief of Stephen Alexander Lantos. An act for the relief of Frieda Lina Schaub.
An act for the relief of Colleen Ann Kenny. An act for the relief of Edith Rozel McDougall. An act for the relief of Mona Pozza.
An act for the relief of Vivian Marjery Cohen. An act for the relief of Hilda Desjardins.
An act for the relief of Sandra Mary Louise Martin.
An act for the relief of Mary Iris Fournier.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Phyllis Manoah.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Martin Simeon Levy.An act for the relief of Maureen Mary Piercey. An act for the relief of Milton Lawrence Trickey. An act for the relief of William John Loke. An	act	for	the	relief	of	Betty O'Neil.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Armando Argentini.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph Jean Paul Fernand Blanchette.An act for the relief of Karl-Heinz Hans Luedders. An	act	for	the	relief	of	Marjorie Brown.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Maureen Knowles.
An act for the relief of Rolland Commoy.
An act for the relief of Ginette Noela Melanie Soulier.
An act for the relief of Nora Bridget Lahey.
An act for the relief of Betty Ankhelyi.
An act for the relief of Barbara Patricia Rogers. An act for the relief of William Henry Monaghan. An act for the relief of Mary Yvonne Giguere. 
An act for the relief of Lois Budd.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Laptew.
An act for the relief of Margit Bene.
An act for the relief of Jacqueline Elfstrom.
An act for the relief of Marie Antoinette Germaine Mouton.
An act for the relief of Molly Krakower.
An act for the relief of Anita Marie Virginie Leroux.
An act for the relief of Barbara Joan Sonia Lowther.
An act for the relief of Arthur Bruce Hann.
An act for the relief of Fany Rubenstein.
An act for the relief of George Cecil Horton.
An act for the relief of Pierre Lacasse.
An	act	for	the	relief of Edna Anne MacPherson.An	act	for	the	relief of Pardo Belpulso.An	act	for	the	relief of Aida Diotte.An	act	for	the	relief of Geralde Lalonde.An	act	for	the	relief of Joseph Philippe Philias
Fabien Parent.
An act for the relief of Marie Greensell.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	John Donaldson.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Jean Eileen Leath.
An act for the relief of Stella Eileen Menahem.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Gabriel Fortin.An	act	for	the	relief	of	Elsie Clifford.
An act for the relief of Marlene Judith Feinstein. An act for the relief of Edie (Etta) Cohen.
An act for the relief of June Eleanor Holgate.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Anne Chad-wick-Rider.
An act for the relief of Della Harriet McGuire. An act for the relief of Adrien Tellier.
An act for the relief of John Loughheed, otherwise known as John Lougheed.
An act for the relief of Roland Boisvert.
An act for the relief of Jean Mildred Fillmore. An act for the relief of Marie Marguerite Nicole Fraser.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Peck.
An act for the relief of Eileen Myrtle Burns.
An act for the relief of Helen Doreen Gearey. An act for the relief of Iva Baumgartner.
An act for the relief of Jacqueline Serrati.
An act for the relief of Jeannette Carignan.
An act for the relief of Paulette Sauve.
An act for the relief of Thelma Joanette MacDonald.
An act for the relief of Donat Theriault.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Gray.
An act for the relief of Alma Tremblay.
An act for the relief of Daisy Emily Dorothy Ryan.
An act for the relief of Lise Hogue.
An act for the relief of Verena Elsener.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.

Then the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1964.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Deputy Governor General, did thereupon say:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General thanks her loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

[Stage Direction]
After which the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the first session of the twenty sixth parliament of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The twenty sixth parliament opened on May 16 and you have at this first session, occupying a total of 23 weeks, enacted much important legislation designed to advance in many w'ays the well-being of Canada and Canadians.
It has been encouraging to note some easing of tension in international relations, expressed particularly in the successful conclusion of a multilateral treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and underwater. This treaty was signed on behalf of my government on August 8. 1963. Further progress toward improved understanding between nations is urgently necessary. To this end my government continues, at the United Nations and elsewhere, to participate fully in the attempt to ease international tensions.
Canadians have shared the grief of the people of the United States over the tragic and untimely death of President Kennedy, whose contribution to the causes of freedom and peace has been of immeasurable importance for all the world.
The Canadian economy is currently enjoying a good rate of growth. It is gratifying that in recent months unemployment has been reduced to the lowest rate experienced since 1957, though further progress remains to be made. Exports have substantially increased and the payments deficit with other countries has been reduced. The recent wheat crop was the largest in Canada's history and exports of wheat in the current crop year are expected to establish a new record. My government has renewed on satisfactory terms the trade agreement with the U.S.S.R. first made in 1956 and has entered into wheat sales agreements with that country and with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. The Canadian wheat board has entered into a long term arrangement for the sale of wheat to mainland China.
My government has held conferences with the governments of all the provinces. Matters of mutual interest have been reviewed in a spirit of co-operative federalism. Arrangements for closer and more continuous consultation in future have been made. The federal government has indicated certain
Prorogation of Parliament changes which it proposes to make in fiscal arrangements with the provinces for the next financial year. A wider range of other subjects, including certain features of the federal government's proposed Canada pension plan, have been examined. The principal conference in November was followed by a meeting of the federal and provincial ministers of trade and industry and a meeting of the ministers of agriculture. Further studies have been arranged, as a preliminary to another conference with the premiers of the provinces.
My government has established a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and has taken steps to increase bilingualism in the public service. Many of the recommendations of the royal commission on government organization are being put into effect.
A committee of the House of Commons has inquired into matters of national defence and my government is undertaking a full review of defence policy in the light of modem conditions. Arrangements have been made for the provision of nuclear warheads for those previously acquired weapons which require them.
In recognition of the need to provide a fair share of assistance to the less developed nations, my ministers have announced an increase in Canada's external aid program and the initiation of a food aid program to supplement the other forms of assistance.
Negotiations for the clarification of the Columbia river treaty, and for the sale of downstream power, have been conducted with the government of the United States in full co-operation with the government of British Columbia.
The House of Commons has established a committee to make recommendations on its procedure and organization.
You have enacted a measure to provide for the office of a representation commissioner to facilitate the equitable redistribution of representation in the House of Commons.
You have enacted legislation under which has been established the economic council of Canada, which will advise how Canada can achieve the highest possible levels of employment and efficient production in order that the country may enjoy a high and consistent rate of economic growth and that all Canadians may share in rising living standards.
You have adopted measures to stimulate industrial expansion in Canada through tax incentives, and to encourage greater participation by Canadians in the ownership of Canadian industry.
You have also authorized the establishment of the Department of Industry in order to encourage the development and efficiency of manufacturing industries in Canada. In the same act you have provided for an area development agency which, in collaboration with the provinces, will assist in programs for the development of districts where economic growth has been slow and unemployment especially serious and persistent.
You have adopted measures to provide special tax incentives for industrial expansion in such areas.
The Atlantic Development Board Act has been amended to increase the number of members and to provide for a capital development fund of $100 million.
You have enacted the Municipal Development and Loan Act to make available funds for additional municipal projects, administered in co-operation with the provincial governments.
You have also authorized the provision of greater incentives to municipal winter works and an acceleration during the winter months of federal works in development areas, which have contributed substantially to the maintenance of employment.
[Stage Direction]
Prorogation of Parliament
You have also authorized measures which, with winter housing incentives and higher N.H.A. loans at reduced interest rates, have resulted in a record number of homes now being under construction.
You have also authorized an experimental program to encourage the employment and training of older workers who have been without work.
You have amended the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act to give increased support to the construction of training facilities and the provision of training both in industry and to the unemployed.
You have enacted the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act with the object of restoring democratic trade unionism in the shipping industry and putting an end to labour strife on the great lakes.
You have provided for raising to $75 a month the pensions paid to Canadians from age 70 under the Old Age Security Act, and for likewise increasing by $10 a month the benefits to which the federal
government contributes under the joint welfare programs for old age assistance and for blindness and disability allowances.
Other measures enacted at this session include the Dissolution and Annulment of Marriages Act and amendments to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, the Small Business Loans Act, and other legislation.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision you have made for the public services in the current fiscal year. Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
May divine Providence continue to bless our country.
This concluded the first session of the twenty sixth parliament.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Northern administration branch-
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.

[Stage Direction]
1. Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service, $78,439,000.
5. Grant for the capital requirements of the national broadcasting service, $7,340,000.
International broadcasting service-
10. International broadcasting service including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue from the rental of facilities in Montreal, Sackville and Vancouver to an amount of $429,500 and to re-expend these moneys for the purposes of the international broadcasting service, $1,865,900.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
1. Departmental administration, $317,600.
5. Companies and corporations branch, $142,000.
10. Trade marks office including a contribution to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $222,000.
15. Translation bureau, $1,837,600.
Patent and copyright office-
20. Administration division, $147,300.
25. Patent division, $2,158,600.
30. Copyright and industrial designs division including a contribution to the international office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $41,200.
B-Atlantic development board-
40a. Administration and operation, $352,500.

[Stage Direction]
1. Salaries and expenses of office, $86,800.

[Stage Direction]
1. Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the suggestion award plan of the public service of Canada, $5,011,600.

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, production and distribution of films and other visual materials, $5,338,300.
5. Acquisition of equipment, $207,700.
Loans, investments and advances-
National film board-
L30. Notwithstanding section 18 of the National Film Act, as amended, to increase to $1,150,000 the amount of the expenditures that may be made at any time in excess of the receipts shown in the national film board operating account referred to in that section, to authorize the purchase from the said account of capital equipment for the Canadian government photo centre, and the operation of the photo centre in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; additional amount required, $250,000.
Supply-Items Passed

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates, $825,900.
5. Payments to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, $243,000.
Administration, operation and maintenancela. To extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates, 1963-64 to include an honorarium in lieu of royalties to Dr. R. H. Hubbard in an amount not exceeding $2,500, $2,500.

[Stage Direction]
A-Public archives-
1. General administration and technical services, $724,100.
B-National library-
5. General administration, $321,800.
10. Payment to the national library purchase account for the purpose of acquiring books, in conformity with section 12 of the National Library Act, $38,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Salaries and other expenses, $349,800.

[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous grants-
95. Institute of public administration of Canada,
[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
L20. To authorize the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be known as the government telephone account, from which may be made, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act, payments in the current and subsequent fiscal years on the requisition of the Minister of Finance in respect of government telephone service; the account to be credited with, and the appropriations of departments receiving telephone service to be charged for, the costs of such service in such manner as the treasury board may direct, but the excess of the amounts paid out of the account over the amounts credited thereto shall not at any time exceed, $1,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Salaries and expenses of office, $1,271,200.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $820,600.
la. Departmental administration, $20,000.
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
85. Government's share of surgical-medical insurance premiums determined in accordance with regulations made pursuant to vote 124, Appropriation Act No. 6, 1960, $8,500,000.
85a. Government's share of surgical-medical insurance premiums determined in accordance with regulations made pursuant to vote 124, Appropriation Act No. 6, 1960-To amend vote 124 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1960 by extending its purposes to authorize payment of the government's share of medical-surgical insurance premiums on such bases and in respect of such persons (and their dependents), as the governor in council prescribes, where such persons (or their dependents) are in receipt of pension by reason of those persons having held offices or positions or performed
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
services the remuneration for which was payable out of the consolidated revenue fund or by an agent of Her Majesty or by reason of their being contributors, as defined in the Public Service Superannuation Act, or by reason of their being members of the Canadian forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $750,000.
87a. To authorize, in the current and subsequent fiscal years on such terms and conditions as the treasury board may prescribe, advances to persons who are serving abroad and who belong to a class of persons described in vote 668 of the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1958, as amended, or in vote 124 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1960, for the purpose of enabling such persons to pay hospital and surgical-medical expenses when due, $1.
Miscellaneous grants-
90. Consumers' Association of Canada, $10,000.
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
71a. To authorize the governor in council to make regulations, providing for the extension of a retroactive increase in remuneration, payable out of the consolidated revenue fund and granted in the current and subsequent fiscal years, with an effective date of July 1, 1963 or later, in whole or in part and under such conditions as may be specified in the regulations, to all or any persons who would have benefited from the increase if it had been granted on the day to which it was made retroactive, notwithstanding that they would not be included in the class of persons who would have benefited from such increase if it had not been retroactive, and prescribing to what extent payments made by virtue hereof may be included in the calculation of pension, superannuation or other benefits under any act, and to authorize payments in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with such regulations, $1.
75. Government's contribution, as an employer to the unemployment insurance fund in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office, $1,100,000.
80. Government's contribution to the hospital insurance (outside Canada) plan, $425,000.
Administration of various acts and costs of special
functions-
Royal Canadian Mint-
35. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $178,600.
35a. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $301,000.
Subsidies and other payments to provinces-
40. Payments, computed in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to the government of each province, in respect of income tax paid by corporations whose main business is the distribution to or generation for distribution to the public of electrical energy, gas or steam; the said payments to be made in respect of such part of the income of the corporations for the taxation year ending in the calendar year 1961 (as determined under and for the purposes of the Income Tax Act as is derived from the said distribution or generation in the province to which payment is made, $8,450,000.
40a. Payments, computed in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to the government of each province, in respect of income tax paid by corporations whose main business is the distribution to or generation for distribution to the public of electrical energy, gas or steam; the said payments to be made in
respect of such part of the income of the corporations for the taxation year ending in the calendar year 1961 (as determined under and for the purposes of the Income Tax Act) as is derived from the said distribution or generation in the province to which payment is made-To extend the purposes of this vote to authorize payments with respect to the taxation year 1960, $1.
Payments to municipalities-
45.	Grants to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act and regulations made thereunder, $27,700,000.
45a. Grants to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act and regulations made thereunder, $1,000,000.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
50. Miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses, subject to the approval of the treasury board, including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, and for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act, $3,000,000.
50b. Miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses- To extend the purposes of vote 50 of the main estimates to supplement, in such amounts and in accordance with such terms and conditions as the treasury board may prescribe, the estimates of other departments in order to provide for an accelerated construction and repair program and to provide a further amount of, $7,000,000.
56a. To authorize the treasury board to delete from the accounts certain debts due, and claims by, Her Majesty, each of which is in excess of $1,000, amounting in the aggregate to $2,388,509.86 of which $1,875 represents an advance made under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act that had been carried as an asset in the statement of assets and liabilities, $1,875.
57a. To authorize-(a) the custodian to transfer to the Minister of Finance all such Roumanian property (including the proceeds and earnings thereof) that remains vested in the custodian in respect of world war II as may be prescribed by the governor in council; (b) the Minister of Finance to hold, sell or otherwise administer property received by him from the custodian under paragraph (a); and (c) the establishment of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be known as the treaty of peace (Roumania) claims fund, to which shall be credited all money representing the proceeds and earnings of property transferred under paragraph (a) both before and after its transfer; and, notwithstanding section 35 of the Financial Administration Act, to authorize payments out of the treaty of peace (Roumania) claims fund in the current and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council which regulations may, inter alia, provide for the determination of the nature of claims for compensation that may be made, the persons to whom compensation may be paid, the manner and time for the submission of claims and the calculation (including any weighted or pro rata distribution) of the amount of the payments by the Minister of Finance, $1.
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
58a. To deem, for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act, notwithstanding subsection (4) of section 11 thereof, a person to be or to have been a contributor employed in the public service substantially without interruption for a period of at least five years where that person is or was a contributor who (a) ceased to be employed in the public service for any reason other

than misconduct, not having been employed therein substantially without interruption for a period of five years immediately before so ceasing to be employed; and (b) was entitled, pursuant to vote 702 of the Appropriation Act No. 1, 1959 or vote 712 of the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1962 or pursuant to a reciprocal agreement entered into under section 28 of the said act, to count as prior service under the said act service with a public service employer, which service when added to his service in the public service results in a total period of pensionable service of at least five years, $1.
59a. To provide, notwithstanding the Civil Service Superannuation Act or the Public Service Superannuation Act, where the governor in council is of opinion that a person (a) has made an election under either of the said acts in purported compliance with provisions thereof and the regulations made pursuant thereto and that the purported election was made in good faith and was invalid by reason only of circumstances not attributable to fault on the part of that person, or (b) was treated in error as being deemed to have elected pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 40 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, such person shall be deemed to have made a valid election for the purposes of the relevant provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act or the Public Service Superannuation Act, as the case may be, on such date and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the governor in council, $1.
61a. To ratify and confirm the granting, during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1962 and ending on the 7th day of February, 1963, of retiring leave, and to ratify and confirm the payment of salary in respect of that leave or of a gratuity in lieu thereof to persons who (a) ceased to perform duties in respect of their office or employment in the public service during the said period, (b) were, at the time of ceasing to perfom such duties of the age of 60 or more, and (c) were granted retiring leave or a gratuity in lieu thereof in purported compliance with section 59 of the civil service regulations as those regulations stood during the relevant period; and to deem, for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act, such persons to have been persons employed in the public service for the period of any retiring leave granted to them respectively and to have ceased to be employed in the public service on the day immediately following the last day of that leave, $1.
62a. To provide, notwithstanding anything in the Public Service Superannuation Act, that the reference in paragraph (a) of section 16 of that act to the last full month of service in the public service before a person is re-employed therein shall be construed as a reference to the last full month of service in the public service of that person that is immediately prior to the month in which, before his re-employment, he last became entitled to an annuity or annual allowance under the Public Service Superannuation Act, $1.
63a. To authorize the governor in council to prescribe the circumstances under which a person who, at any time during the period beginning on January 1, 1954 and ending on January 31, 1962, should have been treated as being employed substantially without interruption within the meaning of section 22 of the public service superannuation regulations as that section stood during that period but was treated as having been re-employed in the public service within the meaning of paragraph (a) of section 16 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, shall be deemed, from such time and for such period as the governor in council may
Supply-Items Passed
prescribe, to have been re-employed in the public service for the purposes of paragraph (a) of section 16 of the said act, $1.
64a. To amend, with effect from such date as the governor in council may determine, part II of schedule A to the Public Service Superannuation Act by adding thereto the employees of the government of the Yukon Territory and to deem, for the purposes of section 23 and subsection (5) of section 30 of that act, the government of the Yukon Territory to be a corporation that is a public service corporation as defined in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the said section 23, $1.
65. Government's contributions to pension plans (and death benefit plans) for employees engaged locally outside Canada who are excluded from the Public Service Superannuation Act, $100,000.
66a. Notwithstanding the Public Service Superannuation Act, where a contributor, as defined in that act, immediately prior to his ceasing to be employed in the public service (a) has more than thirty years service of a type to which paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 4 of the said act refers, and (b) has to his credit less than five years pensionable service in the public service, he shall be deemed, for the purposes of the said act, to be a contributor to whom the provisions of subsection (1) of section 10 thereof apply, $1.
70. To supplement other votes, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for the payment of salaries, wages and other paylist charges, $23,000,000.
70a. To supplement other votes, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for the payment of salaries, wages and other paylist charges, $65,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
The Speaker of the Senate-
1. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
5. General administration, $834,600.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
5a. Comptroller of the treasury-central office and branch offices administration, $998,000.

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons-
The Speaker of the House of Commons-
10. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000. Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons-
15. Allowance in lieu of apartments, $1,500.

[Stage Direction]
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
15a. The Bank Act-salaries and expenses of the inspector general of banks' office, $1,000.

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons-
20. Allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $2,000.
25. Expenses of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group, of delegates attending other inter-parliamentary conferences, expenses connected with visits of delegates from other legislatures and Canada's fee for membership in the interparliamentary union. $20,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed 30. Canada's share of the expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association including subscriptions to publications of the association, $22,780.
35. Grant to the Canadian North Atlantic Treaty Organization parliamentary association, $14,000.
40. General administration-Estimates of the clerk, $2,568,200.
45. Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms, $1,221,800. Library of parliament-
55. General administration. $372,900.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
1. Departmental administration, $2,068,800. Comptroller of the treasury-
5. Central office and branch offices administration, $21,528,300.
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
10. Superannuation and Retirement Acts administration, $816,900.
15. The Bank Act-Salaries and expenses of the inspector general of banks' office, $35,900.
20. Administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act, the Prairie Grain Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act, $117,400.
Tariff board-
25. Administration, $207,800.
Royal Canadian mint-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,876,100.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
1. Departmental administration, $7,648,800. la. Departmental Administration including the expenses of the North Atlantic Treaty organization ministerial meeting in Canada, May, 1963, $798,100.
5. Representation abroad-operational-including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $13,210,000.
5a. Representation abroad-operational, $66,000.
10. Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works land, equipment and furnishings, and to the extent that blocked funds are available for these expenditures, to provide for payment from these foreign currencies owned by Canada and provided only for governmental or other limited purposes, $2,493,800.
15. Canada's civilian participation as a member of the international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing salaries of commissioners, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $308,400.
20. Special administrative expenses including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates (part recoverable from
those organizations), and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, $70,200.
25. Official hospitality, $50,000.
30. Relief and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and their dependents and for the reimbursement of the United Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable), $20,000.
35. Canadian representation at international conferences, $357,000.
40. Grant to the United Nations association in Canada, $12,000.
42a. Gift to commemorate the independence of Nigeria (revote), $10,000.
43a. Gift to commemorate the independence of Tanganyika (revote), $5,000.
44a. Contribution to the Atlantic institute, $4,000.
45.	Grant to the Canadian Atlantic co-ordinating committee, $2,500.
46.	Gift	to	commemorate	the	independence	of
Jamaica, $10,000.
47.	Gift	to	commemorate	the	independence	of
Trinidad and Tobago, $10,000.
48.	Gift	to	commemorate	the	independence	of
Uganda, $5,000.
External aid office-
50. Salaries and expenses, $652,600.
Bilateral aid programs-
55. Colombo plan, $41,500,000.
60. Commonwealth Caribbean assistance program in respect of the islands of the former federation of the British West Indies, British Honduras, and British Guiana, $2,100,000.
65. Special	commonwealth	Africa aid program,
[Stage Direction]
70. Economic assistance to commonwealth countries and territories not included under other Canadian bilateral aid programs, $20,000.
75. Commonwealth scholarship plan, $1,000,000.
78. Educational assistance for independent French speaking African states, $300,000.
Contributions to other international economic and
special aid programs-
Multilateral economic aid programs-
80. Contribution to the United Nations special fund in an amount of $2,350,000 U.S. notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December 1962, which is, $2,527,700.
85. Contribution to the United Nations expanded program for technical assistance to under-developed countries in an amount of $2,150,000 U.S. notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1962, which is, $2,312,600.
90. Contribution to the operational budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency in an amount of $57,800 U.S. notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1962, which is, $62,200.
Special aid programs-
95. Contribution to the program of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, $290,000.
96a. Contribution to India of 500 tons of electrolytic nickel, $855,000.

97a. Credits in the current and subsequent fiscal years, not exceeding in aggregate $2,000,000 to the government of India of one-half of the interest payable by India under a financial agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the government of India to finance the purchase in Canada of aircraft and associated spare parts and equipment; amount required for the current fiscal year, $250,000.
98a. Contribution to Greece of surplus Canadian food products up to a total amount of $1,000,000. to assist in meeting special defence requirements, $1,000,000.
100. Contribution to the United Nations children's fund, $800,000.
105. Contribution to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the near east, $500,000.
107. Purchase of flour to be given to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East, $500,000.
110. Contribution towards the refugee program of the intergovernmental committee for European migration, $60,000.
112. Further contribution to the world food program in an amount of $2,000,000 U.S. as part of a total contribution of $5,000,000 U.S. notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1962, which is, $2,151,300.
Other payments to international organizations and
programs-
115. Assessments for memberships in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1962, which is, $7,596,300.
120. Contribution to the program of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's science committee in an amount of $220,038 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1962, which is, $236,700.
125. Payment to the international civil aviation organization in part reimbursement of compensation paid to its Canadian employees for Quebec income tax for the 1962 taxation year, $15,000.
130. To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates, $387,600.
140. Grant to the international committee of the Red Cross, $15,000.
145. Grant to the commonwealth institute in an amount of £500, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1962, which is, $1,500.
B-International joint commission-
150. Salaries and expenses of the commission including, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, as amended, payment of salary of the chairman at $17,500 per annum, $111,100.
155. Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the international joint commission, $42,500.
Other payments to international organizations and
programs-
116a. Assessment for the United Nations Congo ad hoc account for the period July 1, 1963 to
Supply-Items Passed
December 31, 1963, in an amount of $1,560,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1963, which is, $1,684,800.
116d. Assessment for the United Nations Congo ad hoc account for the period July 1, 1963, to December 31, 1963, in an amount of $1,560,000 U.S.- To extend the purposes of vote 116a of the supplementary estimates (A), 1963-64, to include a special contribution to the said account in an amount of $173,000 U.S., $1.
117a. Assessment towards financing the United Nations emergency force for the period July 1, 1963 to December 31, 1963, in an amount of $312,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1963, which is, $336,960.
117d. Assessment towards financing the United Nations emergency force for the period July 1, 1963, to December 31, 1963 in an amount of $312,000 U.S.-To extend the purposes of vote 117a of the supplementary estimates (A), 1963-64, to include a special contribution to the said account in an amount of $37,000 U.S. and, for that purpose, to provide a further amount of $21,000 U.S. notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of September, 1963, which is, $22,680.
Loans, investments and advances-
L10. Additional advance to the working capital fund of the United Nations organization in the amount of $468,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1962, which is, $503,400.
LlOa. Additional advance to the working capital fund of the United Nations Organization, in an amount of $109 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1963, which is, $118.
L13a. Loans to the government of India to finance the purchase in Canada of aircraft and associated spare parts and equipment in accordance with a financial agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the government of India, $12,500,000.
L15. Loans to the International Civil Aviation Organization in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $750,000.
[Stage Direction]
E-National harbours board-
225. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1963 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Halifax Saint John Quebec Prescott Churchill
General-Unforeseen	and
Miscellaneous
[Stage Direction]
Less-Amount to be expended from replacement and other funds	1,458,700.
[Stage Direction]
Supply

Items Passed
A-Department-
Air services-
Civil aviation branch-
140. Control of civil aviation including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, 55,211,100.
145. Airports and other ground services-Operation and maintenance, $22,532,100.
155. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment with respect to national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport) and related facilities; contributions towards construction done by local or private authorities with respect to such airports, amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $41,360,000, $38,477,000.
160. Contributions, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to assist in the establishment or improvement of local airports and related facilities, $168,700.
165. Grants for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $360,000.
Meteorological branch-
200. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,300,500.
B-Air transport board-
205. Salaries and other expenses including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $622,400.
C-Hoard of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
212. Amount to be credited to the railway grade crossing fund, in addition to the amount to be credited to the fund under the Railway Act in the current fiscal year; and, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to authorize an increase to $24,067,000. in the commitments (in addition to any commitments in respect of which amounts are appropriated under this or any other Act) that may be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years, $100,000.
213a. To provide payments to companies subject to Order Number 96300, dated November 17, 1958, of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada of an aggregate amount of $20,000,000 in respect of the period April 1, 1963, to March 31, 1964, to be paid in instalments at such times as may be determined by the said board for the purpose of reimbursing the said companies for such diminution in their aggregate gross revenues during the said period as in the opinion of the said board is attributable to such companies maintaining the rate level for freight traffic at an 8% increase instead of 17% as authorized by the said order; and to provide payments to the said companies of an aggregate amount in respect of the calendar year 1963 of $50,000,000 to be paid in instalments at such times and in accordance with such methods of allocation as may be determined by the said board for the maintenance by such companies of the rates of freight traffic at the said reduced level, $70,000,000.
D-Canadian maritime commission-
222d. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $10,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Notes on civil law respecting their ownership, management and control and the rights and interests therein of Federal and provincial Crown Parliamentary and Judicial authorities.
Legal Title
With the exception of the years 1802-1823, Parliament Hill has been owned by the Crown-successively the Crown Imperial, the Crown Provincial and the Crown Federal. Since 1823, the Crown has always held these lands for public purposes-either of defence or generally. In 1802, the British Crown granted the area to Jacob Carman who deeded it in 1812 to Thomas Fraser by whose son Hugh it was inherited. In 1823 the Earl of Dalhousie, the Governor, purchased the Hill from Hugh Fraser on behalf of the British Crown and, by letter, entrusted its control and management to Colonel John By with instructions that the Hill, together with Major Hill and Nepean Point, be reserved for military purposes. About 1857 the British Crown transferred the Ordnance (or military) lands -these including the Hill, together with the Rideau Canal lands-to the Government of Upper Canada. With Confederation the Hill and the buildings then thereon were included in those public lands and works transferred from Upper Canada to Canada by section 108 of the B.N.A. Act and clause 9 of the 3rd Schedule thereto. Thereafter the Hill has continued in the ownership of Canada. The statutory phrase is that the Parliament Hill lands are absolutely vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada for the purposes of Canada. See: Public Lands Grants Act, R.S. 1952 Can., ch. 224 and Ordnance and Admiralty Lands Act, R.S. 1927 Can., ch. 115.
Disposition, Control and Management
Primarily the powers of disposition, control and management of the lands and works of Parliament Hill are presently in the Governor in Council. This, of course, is by authority of Parliament which has the ultimate sovereignty. At the present time, the Governor in Council holds the power of disposition of title and the power of appointment over the control and management.
By virtue of the Public Lands Grants Act, R.S. ch. 224, the Governor in Council may classify public lands as those necessary for
defence of Canada and those not so necessary: thereafter the Governor in Council may authorize the sale, lease or other disposition of any public lands not required for public purposes. Parliament, under the Public Works Act, R.S. ch. 228, has entrusted the control management and administration of the Hill and buildings to the Minister of Public Works: but, under section 35 of the Act, has given a power of appointment to the Governor in Council so that that authority may transfer the management, charge and direction of any public work (defined as including "property"), or any power, duty or function with respect thereto, to any other Minister or department. Section 28 authorizes the Governor in Council to make such regulations as he deems necessary for the management, maintenance, proper use and protection of the property. Again, the Governor in Council, under the Public Service Re-arrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, R.S., ch. 227, may transfer the duties of one Minister to another. Historically, Parliament first entrusted Parliament Hill and buildings to the Secretary of State. Chapter 42 of the 1868 Acts provided that the Secretary of State should be substituted for the Commissioner of Crown Lands as regards the Ordnance and Admiralty lands transferred to the late Province of Canada.
Parliament has also given the National Capital Commission certain interests under the National Capital Act, Acts 1958, ch. 37. The Minister in charge of any property may ask the Commission to maintain and improve it. More important from the control standpoint, any proposals for the location, erection, alteration or extension of a building or other work on public lands by a department in the National Capital Region (which is described in the Schedule as including "the whole of the City of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton, Province of Ontario") must be referred to the Commission: the site, location and plans must be approved by the Commission. However, non-approval by the Commission may be overruled by the Governor in Council; alternatively, if approval is given by the Commission, the Governor in Council may attach terms and conditions. Presently, the Minister answerable to the Governor in Council and Parliament for the actions of the Commission is the Minister of Public Works: the votes of the Commission for
[Stage Direction]
operation and maintenance of parks, parkways and grounds adjoining government buildings at Ottawa are included in the Supply estimates of the Public Works Minister. However, the control exercised by the Commission and the Governor in Council does not apply to interior alterations in a building.
Parliament has given the Governor in Council further administrative powers over the Parliament Hill lands in the Government Property Traffic Act, R.S. ch. 324, as amended by Acts 1960-61, ch. 34. By this act, Parliament authorizes the Governor in Council to make the necessary regulations for the control of traffic "upon any lands belonging to or occupied by Her Majesty in right of Canada". The Governor in Council is empowered to authorize "officers" to enforce the regulations which, by the statute, carry quasi-criminal sanctions. Under the R.C.M. Police Act, Acts 1959, ch. 54, the Governor in Council may require the R.C.M.P. to perform such duties and functions in such places within or outside Canada as the Governor in Council prescribes. The force is controlled and managed by the R.C.M.P. Commissioner who is under the direction of the Minister of Justice. Thus, the Governor in Council may require the R.C.M.P. to assume duties, as well as those of traffic, control, on the Hill; and thus the Minister of Justice is responsible for the execution of these duties to the Governor in Council and Parliament.
The final power over the control and management of the Parliament Hill lands and buildings is financial. All monies expended upon these lands and buildings are, of course, voted by the House of Commons in the annual Supply Bill. The specific votes covering such expenditures are in different departmental estimates: Legislation, Public Works, R.C.M. Police. In the 1961-62 Estimates, two Legislation votes indicated a degree of control in the respective Senate and House of Commons votes for the Protective Services. At present these Protective Services operate solely within the Centre Block Building. In the Public Works Estimates there are votes under two main headings: "Public Buildings Construction and Services" and "National Capital Commission". Under the R.C.M. Police Estimates, the expenditures on police service for Parliament Hill are included under "Headquarters Administration and National Police Service-Operation and Maintenance." There are two statutes of Parliament which distribute authority generally and specifically over expenditures on Parliament Hill and its buildings. One is the Financial Administration Act, R.S., ch. 116, as amended, and the other is the House of Commons Act, R.S., ch. 143. By section 5 of the F.A. Act, the Treasury Board
acts as a committee of the Privy Council on all matters relating to "finance, revenues, estimates, expenditures and financial commitments ..." Sections 15 to 18 of the House of Commons Act provide for the Speaker to prepare estimates for the House of Commons, for the approval of these estimates by the Minister of Finance, and for the administration of the expenditure of these estimates, as so approved, by a Committee composed of the Speaker and four members of the Privy Council who are also members of the House. These four Privy Councillors are appointed by the Governor in Council.
The Library of Parliament is in a unique position as to its ownership and the trust on which it is held, its physical occupation of a portion of the Parliament Buildings, and its control and management.
Parliament, by the Library of Parliament Act, R.S. 166, as amended by Acts 1955, ch. 35, provides that the title to the books and other effects now or hereafter in the joint possession of the Senate and Commons are vested in Her Majesty for the use of both Houses of Parliament-not public purposes generally. Parliament requires that the Library "shall be kept in a suitable portion of the Parliament Buildings appropriated for the purpose." This is the first reference to the Parliament buildings, as such, either in the singular or plural, in any statute herein cited. It will also be noted that no authority is specifically charged with appropriating Library space. Section 3 provides that the direction and control of the Library and of its officers and servants "is" vested in the Senate Speaker and the Commons Speaker assisted, during each session, by a joint Parliamentary Committee. (The English statute version gives the singular verb "is" to "direction and control" as though those the words had one meaning; the French version has "sont con-fiees" and thereby giving separate but equal value to each power). Section 4 provides that the Speakers, assisted by the joint committee, may make orders and regulations for the government of the Library and for the proper expenditure of moneys voted by Parliament for the purchase of books and other effects to be deposited therein subject to the approval of the two Houses of Parliament.
The relationship of the Reading Room of the Commons to the Library-and therefore to Parliament, the two Speakers, and the House Internal Economy Committee-is difficult to define. Prior to June, 1954, the Reading Room was an adjunct of the Commons and its control and direction entrusted to the Commons' Speaker: its estimates were included in the Speaker's estimates and so were subject to approval by the Minister of Finance and their expenditure, when voted,

controlled by the Internal Economy Commissioners. The minutes of the Joint Committee on the Library for June 13, 1954, have the following entry:
"Reading Room of the House of Commons.
The Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons reported that the Internal Economy Committee of the House of Commons has recommended, at its last meeting, that the Reading Room of the House of Commons be placed under this Committee and, if this Committee agreed, that it be placed under the authority "of the Joint Librarians". This recommendation was adopted by the Joint Committee on the Library. Another entry notes that similar action was recommended with respect to the Reading Room of the Senate and that the Joint Committee had agreed to accept the responsibility of the Reading Room of the Senate subject to the approval of the Internal Economy Committee of the Senate. It appears that the Senate did not accept the offer of the Joint Library Committee. The motion made by the Joint Committee to the House of Commons and adopted by the Commons on the 23rd of June, 1954, is recorded in the House Journals as follows:
"That the Reading Room of the House of Commons be placed under the authority of the Joint Librarians".
An amendment to the Library of Parliament Act, in 1955, ch. 35, became effective on the retirement of one of the Joint Librarians and provided that the Parliamentary Librarian, the Associate Parliamentary Librarian, and the rest of the staff should perform those duties defined by regulations agreed upon by the two Speakers and concurred in by the Joint Committee.
The annual votes for the Commons' Reading Room have been since included in those of the Library. The transfer was awkwardly done from a legal standpoint and raises questions as to the financial and other management and control of the Commons' Reading Room, the ownership of its contents, and the responsibility of the Senate Speaker, if any.
The Joint Parliamentary Restaurant (which includes the Cafeteria) is another parliamentary emanation which raises questions of the lex parliamentii arising out of the financial relationship between the two Houses, on the one hand, and the Treasury Board, on the other, as well as a question of statutory interpretation of the powers of control given by Parliament to the Commissioners of Internal Economy of the House, and the inherent powers of control residing in the two Speakers and the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The
following is extracted from the 1958 "Audit Office Guide", issued by the Auditor General, at p. 95:
Parliamentary Restaurant Accounts
The Restaurant is a joint activity of the Senate and House of Commons. While it is assisted out of votes, the account is not regarded as one within the ambit of the Public Accounts of Canada. The history of the audit arrangement is a somewhat interesting one: Up to 1932 it was not regarded as an account in which the Auditor General had any interest. However, in that year the Auditor General decided that the provisions of the newly enacted Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, imposed an obligation on him to examine the accounts of the restaurant. Accordingly, he wrote the Speaker of the House of Commons asking for a statement of receipts and disbursements. On 12 May, 1933 the request was considered by the joint parliamentary committee on the restaurant and it was decided:
That the Auditor General's application to audit the committee's books cannot be entertained because such of the committee's expenditures as are charged against moneys received in payment of meals and not against public moneys are now audited by the firm of Milne, Steele and Company, who give entire satisfaction.
The Auditor General referred the matter to Treasury Board and in August 1933 it was indicated to the Speaker of the House of Commons that the board's view was that an annual examination should be made by the Auditor General. No records being made available to him for audit, on 22 November 1934 the Minister of Finance wrote the Speaker urging that this be done. The letter was considered by the joint committee but no action taken and the position remained unchanged until 15 May 1936 when a meeting of the joint parliamentary committee on the restaurant dealt with the matter in the following way:
The chairman pointed out that at a recent meeting of the commissioners of internal economy the desirability of its being in a position to carry out close supervision of all House of Commons expenditures was discussed. Arising from this was a request from the commissioners that regular reports on the restaurant appropriation vote be submitted for their consideration from time to time. After some discussion, upon motion of Mr. Maclnnis seconded by Mr. Landeryou it was unanimously resolved:
(a)	That, inasmuch as the sum of $15,000 is included in the House of Commons Estimates for the expenses of the parliamentary
[Stage Direction]
restaurant which receives in addition a substantial revenue from the operation of its business, the commissioners of internal economy would find it easier to control the spending of the house's estimates if they were supplied with monthly statements showing the receipts and expenditures of the restaurant;
(b)	That the restaurant's accounts should be audited by one of the Auditor General's subauditors because, although its revenues
are not credited to the consolidated revenue fund, the employees' salaries and the deficit on the yearly operations are charged upon the above $15,000 vote which is under the control of the commissioners of internal economy;
(c)	That the joint committee on the restaurant agrees to co-operate in this effort to ensure a close audit of all the moneys voted for the expenditures of the House of
Commons.