1963-11-19

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table two copies in English and in French of the long term wheat agreement between Canada and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic signed at Ottawa on October 29, 1963.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in connection with representations made by the Jewish labour committee of Canada and the Canadian Labour Congress regarding shocking treatment of three million Soviet Jews who have been subjected to increasing discrimination and persecution. Have any representations been made to the government in this connection, and has the Prime Minister or Secretary of State for External Affairs brought to the attention of the Soviet ambassador a situation that is becoming more difficult and trying with the passing months?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection, although I would like to check on the matter, that representations have been received along the lines indicated by my right hon. friend and that a reply has been made to those representations, but I will be glad to look into the matter and give the reply, if any, tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: At the same time can the Prime Minister say whether any representations have been made to the Soviet embassy in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that too.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware of the
28902-5-312i
fact that representatives of the Jewish labour committee and the Canadian Labour Congress are seeing the Soviet ambassador at three o'clock this afternoon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I did not know that.


CUBA-DETAILS OF CHARGES AGAINST ARRESTED CANADIAN CITIZENS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: While I am on my feet may I reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Oxford. I said the text of the formal charges to be laid against the two Canadians under arrest in Cuba would be received yesterday afternoon. It has now been received by the embassy in Havana and has been transmitted to the Department of External Affairs. I may say that in a general way the two men are charged with smuggling explosives into Cuba and committing other acts described as constituting crimes against the integrity and stability of the nation. The date of the trial, after a postponement at our request, has been set for Saturday, November 23.


Mr. W. B. Nesbilt (Oxford):: Could the Prime Minister tell us the maximum sentence which might be imposed on these men if they were found guilty?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to look into that and make sure I give the hon. member a correct answer.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Is
the government making sure that these men will be adequately represented by counsel?


John George Diefenbaker: That was the question I myself asked the other day. I was about to ask, now, whether any consideration beyond that mentioned the other day would be given so that Canadian counsel might be available. Would the Prime Minister say also whether there is any charge against these men of conspiracy with the nationals of any other country in an attempt to bring about the overturn of the government in Cuba?


Lester Bowles Pearson: With regard to the legal protection of these men I can add nothing at the moment to what was said the other day, but I will try to make inquiries to see whether there is any further information which could be given tomorrow. As to the details of the charge, I am not in a position at this moment

Inquiries of the Ministry to go beyond what I have said this afternoon. The information obtained here was received over the telephone, and I should like to await a written report before I say anything more.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the right hon.
gentleman know whether the trials will be in public or whether they will be behind closed doors?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not, but I should be glad to look into that point.


U.S. REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING TRADE WITH COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he tell the house what the reaction of Canada is to the representations being made by Mr. Ball on behalf of the United States that western countries should not deal with communist countries except on the basis of a general agreement having been arrived at, and in particular whether Mr. Ball has taken a stand on behalf of the United States that the granting of credit is an improper course to take? Have those representations been made to the minister or to the government through NATO? If so, what was the Canadian reaction?


Mitchell William Sharp: No such representations have been made to me as Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I am not aware that they have been made to any of my colleagues. If they were made we would, of course, give them due consideration. Since this is a hypothetical question I do not think I can give any more by way of answer to the right hon. gentleman at the moment. I understand, of course, from the newspapers that these representations have been made to other countries. Since we have not yet had an opportunity of considering this question, this is the only answer I can give.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the United States under secretary of state, George Ball, brought before the members of the NATO organization the need of a general agreement amongst the NATO nations on the subject of trade with the communist bloc. Have such representations been brought to the attention of the Canadian government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They may have been received by the Canadian representative at the O.E.C.D. meeting, along with other representatives, but we have not had a report from our representative yet

on this subject. I will make inquiries to see if one is coming.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister inquire at the same time whether the press references to the fact that this was brought to the attention of NATO countries is correct, and that there was a strong objection thereto by Britain and France?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. The press report of the NATO ministers' conference suggested that Great Britain had rejected the United States suggestion to put a five year limit on credits to the Soviet union, and that only Norway and Denmark had supported Great Britain in this regard. I wonder if the Prime Minister would look into the matter to see if it is true that Canada did not support Britain in rejecting this proposal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already seen those press reports, and as a result we have made inquiries of our representative in Paris. It is his report I am awaiting now.



WEST GERMANY


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to deal with a question, as usual of national and international significance, asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West on November 15 last dealing with the policy of the government of West Germany in meeting claims arising from nazi persecution.
Since 1952, Mr. Speaker, some 7,000 Canadians have received from the German war claims fund compensation for war losses under the nazi regime, including maltreatment, amounting to almost $9 million. In conformity with the usual international practice in such matters, only persons who were Canadian citizens at the time of loss were eligible under the war claims fund, which derived from liquidated German assets.
At the same time, the West German government in the post-war period has enacted a series of indemnification laws providing compensation for victims of the nazi regime. A number of persons who became Canadian citizens after the war and who were accordingly not eligible under the Canadian war claims fund have been successful in obtaining compensation under these West German indemnification laws. Further legislative measures extending and liberalizing the scope of payments to various categories of victims of nazi persecution are currently before the West German parliament. I can assure my hon. friend that the details of these new West German compensation measures, when enacted, will be available to any Canadians who may be interested.

Inquiries of the Ministry



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES ROYAL COMMISSION    REPORTED REMARK BY MEMBER FOR YORK EAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) expressing the views of the Liberal party on the purposes of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission when he said that one of its purposes was equivalent to that of apartheid in South Africa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the accuracy of the report, I may say the hon. member was speaking for himself at this meeting.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: As a supplementary question, is the right hon. Prime Minister going to take steps to discipline his member?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of my hon. friend's question.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether the government has received any recommendations from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited regarding the location of the heavy water plant which is in contemplation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has considered some proposals made to it in respect of the provision of heavy water required by Atomic Energy of Canada over the next five years. The government is now considering those proposals and hopes to be able to announce the decision in a few days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, will this include the matter of the location of the plant?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is likely, Mr. Speaker, that the announcement will carry implicit within it an indication of the location.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact
that conversations are now under way at the United Nations concerning the reallocation of the non-permanent seats on the security council, are steps being taken by the government to ensure the continuation of the commonwealth seat on that body so that Canada's future opportunities of election to the security council will be protected?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into that matter in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is attending an O.E.C.D. meeting in Paris.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Is it true that his department intends to close, in the near future, the radar station located at St. Sylvestre, in the county of Lot-biniere? If so, could the minister tell us the steps which have been or will be taken to provide work for the employees who will be laid off?

Hen. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence): As I have advised the house previously, Mr. Speaker, we have been studying our defence radar capabilities to determine whether any changes would be possible without reducing the effectiveness of the system. I expect we will have some conclusions in this regard shortly, and when we do I will be pleased to announce them in the house.



REPORTED INTENTION TO STOCKPILE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question of national and international significance to the Minister of National Defence. My question is based on reports from an unofficial source of information and concerns the government's policy with respect to defence. In view of the fact that a Canadian Press report from Bonn states that Colonel Hans Joachim von Hops-garten of the German army general staff informed our defence committee in Bonn that Canada will stockpile in Europe weapons and equipment for two reinforcing infantry brigades, and in view of the reported denial of the accuracy of this statement by a Canadian

Inquiries of the Ministry government official, would the minister inform the house of the facts surrounding these two statements?


An hon. Member:: Ask Max Ferguson.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can take no responsibility either for the statement of the German colonel or for any interpretation which might have been given to it in a C.B.C. program. I can say, however, that both the chief of the general staff and myself have referred to the question of stockpiling equipment in Europe. This suggestion has been made by the supreme allied commander, Europe at least every year for the past five or six years. As yet no decision has been reached.



REPORTED REMOVAL OF AIRCRAFT FROM MARVILLE BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware that the aircraft which were stationed at Marville, France have been removed, and would he care to tell the house what will be the future use of the base at Marville?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any aircraft which were stationed at Marville have been removed, unless the hon. member is referring to the old air defence interceptor squadrons. The plan as is well known to hon. members, is to station two squadrons of CF-104 aircraft at Marville, and there has been no change in that plan up to the present time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister tell the house when those new squadrons will be based at Marville?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot give a definite answer but I understand all squadrons of CF-104 aircraft will be in place by some time early next year.



WEARING OF DEVICES TO MEASURE RADIOACTIVITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the report correct that employees of his department, in carrying out their duties, will be and are now required to wear dog tags?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure my hon. friend is referring to the tags worn for the purpose of measuring radioactivity. If that is what he is referring to, he is correct.
[Mr. Herridge.l



BUTTER OIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why the federal government has rejected all bids to purchase 80 million pounds of stored butter oil and has returned cheques which offered 25J cents a pound for this butter oil, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of this morning.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on October 8, 1983 the agricultural stabilization board offered butter oil for export to designated countries at 30 cents per pound. While no sales were made at this price, exporters expressed considerable interest in the product and certain counter proposals were received by the board. Because of this, the board notified all known interested parties that they should submit their best offers for the product. Firm offers with deposits were then received covering a relatively small percentage of the total amount available. In the opinion of the board these offers were not acceptable either from the standpoint of price or conditions of sale. The offers were accordingly rejected and the deposits were returned.
The board then offered the butter oil for export, once again to designated countries, at 27 cents per pound with certain provisions concerning a performance guarantee. This offer is still in effect, and the board has made sales and received commitments covering a substantial portion of the entire product.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received any advice concerning the surplus of potatoes existing in New Brunswick, and has he been requested to investigate all possible export markets with a view to assisting potato farmers in the disposal of this perishable commodity at the best possible prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, both my department and the Department of Agriculture have been aware of the situation. We have been doing everything possible to assist in the marketing of these surplus potatoes.



REPORTED DIFFICULTIES RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my

feet may I refer to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Cariboo. He directed his question to the Minister of Finance, and it related to a report which had appeared in several United States newspapers. He referred to one report which appeared in the Yonkers Herald Statesman; I have also seen copies of the same article appearing in other newspapers in the United States. It alleges that Canada's wheat sales to red China are turning sour. This article goes on to say that the Chinese are in arrears by $100 million, and so on.
This story is completely false, Mr. Speaker, and if I wished to characterize it I would say it is nothing short of creative fiction. The Chinese have paid all their obligations either on or before the scheduled due dates. The outstanding balance on September 9 of this year was nil. The outstanding balance at the present time is about $10 million, and they are not behind in any payments whatever.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING FORTHCOMING TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scolt (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. On October 21 in response to a question of mine the minister said he was going to make a statement to the house on the status of the preparations for the Kennedy trade negotiations. That was about a month ago. In view of the very important nature of this matter I wonder when we may expect the minister's statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the draft statement was given to me today by my officials and I am now reviewing it. I hope to make it within the next day or so.



EFFECT OF WHEAT SALES TO CHINA ON CANADIAN TEXTILE EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he aware that, according to comments in The Sentinel Review, mass selling of Canadian wheat to communist China means the loss of 1,500 jobs in the Canadian weaving industry?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not aware of those reports.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENT WITH RED CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that he tabled the agreement between Canada and Czechoslovakia today, will he give consideration to tabling the wheat agreement between Canada and red China?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Will the public be admitted to the conference on "tobacco and cancer" which, as the minister has announced, will be held next week?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there is insufficient space in the room to permit anyone being present other than invited parties.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister take the first opportunity to make a television appeal to the Canadian people in order to impress upon them the great necessity for better observance of highway safety regulations, in the hope that we might reduce the traffic death toll which was so much in evidence last week end?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to do anything I can along the lines suggested by the hon. member-


Mr. Fisher:: Provincial jurisdiction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -including an appeal over television if that were appropriate in the circumstances.



FINANCE


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

Inquiries of the Ministry of Finance. Is the government aware that the First National City Bank of New York has purchased, through a subsidiary, a 50 per cent interest in the Mercantile Bank of Canada, contrary to the policy prohibiting the operation in Canada of branches of United States banks?


An hon. Member:: Give us an answer for a change.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the minister cares to answer this question, it is one for the order paper because it requires considerable research.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I would be glad to answer the question, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member was kind enough to give me notice. The purchase of a 50 per cent interest in the shares of the Mercantile Bank of Canada by a subsidiary of the First National City Bank of New York, of which the government is aware, does not contravene any present legislation.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I
haven t got a loaded question for the Minister of Transport, although I could ask him why box cars loaded at Prairie River, Saskatchewan have not been picked up for ten days I should like him to tell the house whether
e proposes to attend the conference which has been called by the premier of Saskatchewan to discuss the problems raised by rail line abandonment. The conference begins on Friday next, I believe.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: As to the first part of the hon. member s remarks, he will be happy to know that I have directed an inquiry to the Canadian National Railways to see what I can find out about the two box cars to which he referred.
As to the second part of the question, I have received an invitation from the premier of Saskatchewan to attend a meeting at Regina on Friday, November 22 of representatives of the various municipalities to discuss the question of rail line abandonment and proposed legislation arising out of the Mac-Pherson royal commission report. I regret very much that I shall not be able to attend that meeting.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will anyone be representing the hon. gentleman or his department at that meeting?


George James McIlraith: There will be one or possibly two officials from the department present, and they will be able to deal with the technical aspects of the matter and with the report of the royal commission.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: In
view of the fact that the minister is not able to attend this conference, will he delegate several prairie members to attend in his place?



NORTH SYDNEY-NEWFOUNDLAND  MAINLAND FERRY TERMINAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Russell Southam: In Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, and by no means is it a loaded one. In view of the fact that the minister advised Dr. J. S. Munro, the mayor of North Sydney, by telephone on October 25 that North Sydney would be the mainland terminus for the new $12 million auto ferry, and in view of the fact that the minister advised the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. on November 18 that the government had not yet reached a decision on this question, would the minister in his own decisive way make another statement in the house to clarify the situation? In other words, is North Sydney going to be the mainland terminus?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think I should begin by telling the hon. gentleman that his understanding of the telephone conversation is not correct. A decision on the terminal for the new ferry has not yet been taken. However, it will be taken shortly and announced in the ordinary way.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: A supplementary question. Might I ask the minister whether he would kindly notify the mayor of North Sydney that he has misunderstood him?


George James McIlraith: I think the mayor did not understand the Minister of Transport.


Robert Muir: I think you are in error.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humbcldt-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Canadian teachers' federation has passed a resolution urging the federal government to provide grants to the

provinces for general elementary and secondary education? If so, would the Prime Minister discuss this matter at the federal-provincial conference to be held next week, in order to comply with the requests of the Canadian teachers' federation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes; I was made aware of this by the delegation which I had the pleasure of meeting last week. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, initiative in a matter of this kind concerning elementary and secondary education should come from the provinces. All the provinces will be represented here next week, and if they take that initiative the federal government will be very glad to discuss this matter with them.



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING SCHOLARSHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he now in a position to announce the 10,000 scholarships of $1,000 each that were promised during the election campaign?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, not on orders of the day.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, will the Prime Minister be in a position to announce them at some other point in our proceedings?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope to be in that happy position, Mr. Speaker, one day.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NATIVE INDIAN REPRESENTATIVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ian Watson (Chaleauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of members of the house the fact that a number of prominent Indian representatives from British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec are present in the gallery today.



INQUIRY AS TO TRANSLATION OF WORK BY BEAUCHESNE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the library of parliament has distributed today a list of selected works on procedure, I take this opportunity to ask the right hon. gentleman the following question. Where do matters stand as far as 28902-5-313
Inquiries of the Ministry the translation of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms is concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be looking into this matter to ascertain exactly where we stand at the moment, and I will give an answer very shortly.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance and I am sorry I have not given him notice. It is a question of considerable importance to Hong Kong veterans. Has the minister since taking office received requests from any organizations or individuals to publish the report on the distribution made from the war claims fund?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to look into the matter and if I am incorrect I will advise the hon. member tomorrow.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES PURCHASE OF NEW PLANES    MEETING WITH COMMITTEE OF LIBERAL CAUCUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he has met with a very impressive committee of the Liberal caucus led by the hon. member for Dollard on the matter of the replacement for Viscount and Vanguard aircraft for Trans-Canada Air Lines; and whether, following this meeting, he will soon be in a position to give the house the result of the cabinet deliberations on this matter.


Hon.  G. J. Mc@: Mr. Speaker, I have not met any committees from any of the caucuses.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Does the minister intend to accede to the request submitted last October 31 by the parttime students' association of the faculty of arts of the University of Montreal, which asks that

Inquiries of the Ministry tuition fees be made deductible from their taxable income?
Has the minister replied to the association? [Text]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, this matter and all other proposals in connection with legislation which might be brought forward in the next session is now being considered within the department.



COMPLAINTS RESPECTING CLAIMS FOR CHARITABLE DONATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Did the minister investigate or give instructions to his officials in order to stop their arbitrary and unfair way of reducing by half, and sometimes more, the amounts claimed for charitable donations in the income tax returns of several taxpayers?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I can do no more than to reject the implication contained in the hon. member's question.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I tell the minister that the same situation exists in my riding, will he deny that fact? As a matter of fact, I can give him a number of examples.
Moreover, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) advised me that in his riding, charity receipts claimed for tax deduction purposes are reduced without any investigation or explanation, and even without the taxpayers being informed, which compels them later to pay the tax accordingly.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I can add nothing to what I have said in answer to the previous question. There are no arbitrary powers given to our officials to reduce these claims without proper investigation. They are charged with the responsibility of satisfying themselves that the receipts are accurate and beyond that I cannot go. As I indicated the other day, the situation is the same all over Canada as it is in Quebec; it is not confined to any particular ridings or areas of the country.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether he can have an investigation made in certain tax offices, and more particularly in those of


the Quebec area, in order to make sure that civil servants do not behave in a discriminatory and arbitrary fashion?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to repeat that there is no discrimination. We cannot accept this proposition. We are very much aware of these charges that are made from time to time and of the implications suggested by questions of this kind.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. If there is proof of discrimination and arbitrary decisions, can the minister tell us how to advise the taxpayer, in order to cope with that situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If hon. members have any particular proof or matters they wish to submit in a private way may I suggest that they do so to the minister and give the minister a chance to investigate if he thinks it desirable to do so.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have no intention whatsoever of questioning your decision, but the situation that has just been pointed out is not to be found in only one part of Canada but right across the country. Consequently, can the minister assure us there will be an investigation into such discrimination against Canadian taxpayers?


John Richard Garland: I can only repeat that there is absolutely no discrimination.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is taking on the nature of a debate, and it is also becoming almost a restated complaint. If hon. members really think they have been aggrieved, or if they wish to bring something of urgent importance to the attention of the minister will they kindly do so, but not at this time. The hon. member for Port Arthur.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the same question of privilege?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I will listen to the statement Mr. Gregoire: Mr. Speaker, on a question of of the question of privilege.	privilege-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the house, have declared that there was "discrimination" or that arbitrary decisions were made by officials of the income tax division, and the minister has stated that there was no "discrimination".
That is why I rise on a question of privilege for, in my opinion, this concerns the rights of all members. When we make assertions and the minister maintains the opposite, he must, then, let us have the investigation we are asking for in connection with that matter; then we shall produce the evidence accordingly.
That is my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my task to see whether there is a question of privilege or a prima facie case, and I must say, having listened to the minister deny four times this afternoon that there is any discrimination, that I do not see any prima facie case of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the point raised a while ago by the Minister of National Revenue to the effect that there was no discrimination. I think it is my duty now to bring a few examples to the attention of the house, proving that, contrary to the minister's statement there is discrimination. I shall refer to a letter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must realize that rightly or wrongly the Chair has given a decision on his alleged point of privilege, and the decision was that there was no prima facie case.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I put to the Minister of National Revenue a question with regard to a paragraph of a letter written to a taxpayer by an official of the taxation division:
While it is true that our letter of July 24 gave to understand that an official of our department would call on Mr. Tremblay, we realized later on that, in view of the great number of returns, this task would unduly delay the assessment and hence the refund.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
28902-5-313i


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We want to conform to the rules of the house, but when we ask a minister a question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: -and his answer is vague, hardly accurate, hardly precise, then we are accused of wanting to make speeches and not abiding by the rules. Let the minister accept what we are stating and give us the assurance that he will see to it that things are straightened out.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is an abuse of the rules. The hon. member may not know it, but a question should not last more than a sufficient time to explain its urgency or its tenor. The hon. member is making a speech, not asking a question. If it is on the same point, the question has already been decided twice, and I think the hon. member should leave it there.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have another question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have another question of privilege, and it is that the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: One moment. The hon. member for Lapointe has a question of privilege?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: All right.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, here is my question of privilege. The minister has misled the house in stating there was no discrimination, no arbitrary decision, and the evidence on that point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege. The minister has denied the implications four times. I have ruled on it twice, and may I suggest we get on with the business before the house. My learned and hon. friend must know he cannot do indirectly what he is not allowed to do directly, and the attempt to get around the ruling earlier, if I can put it that way, is completely out of order and I hope my hon. friend will accept that judgment.


David Réal Caouette: The minister is responsible.

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



INQUIRY AS TO EQUIPMENT RENTAL PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any indication when he will be able to reveal in the house his interesting plan for a federally supported equipment rental scheme for farmers.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Port Arthur has asked me that question, because I am sure he feels the same about me as I do about him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harry William Hays: In due course he will have the interesting answer.



PROVISION OF FEED GRAIN FOR EASTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. Is it the intention of the minister to introduce legislation at this session to deal with the problem of stability of price and supply of feed grains for the farmers of eastern Canada?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into this whole matter. This question is before the committee on agriculture now and I understand that on Thursday the members of the committee will be presenting a number of questions to the board of grain commissioners. We have all of these things in mind. We are taking a close look at them, and when we have the answers we will announce them in the house.


Robert Carman Coates: Do I understand from the minister's statement that no action will be taken with regard to legislation on feed grains for eastern farmers until the agriculture committee has completed consideration of this matter?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the acting house leader. Can he inform the house when the committee on lands, forests and waters will be called?
Hon. J. Watson MacN aught (Solicitor General): No, Mr. Speaker.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: should like to ask the Prime Minister a question which is related to the Columbia river treaty. Will the Prime Minister state now that all the details have been settled as between British Columbia and this government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As has been mentioned in the house, Mr. Speaker, there is one very important detail to be settled, and that is the price of downstream benefits if power is sold in the United States. This is an outstanding important question that is now being considered between British Columbia and the United States.


David Vaughan Pugh: May I ask a supplementary question. When this is settled, will the treaty then be ratified?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is the only important outstanding question.


Mr. Siuarl A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-sloke):: Will the Prime Minister inform the house what other important questions have been settled?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he has anything to report at this time on the provision of a landing strip at Haskett, Manitoba, which is a question of importance to the flying farmers of Manitoba.


George James McIlraith: I will procure the information and give an answer tomorrow.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. Last June 25 the minister stated in the house that in September he would institute reforms in the civil service with regard to bilingualism. Can he tell the house what are those reforms, which have not yet been announced, or should I put my question on the order paper?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, a number of reforms are under way. If the hon. member would put his question on the order paper, I would be able to give him a more precise answer.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I should like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Bow River as to whether officials of my department questioned the propriety of Hal Banks leaving Canada for the United States in view of the bail he was under.
The answer is as follows. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration exercises no exit control over persons leaving Canada, and such persons are not normally seen or interviewed by Canadian immigration officers. The only exception to this is in the case of persons who wish to have their departure verified, so I assume on that particular day such was not Mr. Bank's wish.



QUALITY OF TEAM TO BE SENT TO OLYMPIC GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the disgraceful showing of the Canadian hockey team in Moscow, does the minister think the team to be sent by Canada to the Olympics, supported by the national fitness council to the extent of $25,000, will be sufficiently strong to be truly representative of top amateur hockey in Canada?


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



NATIONAL CENTENNIAL ACT


Lester Bowles Pearson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the National Centennial Act to change its short title from the National Centennial Act to the Centennial of Confederation Act and to change the title of the national centennial administration to that of the centennial commission; to provide also that the centennial commission shall consist of a commissioner, an associate commissioner and not more
National Centennial Act than twelve directors in lieu of eight directors and to provide further for certain administrative changes in connection therewith.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister plan to make a statement?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at any length on the meaning and contents of the resolution before us, because I consider that it expresses very clearly what it intends to achieve.
First of all, the resolution aims at increasing the number of directors from eight to 12. In this way the government simply wants to obtain a fairer area representation and a more adequate intercommunication in a field where it is particularly important to maintain continuous relations and consultation with the various parts of this country and individual groups.
The resolution further aims at giving to the board of directors the necessary authority to undertake, or contribute to, any project without first obtaining the permission or agreement of the governor in council, as long as the required expense does not exceed the amount of $25,000. We believe that this change is desirable, because it will give the board of directors greater flexibility and efficiency.
Finally, the third objective is to amend more particularly in the French version, certain terms of the present act which are not in keeping with historical facts and to which the government of Quebec has strongly objected. For instance, both versions of the act mention the centenary of Canada rather than the centenary of confederation. Moreover, the word "national" in the English version is confusing in the context in which it is used, and resulted in another historical error in the French version. Thus, the latter constantly refers to the "centenary of the nation" rather than to the "centenary of confederation."
The expressions "Canada centennial", "cen-tenaire du Canada", "national centennial" and "centenaire de la nation" have given rise to perfectly justified objections on the part of the premier of the province of Quebec.
He set down those objections in an exchange of correspondence first with the former prime minister of Canada and then with the present Prime Minister. That correspondence began on October 4, 1961, and has already been tabled in this house by the Minister of Justice, on June 27 of this year to be exact.

National Centennial Act
That correspondence and the debates which took place last summer in the legislative assembly show quite clearly that the government of Quebec will refuse to participate in the centennial celebrations, unless the changes we are proposing today are accepted by the Canadian parliament.
Other changes less important than those are being proposed but, in my opinion, the hon. members will be in a better position to discuss them at the second reading stage of the bill.
Therefore, I do not intend to say anything more at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: I am somewhat surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister, in whose name this bill appears, has not spoken on this amendment but has left this matter to the President of the Privy Council. I will be speaking at somewhat greater length than he did. The President of the Privy Council has set forth, in simple words, that the reason for these changes is the high minded purpose of the government to bring about an increase in the number of officials and to increase the number of directors from 8 to 12; to improve the efficiency of liaison, as I understand it, by a provision that the governor in council will not be required to give his consent to undertakings or projects costing under $25,000; and finally to change the name because the premier of Quebec has stated that unless this change is made, that province will not cooperate in the celebration of the one hundredth year of Canada's confederation. We have heard of other ultimatums in recent months. Apparently, from the very careful wording of the President of the Privy Council, this is another of those ultimata which have become very prevalent in the course of the past seven or eight months.


Maurice Lamontagne: Because of the mistakes that were made in the act.


John George Diefenbaker: Mention was made of the fact that there had been communication with me, as prime minister, by the premier of Quebec. I would point out that, while I have not the record before me, he stated that the date of that letter was October 4, 1961, and it will be noted that the act in question was assented to on September 29, 1961. In other words, throughout the entire period of the debate that went on in connection with this matter, this question was not raised by the premier of Quebec. It was only when he was asked to make recommendations in regard to the representation of Quebec on this board of directors that, as I recall it, for the first time any suggestion was made in this connection.
I do not think it is quite as simple as the President of the Privy Council would have

it. You will have noticed, sir, that the number of directors is to be increased. That is becoming something of a regular course; as soon as the number is increased, immediately any appointments to that board of directors will be of those who are considered to be politically fit. I am sure that in a matter as important as securing the co-operation of all parts of Canada, considerations of political fitness will not be the pre-eminent reason for appointments to this non-party crusade, as it were, on the part of Canadians to bring about a realization in all parts of our country of the meaning of our 100 years of confederation. I believe there is need of a strong centennial administration without regard to party.
A little later on I am going to ask the President of the Privy Council to place on record the list of appointments that have been made to the conference. It is an interesting list, and it is one to which I shall refer. It is one that in my opinion gives greater consideration to political fitness, to patronage packing, than to the great issues that face us and the opportunity of doing something in Canada to bring together all parts of this country in a unity of dedication.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not in the house at the time, but I am informed that last evening the hon. member for Ontario referred to the establishment of a council under the legislation then before the house. He asked, among other things, whether the minister would tell the committee what areas of our population were expected to be represented by the additional five members. An answer was given by the hon. member for Rosedale, I understand, who has from time to time answered for the government, although he does not always get the credit. The answer of the hon. member was "The Liberal area". That was an interesting answer given by the hon. member last evening, if I am correctly informed by those who were present at the time, although for the benefit of posterity the hon. member will remain incognito, because Hansard records that "an hon. member" made that statement. However, it does reveal an attitude of mind. I do not know why the hon. member did not receive identification, because I am sure he would like to look back in future years to having uttered those immortal words; that the reason for the increase in the number of people on the council was to secure extra representation in the Liberal area.
That is a state of mind; and it is very apparent as I look at the appointments made, that the hon. member for Rosedale, although he is just on the periphery of power, was

able last evening to speak with authority and indicate the attitude of the government as a whole.
Now, sir, we believe that in the appointments to be made to this council, patronage should not be put on the march, that partisan political objectives have no place in an organization designed to bring together all the people of Canada and all the provinces of Canada. I intend to look over, just in a casual way, the appointments which have already been made since the minister took charge. They indicate a disregard of the principle of non-partisanship which should prevail in connection with the celebration of confederation. At the moment, I intend to do no more than point out these facts, because I know the committee will be most anxious to hear the minister explain how these appointments came about. It could just happen, of course, in the case of a few of these appointments, that they were former Liberal candidates or organizers, or even wives of former Liberal candidates. Up to a point one might consider it was no more than a coincidence.


Maurice Lamontagne: The former Speaker, too.


John George Diefenbaker: I will deal with that, too. We did not make these appointments. They were made by the hon. gentleman, or on the recommendation of his government. I say they are not in keeping with bipartisanship or with multi-partisanship in this House of Commons or in this country. I shall refer to that shortly. I wish to put this list to the minister because it is a who's who of Liberalism to the extent of about 75 per cent of the appointments.
Let us glance over it. One is a former Liberal candidate. Another is a great Liberal worker. A third is a former candidate in the last election. A fourth is a former Liberal M.L.A. On I go. Among these names, of course, are the names of some who might have become members if they had got nominations. There are members of the bench. Of course they are removed from politics, but it so happens that no one who was not was appointed by the present government or its predecessor, the St. Laurent government, is mentioned here. Then there is the wife of the Liberal candidate in Winnipeg. Just a coincidence. Then there is the wife of a Liberal member, a woman of ability and capacity. There is the defeated Liberal candidate in Vegreville, Alberta. I am just giving a few examples. I could go into greater detail, and I am sure the minister would be glad to hear me do so.


Maurice Lamontagne: Go on.
National Centennial Act


John George Diefenbaker: But in addition to their political affiliation these people have certain other peculiar propensities and qualifications which made necessary their appointment, whether it be experience as candidates or something else. I hope the minister will go over this list. I hope he will place it on the record because, speaking with the utmost seriousness, with the exception of appointments such as that of Mr. Claude Jodoin-


An hon. Member:: George Hees.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no. Mr. Hees did not get on that list. He had a higher dedication. The hon. gentleman is a little behind. He does not know who is on the list. Any time the hon. member who has just spoken wants to intervene, after his present intervention, I shall be glad to hear him.
There is the vice president of the University of Saskatchewan, and there are a couple of other professors. There is Mr. Michener, and then there is a representative of the Legion.


Maurice Lamontagne: The federation of agriculture.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes; David Kirk. There are these few, interspersed among a political glossary. It is a most interesting thing.
Now what are the hon. gentleman and his friends going to do? They have taken over the membership of the organization in large measure and given it to members of their own party. This is an occasion which should be above that type of thing. I am not going to say there would not be occasions when I would not raise objection, but this is something which is, or should be, above party, above any consideration other than the unity of our country.
I object strenuously to this list. It is a list which indicates that this government has no realization of the meaning of a celebration of confederation. It discloses the appointment of several people in a representative capacity but the rest of them, many of them, have no other practical qualification except that they are all members of the party which is now in power. I do not understand this in the context we are now considering. A committee which should be representative of all the people of Canada should be above the suggestion of becoming a party instrument in overwhelming measure.
Now the intention is to increase the number of directors. What does this mean? It means that all the appointments which have been made are out because as soon as the act is amended-


Maurice Lamontagne: I never said that.

National Centennial Act


John George Diefenbaker: Then could I ask the minister to say which appointments will be continued? The effect will be that they will all be out. If perchance they are reappointed, then of course those who are reappointed will be in. But that is the trend which is taking place.
There is another field to which I would direct the attention of the committee. The board of broadcast governors is, I understand, now being considered as another field for interference.


Maurice Lamontagne: That is the last one you should refer to.


John George Diefenbaker: Any time the minister wishes to interrupt, if he will stand up I shall be glad to answer him, because he is going to have an awful lot to answer for.
Now, it would appear, changes are to be made to bring about the strongest possible organization; that is what they say, at least. I want to look back and see what was decided in the past, and ask why the changes? I go back to the first meeting of the provisional national committee. I do this merely for the purpose of having the record clear. It met under the joint chairmanship of the hon. member for Three Rivers and the hon. member for Queens. That was on February 8, 1960. Then on April 18, 1961 the committee further operated. Those attending included four ministers of the federal government and one representative from each of the ten provinces. In addition to the membership to which I have referred, this group consisted of some 37 people, and there were 14 members appointed by the various provinces.
On this committee there is the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Forestry. Those ministers represent something of the relationship that we endeavour to bring out. It is a joint relationship between the English and the French. We had joint representation in regard to the appointments made outside of those who were appointed by the provinces.
The minister has opened up the whole field by saying that he wants to make this a strong and effective organization. Therefore I think we should have a report now of the whole situation regarding centennial planning. For example, as one looks at what is taking place in one of the fields, namely the world fair, one begins to wonder what is being done.


Maurice Lamontagne: What have you done?


John George Diefenbaker: What has been done? What are we going to achieve? Are we going to attain what we hope will be a time of national stocktaking, a rededication for the future? Are we going to attain a program which will mark the birth of this nation as a


nation? That would not disregard what took place prior to 1867, when we were not a nation. We were at that time a composite of colonies. There was Lower Canada and Upper Canada, and they were joined together either under the act of union or the constitutional act of 1791. But we did not have a nation. We also had colonies by the sea; Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. They joined together as a nation on July 1, 1867. These are not my words in 1963; they were the words that Sir Georges Etienne Cartier used in 1867: "We have joined together as a nation".
Great things had been done prior to that time. In what is now known as French Canada there had been a great heritage of several hundred years. In English Canada and in the maritimes-and taking Nova Scotia, for a moment, as an example-there were the knighthoods established under James I of England and James VI of Scotland. Parliamentary institutions were established there, but there was no Canadian nation as such. There were a number of colonies which joined together following the meeting in Charlottetown and later in Quebec, and they joined together under a federal system as a nation.
I think the programs, marking as they do the birth of this nation, must have a strong national flavour. But they must also have local and provincial aspects. I see this celebration in 1967 as something which will reflect the entire record of Canadian history from the days of Jacques Cartier and the Cabots. I see it as something which will show the tremendous contribution made by the church; by the French missionaries who came here; by the French and English explorers who came here; and by those of other racial origins who came to this country prior to 1867.


Mr. Greene:: What about Lief Erikson?


Mr. Monfeith:: Why don't you sit back and learn something?


John George Diefenbaker: When I hear that interruption I think of the hon. gentleman in the words of Job: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" I am glad to see there has been special recognition of the undertaking of projects of a capital nature; that there has been recognition of the contribution made by Charlottetown, a contribution recognized in the great edifice now being built in that city. The recognition of what took place in the city of Quebec is above parties; this is a matter that should bring all of us together without regard to party, which will serve to record and preserve our historical and cultural past so as to recognize in particular the contributions made by both English and French.

I also want to underline and emphasize the contribution made by other racial origins who do not want their descendants placed in the position of being second class citizens in this confederation. These racial origins came early in what is now Nova Scotia. The Germans came in about 1758. In other parts the United Empire Loyalists came in the 1780's, many of them being of German and Dutch origin. Other races came in later on to make their contribution to the building of this country into a great nation. At the same time that recognition was given to the basic principle upon which confederation was established there was the assurance that the rights of the basic races should be retained, unchanged and unchanging.
With a view to bringing these things about we suggested certain courses to be followed. The hon. member for Three Rivers, as one of the joint chairmen, announced on October 11, 1961 the federal government's plan to provide for $100 million as its budget. Then he set out certain ideas and suggestions in connection therewith. May I detour for a moment to point out that one of those things was the authorization to the national capital commission to purchase properties on the east side of Sussex drive in Ottawa and restore the buildings thereon to their appearance at about the time of confederation. This was to be a mile of living history. Now it is the history of a mile which will never come into existence because of the stand taken by the government in their refusal to carry out a plan which had in it the nucleus of principles which would have made Ottawa a place not only vital and living in the present but also revealing something of the greatness of its past.
When we were in office we announced that the federal government intended to ask parliament to make grants available for projects in the various provinces, and that the federal contribution should not exceed one third of the agreed cost, and so on. In view of the fact that the minister has opened up the whole matter for consideration I should like to hear him place his plans before this house and the country.
I go back to 1946. At that time I suggested that one of the things that would do more to give us a knowledge of our past and an appreciation of our heritage would be a freedom train to travel across Canada carrying on it the treasures of our freedom beginning with Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1689, in addition those things that made this country possible such as the Quebec Act of 1774. Here in Canada we have the heritage of being the first country within what is now the British commonwealth to secure freedom of religion. We did so 50 years before it was
National Centennial Act attained in the United Kingdom and we secured it from the United Kingdom parliament. Here the Jews received their freedom for the first time.
Ezekiel Hart was elected to the legislature of Lower Canada in 1807 and it was not until 1832 that his right to sit was fully recognized. Some of us have difficulty getting into parliament but although elected, Hart was not allowed in. But he and all other Jews were granted something for all time that was not extended to people of the Jewish faith in the United Kingdom until a quarter of a century later.
Here in Canada we abolished slavery in 1791 or 1792, before any other nation in what is now the western world. These are some of the things of our past. These are the living things that give strength and vitality to a nation. One of the most interesting debates one can read is that which took place following the introduction by William Pitt, the younger, of the amendment to the Quebec Act in 1791. That debate is worthy of a place in our history books representing as it does the beginning of the concept of independence while at the same time retaining the closest of relations with the motherland.
Then there is the Act of Union. These are things that are part and parcel of this nation. A freedom train would bring them together. I do not know whether Great Britain would allow Magna Carta to be brought over here from the British museum but certainly a prototype could be produced that would be a living embodiment of our freedom. When you read Magna Carta you find that for the first time religious freedom was established within the England of that day. It provided that Jewish people could lend money and could ask for repayment up to a period of seven years, beyond which they were not allowed to collect either principal or interest. Yet within a very few years one of the worst persecutions in all history took place in the England of that day.
The Magna Cartas of 1215 and 1217 and the various Magna Cartas that followed are the golden threads in the tapestry of our nationhood. That is why I suggest to the minister I should like to hear what is being done in this connection.
I should also like to know what the view of the government is with regard to those who today occupy the positions of commissioner, deputy commissioner and directors. I see there is to be a change made in the amendments so that the description of the offices will be "commissioner" and "associate commissioner". I state immediately that I agree with that. We discussed this at length when endeavouring to bring about this legislation. We referred to the associate as a deputy. I feel
4916	HOUSE OF
National Centennial Act in that change the government is doing something in keeping with the tradition of our country.
I mention the other appointments, Ernest Cote, assistant deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources and Dr. John Hodgson, assistant secretary to the cabinet. The four men I have mentioned all have a national reputation. I want to point out that when I announced the appointments in the house on January 25, 1963 the hon. member for Laurier, now Minister of Justice, gave his approval to the appointment of the commissioner and the deputy commissioner and pointed out that they were good men and had been well chosen.
In addition to those men the other appointments are Hugh Mills, Halifax, Paul Des-marais, George Metcalf, Dr. Norman MacKenzie, J. R. Murray, managing director of Hudson's Bay Company and Mrs. Marianne Linnell of Vancouver. I say that these individuals are worthy of being continued in their positions. All of them are good people, and I ask the minister whether it is his intention-


Maurice Lamontagne: You can have the answer now.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister wants to answer, all right.


Maurice Lamontagne: I can say that it is certainly not the intention of the government to replace any of the present directors of the administration.


John George Diefenbaker: It is the intention to continue them in office?


Maurice Lamontagne: Exactly.


John George Diefenbaker: And that covers everybody from the commissioner and what is now described as the associate commissioner down. I appreciate that. I expected that would be the answer that would be given by the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently there is
disagreement among some of those opposite because they have the same view that the hon. member for Rosedale expressed last week, but I am glad the minister is above that kind of petty pressure. I am not going to repeat what has been said on previous occasions. This whole matter was dealt with at length on September 18, 1961, and discussed by the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, and by many other members. We felt at that time that we had brought about a plan that would be beneficial and would assure that confederation would be celebrated as it should be.


There is one other reference I wish to make and it has to do with the change of name. The name today is the "National Centennial Act" but apparently the word "national" is going to be removed. I do not understand that. Instead of being known as the National Centennial Act it is going to be called the "Centennial of Confederation Act". I like the word "national" covering the nation as a whole.


Maurice Lamontagne: It certainly stays there.


John George Diefenbaker: The word "dominion" has disappeared. During the days of Mr. St. Laurent it became an ugly word and was removed even from the telephone books. Now the word "national" is to be removed. I cannot understand the need of that change. This is a national undertaking. It is said it is objected to by the premier of Quebec. I am one of those who like to see confederation bringing us together in agreement, but surely we are not going to determine the course of a national undertaking on the basis of an ultimatum by any one of the premiers of the provinces. I should like to see words like "this nation" preserved. I know the minister mentioned the fact that there is not agreement in that regard in the province of Quebec.
This is the centennial of the establishment of this nation. This is not the centennial of Canada in its parts. It will be the centennial of all ten provinces of Canada. Certainly, to me, there is no opprobrious connotation in the word "national" in reference to this nation as a whole, nor was there any question of subservience in the term "dominion". I understand the viewpoint of some who say that in the translation there is a different connotation, but in the expression "national" there cannot be another connotation because the word is identical in both languages. Why remove a word that refers to all of the people of this nation, not only the two founding races but all the races of our country? I do not think words like these should be put on the proscript list.


Maurice Lamontagne: They are not.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, there must be a reason for removing them. It is not just the action of one taken by caprice. I suggest that if this is to be a national organization, it should remain as a national organization, in its title and description. What we are trying to do by this legislation is to strengthen the bonds of our country. This is the purpose of the President of the Privy Council, and all of us. Then, why not give reconsideration to these conference members? I did not name them out of consideration for the fact that

I did not want to put them in their respective slots. I feel that even yet the minister should give reconsideration to this.
We worked on these appointments. I know how difficult it is, because as soon as you pick out an outstanding person belonging to another party, immediately someone will say, he has not supported us. This has nothing to do with the organization. I look at this document I received from the office, and it is similar to the kind of work one finds on John Macdonald's copy of the original draft of the British North America Act. That is one of the things that should be in the records of our country. He did not write anything, but he did a lot of doodling. He drew pictures of some of those who sat around the table. He would have been a caricaturist or cartoonist if he lived today, on the basis of the doodling he did at that time. This is part of our history. I make this plea to the minister on the basis of what is being done: Let us endeavour to forget partisanship. Outside of five or six representative persons on that council, a microscopic eye could not detect the qualifications for the positions they are occupying beyond those of political rightness at the moment.
I am making this appeal. We have a terrible responsibility today with the cleavages in our country, a responsibility to so act that it will not be said of us that we allowed confederation to be weakened. The achievement of confederation is a remarkable one, and the more one looks at it, the more he believes it was a miracle of statecraft. It is one of the miracles of the world. There were so many reasons why these various colonies should not have joined together, and yet they did. In 1775 the French colonists decided to stay as Canadians. They refused the solicitations that were made to them to throw in their lot with the 13 colonies. If it had not been for them, the Canada we have today would not have survived. Franklin put up a great argument. The French of that day answered this argument.
In the light of history, we could not have blamed them if they had listened to the exhortations of Franklin to grasp independence. As a matter of fact, one of the most interesting phases of history is the fact that we in Canada can join the United States any time we feel like it, without any vote on the part of the states of the United States, because under the articles provision is made for Canada entering on the same terms as the original 13 colonies, and that provision still stands.
We chose another course. Your ancestors and my ancestors did not come here for the
National Centennial Act purpose of following the attractive proposition that might have been the economic result of having joined the 13 colonies which became the United States. The leaders of the American revolution did not understand the French Canadian mind. They did not know that these people were first and foremost Canadians. Whatever our differences may be in this country, I belong to those who still contend that that spirit is as staunchly held today as it was in 1776 and 1867.
History is a great teacher. It was a monumental decision for them to make to merge in 1867 with the numerically greater number of people in Upper Canada, predominantly of British origin, and with the people of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, overwhelmingly of British origin. It was not an easy decision for them to make. There have been great roadblocks since; there have been many difficulties along the path since confederation.
The conference at Charlottetown should be read and reread, and become the knowledge of every student in our public schools, high schools and universities. We do not think enough of Canada. We always see things somewhere else. At the moment I am not criticizing our national broadcasting corporation, but I would like to see it portray something of the grandeur of our past, of our explorers and missionaries such as Radisson and Groseilliers, something of the beginnings in the maritime provinces, something of the United Empire Loyalists and what they stood for, something of those who opened up the western plains, the coureur des bois, the Northwesters, the Hudson Bay Company, something of the Selkirk settlers, and what they all endured in building a nation. Those things are no longer part of the traditions of our people. They do not see, feel or hear something of those traditions, and this is an opportunity to do that very thing.
The fathers of confederation met in Charlottetown and afterwards in Quebec. I think one of the best descriptions of their meeting in Quebec is:
-Macdonald, Galt, Tilley and Tupper, Cartier, Brown and McGee. They were there from French and English Canada. These fathers of confederation, in their dark Victorian clothes and stiff collars, might seem a less colourful assembly than the eighteenth century group in wigs and bright waistcoats that met in Philadelphia in 1787 to frame the American constitution. But the Quebec fathers also held in their hands the future of half a continent. And it was fitting they should meet in the old capital of New France, beside Cartier's great river of Canada. For here in the 72 resolutions that the conference drew up a new Canadian nation was born.
Sir, that is why I make this appeal. Give us a list of the people of this nation. Make this council worthy of our traditions. Strip

National Centennial Act this committee of those who, in the eyes and in the hearts of Canadians as a whole will not be looked on as representatives of the people as a whole, without regard to party or religious considerations. In doing that we will be doing something to strengthen confederation.
The fathers evolved confederation. Its genius was not founded on absolutes. Its genius was not in the absolute uniformity of opinion or belief. Its genius was not in the absence of differences. Its strength and its power-the fact it has carried on almost 100 years, and I hope will continue from generation to generation-was not in similarity or uniformity. It was in differences, but those . differences settled in reconciliation and a spirit of good will, understanding and cooperation.
In 1963, with all the elements that are today trying to pull this nation asunder, not saying it intentionally but having that effect, we need something of the abiding genius that characterized confederation and those who joined together. We need that once more as Canadians as we celebrate the one hundredth year of confederation. That spirit is tolerance, based on knowledge, of agreement in the larger things of life, and above all, by the determination that we as a nation put into this celebration the assurance that those differences shall not be permitted to pull asunder a nation whose future no one today, in the wildest dreams of imagination, can envisage.


Maurice Lamontagne: May I ask a question of the right hon. gentleman?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Maurice Lamontagne: I would like to ask him
why, since parliament gave approval to the setting up of this national conference on the centennial in October, 1961, no appointments were made before April, 1963; and second, what would be the names he would recommend to be deleted from the present conference?


John George Diefenbaker: I can tell you this, sir. The officials were meeting; the plans were being made, and I can tell you that 90 per cent of the names on this list would not have been on any list that I prepared, and that we would not allow the domination to be one of party. We wanted it to be a committee that would be representative of all of Canada and the best of Canada. If that is the only defence he has to give to that list, then I rue the possibilities for the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it is probably a good thing that the government has found reasons for seeking to amend this legislation, because in so doing we are being given an


opportunity to take stock with respect to our plans for the celebration of the centennial of Canada's confederation, which is now less than four years away.
This is a subject which lends itself to references to our great history, such as those made by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a subject that lends itself to expressions of hope, faith and confidence about the future. I dare to hope that as a result of our stocktaking at this time, we may yet make of the celebration of our one hundredth birthday a worth-while event. However at this moment I think it has to be said with all candour that the chances of our having a worth-while celebration in 1967 are very slight. I place the blame for that on the party in power up until April of this year, and on the party now in power.
We have had many words about the celebration of our one hundredth birthday. We have had a great deal of talk about what is going to be done, but the fact is that already some of the projects which had been planned at the provincial and municipal levels have been cancelled, because people at these levels are unsure of what is going to be done nationally. Already precious time has been lost, not to mention the excursions into patronage that have marred this whole picture.
The Leader of the Opposition has referred to what was done by the government when he was prime minister. Part of what I want to say has already been alluded to in the question put to him by the President of the Privy Council, but may I put it on the record again. The act known as the National Centennial Act was given royal assent on September 29, 1961. The Progressive Conservative government had already been in power four years. Even that was pretty late, bearing in mind the warnings that had been given to the Canadian parliament years before, that we should start planning for this event. But even after that it took from September 29, 1961, until January 24, 1963, before the appointments of those to make up the national centennial administration were made. We have already had put on the record today the names of those who are the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and the eight directors.
I hold in my hand a copy of the first annual report of the national centennial administration, which was for the fiscal year 1962-63. I find from this that the board held its first meeting in Ottawa on February 18, 1963. I suggest that was already several years too late. What has the board done? I read from the report:
Until the end of the fiscal year, ending March 31, 1963, the commissioners were engaged in locating

office space, recruiting essential personnel, considering those projects which had already been approved by the government and developing a program which would guide the administration's operations in the ensuing months.
Then after a few short paragraphs-the report is all on one page-the commissioners make this statement:
They have emphasized that planning for the centennial must start now.
Mr. Chairman, if ever the words "too little and too late" apply, I suggest they apply to the attitude that the governments we have had in office have taken toward this important matter of planning our centennial in a way that would mark our history for what it is worth, and also in a way that would chart for us a second century that would be even greater than our first. One hesitates to make many references to what he himself or his immediate colleagues may have said or done about a matter through the years, but I think it is perhaps appropriate in this connection to remind the house that a long time ago some of us started saying that 1967 would soon be here; that if we were going to celebrate our 100th birthday appropriately, we should start planning for it well in advance.
Someone else may have thought of the idea first, but the first person I know to have suggested that we start planning for 1967 in an appropriate way is a distinguished citizen of the city of Ottawa, Mr. Walter B. Mann, head of the English department at Lisgar Collegiate Institute. Mr. Mann is a long time friend of mine, and I know that in 1950 he started suggesting a 17 year plan. He suggested then, and he did so publicly, that we should look forward to our centennial celebration as an event to be greeted, not just with the sound of trumpets and long speeches, but by launching programs of development to make the country one in 1967 of which we could really be proud. I may say that Mr. Mann's idea appealed very strongly to my sense of imagination, and in due course I began presenting this idea to the House of Commons. Back in 1954, nine years ago, I first placed on the order paper of the House of Commons a resolution which read in these terms:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of the establishment of a 100th anniversary committee, with provision for federal and provincial representation, for the purpose of planning the economic and social development of this country on a vast scale, including inter alia, housing and slum clearance, conservation, irrigation and power projects, improvements in transportation, highway construction, the elimination of grade crossings, the building of hospitals, assistance to municipal projects and other public works, and also for the purpose of planning ways and means to strengthen the economy of every section of this country; and that consideration should be given to the advisability of such a program being launched immediately and
National Centennial Act being pursued vigorously year by year so that on July 1, 1967, the people of Canada will be in a position to celebrate this nation's 100th birthday not only with fireworks and speeches but by the achievement of a land of health and abundance for all our people.
Mr. Chairman, I placed that resolution on the order paper in 1954 with high hopes. I am afraid now that all we are going to have in 1967 are the fireworks and the speeches. The resolution was not debated in 1954 or early 1955. Hon. members know what happens to resolutions if they are down at the bottom of the list. They are not reached. But in March, 1955, during the debate on a supply motion when the grievance raised was unemployment, I took the opportunity to spell out what in that year I suggested might be called a 12 year plan. This was 1955; 1967 was still 12 years away. I suggested that we start thinking in terms of our 100th birthday as an event that we would best celebrate, not just by having fireworks and speeches when that time came, but by developing the social and economic life of our country, by strengthening our economy, by improving our life in every way; that if we did this sort of thing, we would be in a position to have a birthday really worth celebrating. I think probably that speech of mine on March 2, 1955, was the first speech in the House of Commons which suggested that we had to plan well in advance for an event such as the 100th birthday of this country.
The next year, on the editorial page of the Ottawa Journal of March 8, 1956, there appeared a very interesting article entitled, "Looking towards confederation birthday", by that very able writer, I. Norman Smith. On previous occasions I have quoted portions of this article by Mr. Smith and I need not do so again, except to point out that here was a writer of ability, whose articles are well written and widely read, pointing out to us that if we were going to celebrate our 100th birthday adequately we had to plan for it well in advance. Mr. Smith pointed out then that Ottawa, this city, had made a botch of the celebration of its 100 years as a city the year before because it had not planned well in advance, and he hoped that Canada would profit from the mistake that Ottawa had made. I will read the last paragraph of Mr. Smith's article:
Finally, it must be planned now, and by men with a vivid sense of history and future, men unafraid to be called dreamers. Put such men at work now for even three weeks and they would come up with a blueprint of something that could easily prove the best thing that has happened to this country since confederation.
Others joined in that suggestion in speeches of one kind or another. As a matter of fact,

National Centennial Act on March 19, 1957, there was reported in the newspapers of the country a speech that Mr. St. Laurent, who was then prime minister, had made the day before at Hamilton. In this speech he took up the theme and suggested that if we were going to celebrate our country's centennial in a proper manner we would have to start planning right away.
There were these several voices. I have named, among others, Mr. Walter Mann. I have referred to my own resolution and to my own remarks on the subject. I have referred to Mr. I. Norman Smith. I have referred to the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent. Here were these voices in the early and middle fifties saying that 1967 was just around the corner and it was time we got started. Finally, on December 9, 1957, for the first time, in the light of what happens to private members' resolutions, the resolution I read a moment ago was reached for debate. It is interesting to note that as soon as I had moved it and uttered this one sentence: "Mr. Speaker, the resolution which I have the honour to present to the house speaks for itself," there were two interjections which read as follows, as will be found in Hansard of December 9, 1957, at page 2084:


Mr. Byrne:: It certainly does.


Mr. Pickersgill:: We shall take it as read.
After I had made my speech urging the House of Commons, the parliament of Canada and the country generally to begin planning without delay for the celebration of our 100th birthday, the first speaker was Mr. John B. Hamilton, then the member for York West and also the parliamentary secretary to the minister of citizenship and immigration. The whole tone of his speech was that I was wasting the time of the house by bringing in such a resolution and that it was obviously nothing more than a resolution full of ideas which my party wished to see enacted. This was the kind of treatment given to my motion. It did not come to a vote; it was talked out.
It was interesting to read the press reports on the debate which took place that day and to read the headlines which the papers put on the reports. I have here a copy of the Montreal Gazette of December 10, 1957, and the headline on the Canadian Press story is: "C.C.F. Urges Bold Plan for 1967 Centennial". We often quarrel with the use of headlines but I am grateful for that headline; I think it caught the spirit of the resolution and of the speeches we made in support of it. The Toronto Globe and Mail of that morning ran the same story but gave it this headline: "P.C.'s spurn C.C.F. Plan for '67 Program". Well, I suppose that was a good headline, too, because if the one in


the Gazette caught the spirit of the resolution, the one in the Globe and Mail caught the attitude of the government toward the whole project. Thus it was that back in those days, probably because the idea came from some of us in this minority party, the major parties rejected it. It was then we lost the chance of having a celebration of the kind which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) now says we ought to have. In 1957 the Progressive Conservatives spurned the plan. Finally, however, four years later, in 1961, under the leadership of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who was then prime minister, the legislation we are now being asked to amend was brought in. But it took another year and a half before people were appointed to carry on the work, and about all they have done so far is to look for office space, recruit personnel and make at long last, a decision that the time to start is now.
In the meantime, as far as references to this matter in the house are concerned, very few have been made to the legislation we now have before us. Most of the attention has been paid to the legislation respecting the world fair which was passed last year and, as hon. members are aware, there does seem to be a great deal of turmoil over that. But I suggest the turmoil surrounding the arrangements for the world fair points to the fact that I was more of a prophet than I realized when I expressed the hope in my resolution a decade ago that we would plan this event in such a way as to make sure that when July 1, 1967, came we might have, not just fireworks and speeches, but a land of health and abundance of which we could be justly proud.
I admit I have offered these remarks in a spirit which is something less than hopeful. I think we as a country lost our chance to have a proper 100th birthday celebration because neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives were prepared to look at this thing in the terms I. Norman Smith suggested in his article in the Ottawa Journal some years ago or in the terms of the speech which the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent made in Hamilton, or in the terms of my motion. Indeed, it might not have been considered at all if the provinces and municipalities, realizing that 1967 was coming, had not pressed Ottawa to give a lead. However, in spite of the fact that my observations have not been altogether hopeful, I do express confidence that because the subject has been raised today and because this question is out in the open and we must of necessity take stock of the situation, we will pull up our socks and begin to do something to make this

National Centennial Act
celebration a significant one. If we are to do this, it will call for the display of some of the things the Leader of the Opposition talked about, so that our people can see them -souvenirs, mementos of our history. It will call for an awareness on our part of the greatness of those who brought Canada into being and of our responsibility to bring into being a still greater Canada. All of this calls for a lot more than speeches and fireworks; it calls for the kind of social and economic planning which we proposed when we brought this matter up ten years ago and which we still say is the way to build a nation worthy of celebrating its 100th birthday.
I am grateful that the matter has been reopened today so that we have the opportunity to go into it and assess the position, and I hope the whole question of whether or not this will be done on a patronage basis will be brought out into the open. Surely this is no place for patronage. I was glad the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) replied so readily that the present members of the administration would not be removed. I was glad to hear him say that the additions mean just additions, not replacements. I hope a hard look will be taken at the larger group, the conference which is being formed, to make sure that those who are on the committee represent all the streams of life in this country. I must say that when I heard the Leader of the Opposition berating the government for its practice of patronage I wondered who was talking.


John George Diefenbaker: Remembering what the hon. gentleman's party did while in power in Saskatchewan, he ought to start close to home in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will come back to Saskatchewan in a moment. Through the efforts of some of my friends in the Progressive Conservative party, the government tabled a couple of interesting sessional papers a short while ago. They were lists of consultants-two lists, one in use by the present Liberal government and one which had been in use by the government which went out of office in April of this year. They are both interesting but I think the old one is more interesting than the new one. Looking at this list-and it is an official document now, sessional paper No. 255, part 1-I find that on page 1 appears the following sentence:
With regard to Newfoundland, effective immediately. all matters pertaining to Newfoundland will be referred to Mr. James A. McGrath, M.P. and I think at the time of referral he should be supplied with the name and address of the individual who is our normal consultant concerned with the particular problem.
I go over into Ontario, no this is in Quebec, just across the river, and I find an interesting situation there. There the consultant for a certain constituency, the member of parliament for which happened to be a Liberal, was a civil servant. I shall not give his name, except that he was "Dear Tom". Here was a civil servant working for the government of the day, handling the patronage for a particular constituency.
Then I look at Saskatchewan and I find, very interestingly, that the constituency of Prince Albert is listed, and the name of the member of parliament for that constituency is given. We know his name, of course; he is the present Leader of the Opposition. The consultant, the person handling these patronage matters, is listed. I will not give her full name but I will say that the list says she was to be addressed as "Dear Bunny". I thought the Leader of the Opposition was happy to have a dog around the house, but apparently it was "Dear Bunny" when it came to handling the patronage in his constituency.
I hope hon. members will forgive me for this light touch, Mr. Chairman, but I think it necessary after listening to this tirade on the part of the Leader of the Opposition against the present government on the matter of patronage. It is pretty hard to tell which of the two older parties is more adept at that practice. At any rate, I do agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there is no place for it in the administration of our centennial legislation.
Let me say briefly that I can see reasons for increasing the size of the board, as posed in this legislation. I think we should view sympathetically the suggestion that certain changes be made in the title of the legislation and in one or two other places. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I like the word "national"; but if it causes offence in certain places, and we want to achieve unity, let us consider the objection sympathetically. I would go one step further and suggest to the President of the Privy Council that it might even be better-it is not merely a compromise but is better-to change the name to the Canadian centennial act. We are only at the resolution stage, and I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council or the Prime Minister to look at this suggestion. I think we could improve the legislation tremendously and would avoid the appearance that we are avoiding the word "national" if in all places we used the word "Canada" or "Canadian", thus making it clear that what we are proposing to celebrate is the centenary of the confederation of Canada.

National Centennial Act
I have just one other word to add about the turmoil there is around the use of the word "national". I do not think it hurts us to be reminded that there are those among us who think of Canada as having originally been founded by two nations; that we should take all that into consideration in our attempt today to recast confederation, conserving what we have, and going on to build a better Canada. This matter which is being drawn to our attention, makes us realize that what we have to face is the desire of those in the French speaking part of Canada for a greater measure of autonomy as a French speaking nation and a French speaking group, but not as a province.
Where I think we are in danger of going awry in today's situation is when people like Premier Bennett, and some others, translate this difficulty we are trying to sort out into a case of provincial rights. It is not a reversion to provincial rights that is wanted. We have rather two main groups to consider. We have the French speaking people for whom a greater measure of autonomy seems to be that which they most desire; and we have the English speaking people in the rest of Canada, to whom the benefits of federalism are just as precious as are the benefits of autonomy to the French speaking people. This, I suggest, does not mean that we want to turn our land into a squabble over provincial rights. We have to think of what the two main groups want. I think we can recast and rewrite our constitution so that those of us who so desire can have the benefits of federalism and those who wish can have the benefits of autonomy, up to a point at any rate, within the Canadian family.
I do not think we should be alarmed because the word "national" is brought out into the open in a debate like this. As an English speaking Canadian I like the word. It is a good word. I like this nation to which I belong. But I like the word "Canada" even better. The word "nation" might apply to any one of a hundred nations; but "Canada" is the area, the country, the heritage to which we all belong. Canada is the country we are trying to build for the future, and I think we can build a better Canada if we try to grapple sympathetically with the problem before us, as posed by this particular piece of legislation. I think we can help make for a better future, for a better second century, if we try now to make up for the mistakes we have made in the last few years, and make the celebration of our 100th anniversary what it should be. I have said, and I repeat, that I think precious time, maybe too much time, is being lost. When suggestions were made over the past decade they


were ignored. However, there are still three and a half to four years to go, and I think hon. members will realize that some things can still be done. I urge that this stocktaking session we are having be taken seriously, and that we do our best to plan for the kind of centennial which will be worthy of this great Canada to which we all belong.


Mr. Frenelle:: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that it is five o'clock?


Gilles Grégoire: One minute before five
o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: It being five o'clock, so that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is now my duty to leave the chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rouleau for the second reading of Bill S-41, to authorize the construction of a bridge and a causeway over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Pointe-aux-Trembles.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words.
I put a few questions to the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) and I would be very happy if he could answer them. I shall reply later, if the Speaker gives me his consent.


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, if my memory is good-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I should point out that if the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, I think this bill is against the public interest and that it is the responsibility of the members of this house to take the necessary steps to kill it.


Gilles Grégoire: That is right.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: During the week end, I had the opportunity to conduct a personal investigation, and I am going to put before the house new arguments to prevent the bill from being passed.
As I said before, all works erected on the St. Lawrence river, including bridges, causeways and wharves, are the exclusive property of either the federal government or the provincial government, or of the municipalities.
To date, Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any private concern which owns such works.
Besides, Canadian authorities have always kept a sovereignty over national resources such as the St. Lawrence river. That is why, Mr. Speaker, they have always refused-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has already spoken in this debate and I doubt that he has the right to speak twice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Has the
hon. member already spoken in this debate?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am asking the unanimous consent of the house to allow me, in the public interest, to put forward worth-while arguments which all members of the house will And interesting, I believe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we give our consent. Since the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has worth-while arguments that should be brought before the house, we agree that he should put them forward, otherwise this would be closure.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The only condition under which the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm can speak again is by unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gilles Grégoire: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Agreed.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: There is not unanimous consent.
Private Bills


Gilles Grégoire: Closure. We will help the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed very seldom that the federal parliament has to deal with legislation such as Bill S-41 which seeks the authorization to build:
A bridge and a causeway on the St. Lawrence river-linking the shore of 94th avenue, in the city of Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal.
As was mentioned a while ago by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who, I regret, was denied the right to speak-


Gilles Grégoire: That is closure.


David Réal Caouette: -I feel that any bridge which crosses the St. Lawrence should belong to the federal government, to the province or even to a municipality, under an agreement with the federal government in many cases.
However, there was no need, in my opinion, to ask us to pass a bill of this nature to authorize the construction of a bridge which will give privileges to a private enterprise or even to a private individual.
I will say to the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) that the same thing was done elsewhere. Any time a person wishes to reach the shore opposite his home, he just has to build a bridge without asking the government's permission or without having to present a private bill. He just goes ahead and if the federal government ever needs that land or has to change something to the private bridge, it is not bound by a bill or by legislation passed by the house.
Mr. Speaker, I will read the preamble of Bill S-41:
Whereas Developpement Central Ville de L'lsle Inc., a company duly incorporated by letters patent issued under the companies act of the province of Quebec, has acquired title to, is the owner and has the control of most of the territory of two islands lying within the harbour of Montreal, namely, Isie Ste Therese and Isle-aux-Asperges, most of which territory is presently used as farmland:
It appears that Developpement Central Ville de L'lsle Inc. is the owner and has the control of the lands on Isle Ste. Therese and Isle-aux-Asperges.
Whereas to provide for the full development of this territory, it is necessary to subdivide it into residential-
This has actually nothing to do with the federal governmentcommercial-


Guy Rouleau: That is why they want to build a bridge.


David Réal Caouette: I hear my hon. friend from Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) say that is why they want to build a bridge.

Private Bills
It is all very well to build a bridge, but 1 object to a bill which would bind the federal government through the construction of a private bridge. It should be possible to find a way to build a private bridge without binding and tying up the federal government by passing a federal act to that effect.
-it is necessary to subdivide it into residential, commercial and industrial lots, under an elaborate town planning system.
Here again, it does not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government to decide or even consider whether the company in question should have an elaborate town planning system.
That rests with the municipal authorities and the provincial authorities, as is the case in Ontario. Here, in Ottawa, when you talk about town planning, it concerns the municipality and the province, even if the federal government may put forward a few suggestions.
And further on, in the preamble:
Whereas the construction of a bridge and causeway over the St. Lawrence river in the area would contribute to such development and create employment: Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the construction of a bridge and a causeway over the St. Lawrence river would contribute to such development and create employment.
Now, what would be the length of this bridge, what would be its approximate cost?
Why is it that the federal government does not build a bridge which would span the St. Lawrence river and reach those islands where, no doubt, houses could be built in residential locations?
We do not object to the construction of a bridge by the federal government, but we are strongly opposed to the construction of a private bridge, with the agreement of the central government, sanctioned through a hill authorizing a company or an individual to become the owner of the bridge.
The first clause of the bill reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of this act, Develop-pement Central Ville de l'lsle Inc. is authorized to construct, maintain and operate a bridge-*
Mr. Speaker, this should imply that the bridge might be a toll bridge under the circumstances, that the company itself would have the right to establish the toll rate.


Guy Rouleau: That can be amended.


David Réal Caouette: So I realize, but it has not been amended. We are discussing Bill S-41, from the Senate.
I continue reading clause 1:
-maintain and operate a bridge on the St. Lawrence river, linking the shore of 94th avenue, in the city of Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal, to the

shore of Ile-aux-Asperges, and causeway linking Ile-aux-Asperges and the shore of lie Ste Therese.
At the same time, when referring to the explanatory notes, we find this:
The sole purpose of this bill is to authorize the company to construct a bridge and a causeway over the St. Lawrence river thus making possible the development of two islands lying within the harbour of Montreal.
The lands involved are presently used for farming but the project will make it possible to develop them into residential, commercial and industrial properties.
The bill contains the usual safeguards, namely, that the governor in council must approve the plans and location; the company must observe such regulations for the security of navigation as may be prescribed by the governor in council; and the usual time limits are placed on the commencement and completion of construction.
Mr. Speaker, we, in this corner of the house, cannot give our support to a measure of such importance.
We are in favour of private enterprise, but we recognize that there is such a thing as public property which belongs to the people and, as such, must be protected. Now, when we have a means to cross over a stream from one side to the other, it seems to me that belongs to the federal government, just like the bridges between the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence, be they located at Montreal, Valleyfield, Quebec city or anywhere else. Those bridges do not belong to private individuals or private enterprise but to the government.
As a matter of fact, as I pointed out a while ago, some of those bridges were built thanks to contributions from the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government.
I will now read section 2


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member for Villeneuve allow me to ask him a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Prosper Boulanger: During his remarks, the hon. member talked about a bridge linking one shore of the St. Lawrence river to the other. I think the hon. member made a mistake, or else he exaggerated, because it is an island and there can be no question of from one shore to the other.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will reply to my hon. friend from Mercier. The way he put his question, an island would not have any shore-


Prosper Boulanger: It is because the hon. member said from one shore to the other, implying "of the St. Lawrence river".


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, whether we go from the north shore to the south shore on

the St. Lawrence river or from the shore of an island to the bank of the St. Lawrence, there is certainly-


Prosper Boulanger: There is certainly a difference.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, whether we start from the shore of an island to get to the shore of the St. Lawrence, there are still two shores, and it takes a bridge to reach both. I regret the hon. member for Mercier does not understand that an island also has shores.


Prosper Boulanger: I was merely asking you to be more explicit.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mercier for his attention towards me.
Mr. Speaker, clause 2 reads as follows:
The said bridge and causeway shall he constructed and located under, and be subject to, such regulations for the security of navigation of the said river as the governor in council prescribes.
To such end Developpement Central Ville de l'lsle Inc.-
Mr. Speaker, we do not know the names of the directors or those of the shareholders of that company. We cannot find them anywhere.
I read on:
To such end Developpement Central Ville de 1'Isle Inc. shall submit to the governor in council, for examination and approval, a design and drawing of the bridge and causeway and a map of the location, giving the soundings accurately, showing the bed of the stream and the location of other bridges, and shall furnish such other information as is required for a full and satisfactory understanding of the subject, and until the said plans and location are approved by the governor in council the said bridge and causeway shall not be built or commenced; and, if any change is made in the plans of the said bridge and causeway during their construction, such change shall be subject to the approval of the governor in council and shall not be made or commenced until it is so approved.
Mr. Speaker, you will admit that I stick to the spirit of the bill, since I am quoting the different sections.


Guy Rouleau: This is a filibuster.


David Réal Caouette: And now section 3 reads as follows:
The construction of the said bridge and causeway shall be commenced within three years after the plans therefor have been approved by the governor in council-
We note that this project could be completed in three or four years and I am wondering whether the construction of houses has not been undertaken on these islands called He Ste Therese and Ile-aux-Asperges. And I now read on:
-and shall be completed within three years after such commencement; otherwise the powers granted
Private Bills
by this act shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the undertaking as then remains uncompleted.
Mr. Speaker, there is a point which seems to me quite ambiguous and equivocal. It is this:
Otherwise, the powers granted by this act shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the undertaking as then remain uncompleted.
To build, go across, or do what precisely?


Mr. Beaule:: A flying bridge.


David Réal Caouette: To build a "flying bridge", as suggested by my hon. friend for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule). And further on, in section 3:
Provided, however, that if such approval is not obtained within three years after the passing of this act, the powers granted for the construction of the said bridge shall cease and be null and void.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Dollard, who is a man of ability and good will, should have tried to submit a more serious bill than the one brought forward. In fact, I sat in this house from 1946 to 1948 and never was such a bill introduced, asking to authorize a private corporation or an individual to build a bridge across the St. Lawrence river, or from one bank to an island located in the middle of the river, in order to facilitate the construction or creation, if you prefer, of projects which could be residential or industrial and probably commercial. They do not know exactly where they are going, but nevertheless they want a bridge to go there.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to let that bill go through if we do not get more information from the hon. member for Dollard, and in order to allow him to supply the information, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe:
That Bill No. S-41 be not now read the second time, but that it be given a six month's hoist.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that the points raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) in support of his amendment are not valid. I think we should proceed immediately with the second reading of this bill and, if need be, put the question to a vote. I suggest the bill needs no explanation.
Besides, when the hon. member for Villeneuve says he has never seen such a bill adopted, I think he overlooked a few, because in 1961 the house passed-


David Réal Caouette: I was not here then.


Guy Rouleau: In any case, he ought to know about it.


David Réal Caouette: It was passed because I was not here.

Private Bills


Guy Rouleau: He should know that in 1961 the House of Commons passed a similar bill which contained almost the same sections as the one which is being studied today. It is the bill concerning the corporation of the Three Rivers bridge; the said corporation was authorized in the same way by parliament to build a bridge over the St. Lawrence river. It is a private company.


David Réal Caouette: It has not yet been built.


Guy Rouleau: As far as the St. Lawrence river is concerned, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, an act of parliament is needed to allow a corporation to build a bridge over the St. Lawrence river, whether the waterway is to be crossed completely or in part.
In this case, it is intended to build a bridge not longer than 500 feet, so that the people concerned may move about on an island which they own. It is nothing more than that.
I am asked today to give the names of the members of that company. I am glad to do so: the president is Mr. Conrad Bock, the director is Mr. Robert Desy, notary, of Montreal and the secretary-treasurer is Miss Denise Cournoyer, also of Montreal.


David Réal Caouette: These are the temporary directors?


Guy Rouleau: They are the actual directors of the company. The one who is most interested in that company is the president, Mr. Conrad Bock.


Gilles Grégoire: Are there permanent directors in the company?


Guy Rouleau: As far as I know, there are no other directors than those I just mentioned to the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Are those three the only shareholders?


Guy Rouleau: To my knowledge, the three of them are the only shareholders in the company. There are no others.


Gilles Grégoire: By virtue of what were they incorporated?


Guy Rouleau: By virtue of an act of the province of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: The first or the second part?


Guy Rouleau: If the hon. member for Lapointe had listened to me when I introduced the bill last week, he would know that I gave all those details. I explained at that time why it was impossible to build such a bridge without going through this procedure.
There is nothing to make such a fuss about. The purpose of the bill is to authorize a company to build, over a part of the St. Lawrence river, a bridge of only 500 feet,

to enable the people concerned to proceed with the development of an island near Montreal.
I am convinced that the building of this bridge would help stem unemployment in Montreal and ensure an excellent development in the limits of the city.
In the circumstances, I ask my hon. friend from Villeneuve to be kind enough to withdraw his amendment.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether this bridge will be a toll bridge?


Guy Rouleau: When the company first came before the Senate, its intention was to build a toll bridge. But following the objections that were raised in the committee of the other place, the bill was amended and the company was not authorized to build a toll bridge there.


David Réal Caouette: Could the hon. member for Dollard tell the house whether that company is presently operating on the island of Montreal or outside the city? Is the company engaged in some works or in the building of homes?


Guy Rouleau: This island measures about 2,000 acres, 1,737 of which can be used. Out of those 1,737 acres, 1,480 are owned by the company. Moreover, the company has options on the other lands.
So far, the company has applied for the loans required for the construction of that bridge. Therefore the company is operating.
Does that answer your question?


David Réal Caouette: Did the hon. member for Dollard inquire from the federal authorities in order to find out whether the federal government would not take the responsibility of building such a bridge to those two islands?


Guy Rouleau: Last week, the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), I think, inquired about the merits of a private enterprise erecting a bridge over a stream like the one in question.
Generally speaking, I think the construction of bridges rests with both provincial and federal governments.
The proposed structure will be only 500 feet long and will make possible a private development. In my opinion, it should not be expected that either the federal government or the province will build a bridge for the sake of private individuals. I feel that if the company wishes to develop an island it owns, it should also make the necessary expenditures to get to that island.
Mr. Speaker, if the bill is given second reading, our hon. friends will have every

opportunity of discussing its various clauses when they are examined by a standing committee of the house.


David Réal Caouette: We do want to bring up the subject again.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the remarks of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Dollard, who surely did not put forward very strong arguments in his attempt to disprove the merits of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Villeneuve.
I do not often agree with the views of that hon. member.
In my opinion, the hon. member for Villeneuve was too conservative this time in asking that this bill be hoisted for six months.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I feel that the hon. member should withdraw his insult to the hon. member for Villeneuve whom he called a Conservative.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I made no reference to narrow-mindedness. If I had, the hon. member for Lapointe could have thought I was alluding to him. I actually said that the hon. member for Villeneuve had been too conservative in his remarks, because he should have suggested that consideration of the bill be postponed for a much longer period than six months.
In my humble opinion, there are reasons for which this amendment ought to be adopted.
While attempting to refute the reasons the hon. member for Villeneuve had given for moving the amendment, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) tried to compare the Developpement Central Ville de l'lsle Inc., to the Three Rivers bridge corporation.
The two corporations have been set up for quite different purposes. In the first place, in 1961 the Three Rivers bridge corporation submitted a bill that it was my privilege to sponsor. The object of the bill was not to further private interests but to develop the economy of a whole region, that of the heart of Quebec.
The arguments marshalled then for the passing of that bill were very serious. They rested, first, on the solvency of the directors of the corporation and their business experience; moreover, they asked for the special powers needed, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to carry out a project studied many times over a period of years by engineers for the provincial government as well as for private enterprise.
Private Bills
With regard to this bill, the hon. member for Dollard may lack some information, and he might be very interested to learn that the corporation of Developpement Central de Ville de l'lsle Inc. would own approximately 1,400 acres of land on Ile-aux-Asperges as well as hold options on a large section of the rest of it.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Dollard is aware of the facts, but in my opinion, the members of the house ought to be. This corporation requesting special powers from this house today is on the verge of bankruptcy, so much so that the lots were bought four years ago from a mortmain corporation, and no capital and even no interest was paid for them; moreover, legal action was taken against the corporation several times before the superior court in Montreal.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Villeneuve to the effect that second reading of this bill should be postponed for six months.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who now has the floor goes well beyond the limits allowed by the proposed amendment.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Reasons are being put forward.


Guy Rouleau: I should like to have the opinion of the Chair.


Rémi Paul: I do not know whether the hon. member for Dollard has been enlightened by the remarks I just made but I am of the opinion that they are in order because I stated at the very beginning that the hon. member for Villeneuve had submitted an amendment for a six months' hoist, and I am now giving the reasons for favourable consideration of this amendment. My remarks concern the proposed amendment and the solvency of the corporation asking the house for the privilege to build a bridge, and the interruption by the hon. member for Dollard will not divert me from the subject I intend to deal with.
On several occasions the company was sued before the superior court in Montreal, and often threatened with seizure and sale of its properties by the sheriff. This mortmain corporation whose name I shall not reveal, has paid its creditors to keep a mortgage on the properties sold. In addition, Mr. Bock, the president of the company sponsoring this bill, is insolvent as you will find out by inquiring from the St. James street branch of the Bank of Montreal where you will be told that Mr. Bock is unable to manage his business.
It might be a good thing to grant special powers to a corporation but not to insolvent individuals.

Private Bills
I believe that this would be a colossal mistake. Besides, the hon. member for Dollard could perhaps try to disprove the statement that the municipal council of Pointe-aux-Trembles, at their meeting of November 4 last, refused to approve the construction of that bridge because they were well aware, undoubtedly from the information received, of the hazards of unfair use of that bridge, because the powers that would be given the corporation would be practically unlimited and Ile-aux-Asperges would become a closed island, since it would then be left to the whim of the directors of that corporation to impose burdensome charges. Now, Ile-aux-Asperges being closed, its residents would have to suffer inconvenience beyond any limit compatible with individual freedom.
And that is not all. Supposing for a moment that this company could benefit from the passing of this bill, it would go before its creditors and say: "We now have authorization from the federal government to build a bridge". It would then borrow money, not to start the construction of the bridge but rather to pay off old mortgages which have not been reimbursed for four years and it would carry on with the construction of the bridge over a period of more than three years.
Then, the company would be forced to come back before us and ask for an extension of the same powers for another period of three years, but in the meantime, the creditors would not get more benefits, because this bill is introduced for the sole purpose of paying off the debts of that corporation.
The directors mentioned are unknown in financial circles, except for Mr. Conrad Bock who is recognized as being insolvent. Among the others, Miss Cournoyer has been mentioned, and I do not think that she ranks among the business personalities of the metropolis. As for the other director, I have forgotten his name.
In short, it is dangerous to grant to an insolvent company the means to recover funds which will be used for other purposes than those for which they would be granted.
The municipality of Pointe-aux-Trembles is justified in objecting to the construction of the bridge.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Rémi Paul: Certainly.


Gilles Grégoire: Is the said Mr. Bock who has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere a director of Eagle Lumber Company?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, no.


Rémi Paul: No, I think that the hon. member for Lapointe is referring to Mr. Germain Bock.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This is not at all the same thing.


Rémi Paul: It is not the same Bock, he is not interested in the same business, because the one of whom we are speaking today is well known in legal circles, while the hon. member for Lapointe is referring to a gentleman who is well known in financial circles and his reputation is much above that of the fellow of whom we are now considering the solvency.
The corporation of Pointe-aux-Trembles has good reasons to object to parliament giving the power requested by Developpement Central Ville de l'lsle Inc. And why? Supposing a residential centre were established on Ile-aux-Asperges and that the company became insolvent-anyway it could not become insolvent, for it is already so. But supposing it were publicly confirmed at that time, the municipality of Pointe-aux-Trembles would have to assume the cost of building approaches to the bridge, of lighting and maintenance, and everything would fall back upon the taxpayers of the municipality of Pointe-aux-Trembles which would have to pay a rate not yet established, for using that bridge, as long as the company exists.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think this would be by-passing the authority best placed for judging the matter, that is the very municipality of Pointe-aux-Trembles which knows the site, the possible advantages and disadvantages of building that bridge and certainly also the standing wealth and solvency of the company directors. As a matter of fact, the municipal authorities are afraid that, if services, once established, cannot be continued, the principals, that is the present officers of the corporation of the municipality of Pointe-aux-Trembles will have to carry everything.
I am convinced it would ill beseem parliament to award jurisdiction over the St. Lawrence river, which is an international waterway, to a private concern. It would be the first time the parliament of Canada passed a bill supporting a private enterprise in the full meaning of the term.
The Three Rivers bridge corporation, Mr. Speaker, cannot be compared in any way with this company. The Three Rivers bridge corporation is having quite a hard time to carry out its project, even though its members are very capable businessmen. The whole district of Three Rivers, Drummondville, the north shore and the south shore will benefit from that bridge.

Mr. Speaker, the object of the present bill is to favour a strictly private company engaged in housing development on an island in the St. Lawrence river. The bridge in Three Rivers will connect both shores of the St. Lawrence, whereas we are being asked today by the Developpement Central Ville de l'lsle Inc. to authorize the construction of a bridge and a causeway to connect one shore of the St. Lawrence to an island known as Ile-aux-Asperges.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we would have liked very much to know whether this company has complied with the Quebec companies act, first of all, and then, whether it has submitted every year a statement of its operations and is still in existence, because otherwise, we would be providing a company with a dangerous weapon.
In my opinion, in view of the financial situation of the directors of the company, and in view of a new situation which would be created because it would be the first time that extraordinary powers would be granted to a private company, I am convinced that parliament would not act in a businesslike manner.
I am of the opinion that we should "buck" this bill. We should take all necessary steps to support the amendment of the hon. member for Villeneuve, who was very generous a while ago, I am sure, by refraining from simply asking for the six months' hoist. Hence, I shall be glad to support the amendment of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), for the reasons he indicated and also for the reasons which were forwarded to me, urging me to object to the carrying of the bill.
I am quite aware of the fact that the sponsor of this bill in the house is a very active hon. member, but I think he somewhat missed out in failing to get all the necessary information concerning this project. Had he known the true financial position of this company, I am sure he would have never come before the house as sponsor of this bill.
I think we should simply and solely reject this bill, but first we should take a decision on the hon. member for Villeneuve's amendment, which I hope will get the support of the majority of the hon. members.


Reid Scott: Having listened to the debate so far I wish to voice our support for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). Indeed, I would urge that the sponsor of the bill dissociate himself from this scheme.
I think the comments made by the various speakers have overwhelming convinced
Private Bills
us-certainly, they have convinced me-that this is a most improper piece of legislation and that we are getting into an area in which parliament should not venture. I am not against free enterprise or private enterprise but this is one area where we should not be giving a private company the right to enter into an undertaking of the sort we now have under consideration. I would appeal to hon. members on the other side who may be thinking of voting in favour of this bill-I can tell by their smiles that some of them obviously are-to consider exactly what principle they may be endorsing if they do so.
The last speaker drew attention to what I consider to be an insurmountable obstacle in the way of the bill. If this company is as weak as it is said to be, what are we going to do if, six months after being given this power it goes bankrupt? What about the people who buy homes on this island? We have no guarantee that they will not be at the mercy of this company. We have no means of knowing the company will not misuse its powers to control public access. It looks to me as though this is nothing but a land speculation scheme and that once the company secures these powers and gets permission to build this bridge there is nothing to stop it selling the whole scheme at a profit, stepping out and reneging on its obligation to build the bridge, thus making a fool out of parliament.
If a bridge is to be built, surely it should be built by public authorities, either municipal or provincial, and be under public ownership. Let the people who own the land get advantage from better access to it. We all know that once a bridge is built the value of the land will rise. These speculators are the ones who will make the killing, not the people who bought the land originally, lived on it, and probably paid for it. I do not think parliament should concern itself with such a speculative undertaking. I was interested in what the last speaker had to say about the individuals who were undertaking this venture. Their financial solidarity is very questionable. If people of this type are even contemplating a venture of this sort we should have nothing to do with it, because we would be assisting them to get into a situation which would reflect on us and on the municipality. I was also interested to hear that the local municipality itself was opposed to this project. Surely, that should carry some weight with members of this house.
This is not a government measure so we can look at the matter dispassionately and in a non-partisan manner. If the local municipality is opposed to the measure on what appear obviously to be good grounds, how can

Private Bills
we go against them and support this principle? As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we will oppose the bill, and I hope all hon. members will do the same. It seems to me that, rather than give the bill a six months' hoist, it would be preferable to kill it completely at this time.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, contrary to my hon. friends opposite, I must congratulate the sponsor of this bill.
As far as the amendment is concerned, I find it amazing that it is the members of the official opposition in the house, who have no interest whatsoever in that riding, that seem most interested in having the bill postponed, for that is obviously what they are trying to do.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Prosper Boulanger: I am going to do like the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm. I will not allow him to ask a question because his question would be silly, as we know. Besides, he only wants to delay me, knowing that I have only a few minutes at my disposal.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am from the constituency of Mercier, where this project is to be carried out. I wish to state that the so-called inquiry which was presumably made by my hon. colleague for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and submitted to my hon. colleague for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) is not worth much. A few moments ago, I saw the latter reading certain documents, and I had occasion to observe the legerdemain that went on. In any case, Mr. Speaker, and contrary to the conclusions of the inquiry made in the county by my hon. friend, the inquiry which I made myself with some colleagues gave us the proof that the allegations we have just heard are erroneous. We know, for instance that the municipality of Pointe-aux-Trembles is not against the project, and I have correspondence to prove it.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Speaking on this bill, I have referred to the proceedings instituted against the company, and my statements can be verified in the record office of the superior court in Montreal.
The hon. member for Mercier does not have the right to contradict another member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Rémi Paul: -I feel that he does not have the right to question my statements; first of all, he may not contradict another member; besides, my statements can be verified at any

time in the record office of the superior court in Montreal.
He has no right to impute intentions to me; he does not have the right to create the impression that this bill is no concern of ours. Where public administration is concerned, it is the duty of every member of the house to take part in the debate, and not just the privilege of the member for the constituency directly concerned.


Prosper Boulanger: Just as I thought: there is no question of privilege. It was merely an attempt to distort my words.
As I was saying, several of my colleagues have mentioned the municipality of Pointe-aux-Trembles as being opposed to the project. That is what I spoke about and nothing else. I said nothing of the remarks concerning legal action. However, as far as the attitude of the municipality of Pointe-aux-Trembles is concerned, I have looked into the matter myself and I have found that it has never opposed the project.
Indeed, it could not protest at this time; if it wishes to do so, it will have the opportunity of making representations when consideration is given to the technical aspect of the project since the question of the bridge approaches is the only one which concerns Pointe-aux-Trembles. As far as the islands in question are concerned, they come under the town of Varennes as part of its territory. Consequently, the investigation carried out by my opposition colleagues has nothing to do with Pointe-aux-Trembles. The project comes under the jurisdiction of Varennes on the south shore.
The municipality of Pointe-aux-Trembles was only interested in the approaches to the bridge, as they were to open on 94th avenue in Pointe-aux-Trembles, and it wanted to be sure that the approaches would be built in a proper location, without any prejudice to anyone. On the whole the municipality of Pointe-aux-Trembles, contrary to what my hon. friend has alleged, never expressed official opposition to that project.
Now, as concerns the solvency of the corporation, wishing to build that bridge, my learned friend is a lawyer and he knows very well what he should do in all that concerns legal procedures. Personally, I know nothing about that. I can only speak of the project itself.
Should this project be developed-knowing what prices are asked for lots available on the island of Montreal-you can readily imagine what it would mean in my constituency of Mercier and to its 281,000 residents. Such a project of residential development, low cost housing and lots would certainly

be appreciated by both the labourers and the white collar workers, or middle class people.
Now, in my opinion, those lots would be much cheaper than those on the island of Montreal.
In my constituency, there is a considerable number of unemployed. And this is the very kind of development that would give work to hundreds of workers. Also, this would allow the constituency of Mercier to expand. And let me add that it is a beautiful constituency, perhaps the finest on the island of Montreal.


Gilles Grégoire: It would be a shame if it could not remain as it is.


Prosper Boulanger: I thank the hon. member for Lapointe. That is why I was elected with a majority of 14,000 over the Social Credit candidate who ran second.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it is six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour reserved for private members' business having expired, the house will now revert to the business interrupted at five o'clock.



NATIONAL CENTENNIAL ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to amend the National Centennial Act to change its short title from the National Centennial Act to the centennial of confederation act and to change the title of the national centennial administration to that of the centennial commission; to provide also that the centennial commission shall consist of a commissioner, an associate commissioner and not more than twelve directors in lieu of eight directors and to provide further for certain administrative changes in connection therewith.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
'Translation]
Jean-Louis Frenette: Mr. Chairman, the resolution low before us aims at amending in some vays the National Centennial Act and comprises three main points.
First, it is proposed to change the present itle to that of centennial of confederation ict.
Second, it is proposed to enlarge the igency's powers, to increase the number of ts directors from eight to 12, and to designate in associate commissioner.
We believe, Mr. Chairman, that the new itle is better as it is more adequate.
28902-5-314
National Centennial Act
In my opinion, the Canadian nation has been in existence for a much longer period. This change is the result of representations made by the province of Quebec and for once, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) has paid attention to the claims of Quebec. This is an auspicious event and it is to be hoped that this happy experience will be more often repeated from now on in other fields.
As for the extension of powers, we understand that the commission, in order to be efficient, must be free from certain restrictions and enjoy a degree of freedom; consequently, we are willing to give it some discretion-comparative discretion, of course -but we are also asking its directors to keep the members of the house informed of its activities and the steps which will be taken for the organization of the centennial celebrations. We rely entirely on the minister responsible for this commission and we are convinced that he will take the necessary action.
As to the section concerning the appointment of other members on this commission we are no longer against it since the minister has formally committed himself not to make of this commission a refuge for displaced or hard up politicians. We understand that the reason for appointing other members is to make the commission more balanced in that it will be more representative and the views of various parts of the country will carry more weight.
Canada is made up of different elements with varied origins, and we should use every possible means so that this anniversary is truly a Canadian celebration.
But, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said this afternoon, there is little time left. We have lost precious moments. And if we want to celebrate our centennial with more than fireworks and a parade, it is urgent to get to work without delay.
Less than four years separate us from 1967. And if we want these celebrations to have a tomorrow, if we want to leave our descendants concrete proof of our faith in the future of our country and of our appreciation of things that have been accomplished, it is high time to do something.
Energetic measures must be taken immediately. Here I might add that if those measures were taken immediately, they might not solve the unemployment problem, which is so acute in our country today, but they would be temporary steps that might alleviate it to a great extent.
Let us improve our country, our provinces and our municipalities. Let us take every

National Centennial Act possible means to encourage the initiatives of private citizens, organizations and companies.
Our people do not lack initiative and if they feel that their efforts have the support of an agency like the centennial commission, I am convinced they will do things of which the Canadian nation will be proud.
Let us put the celebrations to good use and show the world at large that we are a great nation, that we have the makings of greatness.
It goes without saying that the centennial celebrations will be a festival of remembrance. We will have to bring back to life the history of our land. Let us not lose that occasion to pay our forefathers the tribute they have so richly won by their work and their perseverance. We will take advantage of the celebrations to proclaim far and wide the merits of all those who have made confederation, of those who have built our Canadian nation. I am thinking here of the members of the liberal professions, of the workers in all fields of human endeavour, of businessmen and industrialists, in short of all those who have built Canada as we know it today.
I think, however, that we must put to profit the few years left to prepare ourselves for the celebrations with dignity, by pooling our resources and putting behind us all spirit of partisanship, in order to reach this national maturity essential to the survival of any nation which wants to forge ahead and play an important part on the world stage.
There is a lot to do in the meantime. In the east as in the west of Canada we hear conflicting voices. Various groups are trying to destroy the ties which bind together all Canadians; these groups are, I think, in a certain sense, pursuing a noble ideal and their mission is not altogether without merit. But I sincerely feel that it would be wrong to preach anything which might divide us at a time when we are witnessing numerous examples of solidarity and of unity in the world.
We should not overdo anything, as some dissident groups would like us to. We should try to find out what could bring us together rather than divide us.
We should approach our problems in the same spirit which brought Canada into being, and I am satisfied that it is possible to achieve, whatever the more pessimistically inclined may think.
There are many good elements in this country, and as long as we may count on the sincere good will of our English and French fellow citizens, there is room for hope.
One of the best ways of marking the centenary of our confederation would be, I think-and, on this point, I am pleased to recall the definite undertaking of the Prime Minister-to bring all Canadians under a single and distinctive flag and hear our

national anthem, "O Canada", sung in Quebec as well as in Vancouver or Halifax.
Should we not also avail ourselves of this anniversary to bring our constitution home, so as to enjoy at last, the full powers of a truly adult nation.
If we really have the will to do so, if all Canadians want to come together and hold out their hands in loyalty to each other, I am convinced that all those prejudices, whether well founded or not, which are separating us at this time, will spontaneously disappear. Mutual respect and full enactment of the British North America Act are the best means to make Canada a great country and the two nations of which it is composed, happy people and model citizens.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, while confederation is being discussed in all parts of the country, we are dealing with a resolution to change the title of the National Centennial Act to that of the centennial of confederation act, which I think is much more appropriate, when we refer to confederation, than was the designation "national centennial".
In fact, as we have heard it said so many times and as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated himself this afternoon, the nation has existed for well over a hundred years. Indeed, Canada was discovered in 1534, that is to say 430 years ago. And as far as the French Canadian element is concerned, this represents four centuries of history which, I hope and believe, we shall be celebrating in 1967 at the same time as the centennial of the Canadian confederation.
Today, we can read and read over our history since 1534. Of course, we find in it satisfactions and disappointments, but it reminds us also of some facts which undoubtedly prove that our forefathers were eager, from the very beginning of the Canadian colony, to create or build, if you prefer, a country such as we have today within which, at least, understanding should prevail.
Our missionaries and nuns who came to Canada between the years 1500 and 1700 had to cope with the Indians and to conquer a land, a country, an heritage for our forefathers, as well as for ourselves who live in Canada today.
Mr. Chairman, many of our forefathers fought for commendable aims; they fought in order that their unity, their freedom, their faith and their tongue might survive. For instance, we read in our little History of Canada the feat of arms accomplished by Dollard des Ormeaux at Long Sault where, with 16 companions-


Guy Rouleau: That is why we have the riding of Dollard.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, as my good friend from Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) just pointed out, that is why we have the riding of Dollard.
Our little History of Canada relates the memorable feat of arms of a fellow countryman and his companions who then saved Ville Marie, which is now known as Montreal.


Prosper Boulanger: Against the Iroquois.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) says that Dollard des Ormeaux fought against the Iroquois. In some parts of the country, we still have to face the Iroquois, even in 1963.
On the other hand, I must say it all depends on which corner of the house the interruptions come from. When they come from a certain corner, which reminds me very much of the little Chicago of the years 1947 and 1948, it rather smells of the Iroquois, Mr. Chairman.
We read and still read in our History of Canada about all those victories which have been remembered.
In fact, we should remember the years 1830 to 1842, when La Fontaine was a champion of the rights of French Canadians, and when we also had the support of English speaking representatives, especially Mr. Baldwin. Then we realize that at the precise moment when the two largest elements were shaping the nation, Lower and Upper Canada already recognized the urgency of an agreement and also of understanding and co-operation between the two great races which make up this country.
Mr. Chairman, certainly there were frictions, even battles, but nothing prevented men of goodwill from finding common ground permitting co-operation.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the people of the province of Quebec have given proof that they love their native land, not by encroaching upon other people's rights, not by minimizing the rights and freedom of other people. As far as I know, we have never interfered in any way with the freedom of English Canadians who were and still are one of the main elements of our confederation.
Mr. Chairman, there are also citizens who do not understand and who do not want to understand the urgency of an agreement based on the mutual respect of the two main elements which constitute our nation. That is the reason why, instead of calling the 1967 celebrations the "centenary of the nation", we shall call them the "centenary of confederation".
As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, there are in this country elements on both sides who do not want in any way to recognize the dual nature of the Canadian nation: we have
28902-5-314J
National Centennial Act them on the French side, and we also have them on the English side. For instance, the other evening, I received a telephone call from one Mr. Cliff, born in Montreal, but now living in Ottawa, who abused me as follows: "Well, you Socreds what do you want? You are constantly asking for concessions. Do you think that you can build a nation always on concessions?" I replied: "My dear friend, what concessions are we asking of the rest of the country? What concessions are French Canadians asking of the federal government? We are not asking for concessions. We do not want more at the expense of others. We just want to regain possession of what is rightfully ours."
Mr. Chairman, can you give me one instance in history where French Canadians asked for concessions at the expense of others? We have never done that and we will never do it. However, we continue to insist on equal rights within confederation.
Coming back to my friend, Mr. Cliff, who was telephoning me, I said: "Give me an example of a concession we are asking for". And he told me: "You want to force my children to speak French."
Mr. Chairman, whether it is in the province of Quebec or elsewhere, French Canadians have never forced anybody to speak French, any more than we are compelled to learn English in the province of Quebec. If we have learned English, it is because we wanted to, but nobody forced us.
The same applies today in the province of Quebec with regard to the way in which Anglo-Saxon minorities are treated. When an Englishman from any part of the country comes to the province of Quebec, we greet him in both languages. In our province, government advertisements and posters of all kinds are written in both English and French. We do not have to be bilingual in Quebec, no more than people have to be bilingual elsewhere. However, I think that French Canadians and the province of Quebec have proved, by their courtesy, that they are interested in the national unity of Canada. That is why we give the same privileges to minorities, in our province, in Catholic French Canada.
Mr. Chairman, we are not asking for concessions, but we are making suggestions.
I went to Toronto recently and spoke in Osgoode Hall, and also before the Canadian club in Sarnia. I was warmly welcomed by English speaking Canadians, by people who are endeavouring to understand us. Please believe me that such attitude is greatly appreciated.
We are told sometimes, in certain parts of the province, that out west or in Ontario, people would not sing the national anthem!

National Centennial Act When I spoke in Osgoode Hall and in Sarnia, at the very beginning of the meeting, the national anthem "O Canada" was sung. I was impressed and happy to find that English speaking people realize exactly what our position is. We must feel at home everywhere in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, we suggested recently to the provincial authorities of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta to give their French Canadian minorities the same treatment which is given to the English minorities in our province, in Quebec. There is no discrimination in the province of Quebec and I proclaim this loudly all across Canada.
In my own city of Rouyn, 15 per cent of the population is English speaking; 85 per cent of the population is French, but nevertheless there is no discrimination, as far as schools or the treatment given to everybody are concerned. We feel we are all of the same family. I pay taxes which help to finance Protestant schools and I am glad and satisfied to do it, because I am helping my fellow citizens, human persons, to acquire the knowledge they need to face life.
Mr. Chairman, those feelings do not exist in your own constituency which includes Cornwall, because there are French Canadians who are not treated like the English Canadians in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, we suggest that the other provinces should adopt an attitude similar to ours, in the province of Quebec. I think that we would thus achieve a better understanding, a greater harmony, between the two great races of our country, Canada.
Quite recently, the Prime Minister very rightly said:
Confederation is the creed conforming our faith in the future of a united Canada.
It was also a declaration of independence with regard to the United States. And that has prevailed since confederation, in 1867.
We decided to go our own way on this continent, from sea to sea-not only with regard to that part of Canada which is Quebec, not only for that part which is British Columbia-but from sea to sea, first of all, as a part of the British empire, and later as an independent member of the commonwealth of nations.
That declaration, though significant in its implications, is true; it should be respected by the ten provinces which make up today our Canadian nation.
We knew that such a declaration, based on such a belief, would carry with it an economic price. At that time, we were ready-and I hope we still are-to pay that price, the price of being Canadians.
How well advised was the right hon. Prime Minister to make that statement-such

a fundamentally Canadian statement, respectful of both elements, of all Canadians who have accepted that sacrifice to build up a Canada which some elements are trying to destroy. We must oppose the destruction of this country, yes, but by taking action and assuming our responsibilities. We should not try to escape those responsibilities, more particularly at this time, when we are only a few years away from our centennial celebrations.
Mr. Chairman, the right hon. Prime Minister added:
However, confederation entails another price which many among us are either willing to forget or unwilling to pay. Confederation meant not only rejection of political and economical annexation by the United States, but also of the American concept of the "melting pot'', which creates that country's national unity.
From a technical point of view, confederation has perhaps never been a treaty between states, but it was an agreement, an understanding between the two races which founded Canada, based on the principle of an acceptable association on equal terms.
That is the very basis of the confederation of 1867.
That is the spirit of the constitution, as that of confederation itself, which was established by the founders, among which were Macdonald and Cartier.
The agreement stipulated that national political unity would be realized and maintained without-
-without-
-without the imposition of a system of racial, cultural and linguistic uniformity.
However, that agreement was more academic than real.
An agreement on paper, a hazy agreement. They forgot to realize it. They forgot, in other terms, to respect the full and entire letter of the agreement.
Outside the province of Quebec and as Canada was developing, it was more often violated than kept, and for reasons that are easily understood.
Mr. Chairman, that is what the right hon. Prime Minister, head of the government of which the minister, the President of the Privy Council, is a member, accepts and displays here, squarely, before the whole nation:
-that agreement was more academic than real. Outside the province of Quebec, and as Canada was developing, it was more often violated than kept-
That is the grievance French Canadians utter today. Not that we ask concessions, no, I state it again, we do not want concessions, we simply want the respect of the letter of the confederation established in 1867. I shall not say, however, if that letter was not respected, if that basis, that foundation was not respected, that it was entirely the fault of English Canadians. No, far from it, Mr. Chairman. I would put on the shoulders of the

French Canadians their share of the blame, especially those French Canadians from the province of Quebec who sat here, in parliament, and who, instead of working in the interest of this Canada of ours, blindly followed the party which ordered them not to say a word and not to claim full respect of our rights.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have been hesitating for some time to interrupt the hon. member during his interesting remarks, but may I remind him now that he should stick as much as possible to the terms of the resolution which is presently before the committee. The question under discussion is not the principle of the legislation we want to amend, but rather the very terms of the amendment. I urge the hon. member to try to restrict his remarks to the terms of this resolution.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your suggestion that I should deal strictly with the spirit of the resolution now under discussion. I should like to point out, however, that this afternoon the leader of the official opposition, as well as all the others who took the floor, almost without exception, referred to Canadian history.


Maurice Lamontagne: Except me.


David Réal Caouette: I shall try to restrict my remarks to the resolution as far as possible, but I would ask you to be lenient towards me and to give me enough scope.
Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister also stated, and I think this has to do, after all, with the celebrations to be held in 1967:
For French speaking Canadians, confederation set up a bilingual and bicultural nation.
All French Canadians feel strongly about this, whether we sit on this side or the other side of the house. I see that my hon. friend from Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) is smiling. He knows that we are right. It is a fact that for us, confederation set up a bilingual and bicultural nation.
It protected their language and their culture throughout Canada.
It meant association, not domination.
As far as association is concerned, we are of course quite ready to co-operate, and to take part in that association. But as far as assimilation or domination are concerned, we reject them both.
The Prime Minister said further:
French speaking Canadians believed that such an association would give the two founding races equal opportunities to take part in the various stages of the development of Canada.
That is indeed what the French Canadians believed and still believe today.
Mr. Chairman, on December 17, 1962, the Prime Minister stated also:
National Centennial Act
Certain recent developments clearly indicate that we are going through another serious crisis as regards national unity. We became a nation long ago, but we still have not reached an agreement on all the symbols of nationality; even worse, in certain circles, doubts are expressed about the very principles on which our confederation rests.
In certain of our western provinces, and in some parts of the maritimes, the equality of the two great Canadian races, of the two great ethnic groups which form our nation is often denied, under the pretext that there is in Canada an English speaking majority and a French speaking minority, and that we should not expect therefore to be treated otherwise than as a minority.
Mr. Chairman, we firmly believe that throughout Canada minorities are treated equitably, even the French minority. But outside of Quebec, the French minority is not put on an equal footing with the Englishspeaking majority, while we, in the province of Quebec, do put on an equal footing the English speaking minority.
Professor Frank H. Underhill, quoted by the Prime Minister, said recently:
"It is unfortunate to note that we seem to drift without compass. We have lost this conviction of national determination which inspired our forebears in 1867...We are feeling our way to recover the sense of greatness which inspired us in the days of yore...The present times call for an unfailing intellectual effort of a higher degree, a sense of imagination more spirited a state of mind more experienced than what we had to exert in the past."
Mr. Chairman, was it not the main purpose of confederation to establish mutual respect between the two great cultures and to preserve this British land in America, that is to avoid annexation to the United States.
And speaking of concessions which have been made, I believe that French Canadians have done more than their share in the past. I will give a few examples, not to prove that those people were wrong throughout their lifetime, but that as far as the principle of co-operation is concerned, they were gradually overrun by the will of the majority in Canada.
I only wish to give a few examples from history, as for instance the murder of Louis Riel, the champion of French influence in the prairies.
One might mention also the capitulation of Cartier himself, in 1871, concerning schools in New Brunswick. Those were concessions on the part of French Canadians, but they were made under pressure from the majority that was trying to assert itself at that time.
And what about the capitulation of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1905, on the Manitoba school question?
Then there was conscription imposed upon the French Canadians in 1917, which meant defeat for the Conservatives during a good

National Centennial Act many years, because French Canadians never forgave them for breaking their word.
There was conscription imposed upon French Canadians in 1942 by the Liberals, under Mr. Mackenzie King, when French Canadians in Quebec had been promised explicitly that never, under a Liberal administration, would a Canadian province be subject to conscription.
That is why, at that time, the prime minister of the day, Mr. Mackenzie King, was asking the Canadian provinces-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: -to release him from a promise he himself had made to French Canadians of the province of Quebec.
There was this federal infringement, and for the information of my good friend the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), those are facts and not reproaches, facts that I am bringing forward in order to prevent those things from happening again and to do away with discrimination.
This federal encroachment, in wartime, on the rights of the provinces in the field of personal income tax, corporation income tax, succession duties, rights which the government no longer wants to return to the provinces, is another example of a concession on the part of the provinces.


Maurice Lamontagne: May I ask the hon. member a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Maurice Lamontagne: Is the hon. member for the resolution?


An hon. Member:: He is reading Mr. Pearson's speech.


David Réal Caouette: No, I am not reading your leader's speech.
For the information of the President of the Privy Council, I will tell him that I am for the resolution, but if he will listen to me for a few moments, 1 will tell him why-


An hon. Member:: Are you mad?


David Réal Caouette: I am explaining the reasons which lead me to share the opinion of the President of the Privy Council on the resolution presented by the Prime Minister, but my good friend, the President of the Privy Council, should be a little more patient. We heard him for two minutes this afternoon and we might have thought that he had been speaking for two hours. He should leave us some latitude.
Mr. Chairman, the matter of provincial rights which the central government took over during the war years-and will not relinquish now-will be discussed at the federal-provincial conference next week.


We have our small share in the federal civil service, in the contracts awarded by the government. Ottawa is, so to speak, the supreme court and it usually takes advantage of any matter that sets it against the provinces. In my opinion, another resolution to institute a court that would respect the provinces' rights is needed.
Mr. Chairman, like everyone else, we want to celebrate the centennial of confederation in 1967. Within three years, it rests with us to make of 1967 a year that will be favourable to the celebration of a centennial that will attract the attention of the whole population, throughout Canada; otherwise, in the meantime, we might see the rise of separatist, independentist movements, even fasting movements, not only in Quebec but in Ontario. As a matter of fact, we may even ask ourselves if we will not see the rise in Ontario of movements that will send us-as happened in the past-a thousand dollars, telling us: Get out of confederation.
Well, that is not what we want. We want to respect the meaning of confederation, we do not want that meaning to become saturated with prejudice but fully understood by all the members in this house. If, before 1967, we join hands-


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I feel that our leader had good reason to worry, during this debate, about certain appointments to the centennial commission. Obviously, we should celebrate the centennial of confederation and not that of a political party.
Therefore, in the national interest, I would ask the minister to reconsider those appointments so that the commission will be national rather than political in its scope and membership.
I feel the commission is too important for the minister not to revise the appointments.
Mr. Chairman, certain changes will have to be made-


Maurice Lamontagne: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, if the minister will be so good as to let me complete my remarks, he will have all the time he wants to speak later on.
At any rate, he was one of the first to speak and to criticize me indirectly. There is some mumbling on the other side of the house and I would ask the minister to let me speak; if he wishes to ask me some questions, he may do so when I am through.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Léon Balcer: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the hon. member is not speaking from his seat.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would suggest that the hon. member for Longueuil take his seat when the chairman rises.
I should also like to remind the hon. member for Three Rivers that a member can speak from a seat other than his own since we are now in committee.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, I rose on a point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Am I the one who has the floor?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It is the chairman who will rule on the point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.
Mr Cote (Longueuil):	How could the
appointments be revised when they have not yet been made?


Lucien Lamoureux: There is no point of order here and I would ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to continue his speech.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If no appointment has been made yet, I wonder how those people could meet. Perhaps the hon. member should sleep on that.


Maurice Lamontagne: In my opinion, the hon. member made a mistake earlier when he spoke of reviewing the appointment of the directors of the centennial commission. One of the main purposes of that resolution is precisely to increase their number because they have not been appointed yet.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I simply referred to the centennial commission.


Maurice Lamontagne: There is no centennial commission.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I just ask him to be patient. I have the right to speak since you have recognized me, Mr. Chairman. If the minister wants to make a speech he can do so when I have concluded my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I should like it to be a celebration of the centennial of confederation and not that of the centennial of a political pack. That is why we are worried, on this side of the house.
I was also pleased to note that other amendments have been made, because without Quebec's contribution to the centennial celebrations, it would have been impossible to take advantage of this bill and to vote the amounts of money in co-operation with the provinces. It is indeed the centennial of confederation and not of Canada, which we are
National Centennial Act going to celebrate since Canada existed long before 1867. Mr. Chairman, there is a part of our history before 1867 which is very interesting as it deals with the intensive struggles carried on by the French Canadians at that time to assert their rights. Besides, they were very thankful to England later on and showed their gratitude during the attempt at invasion by the Americans.
Mr. Chairman, that amount of money that the federal government wishes to appropriate, $1 per capita per province, will require the co-operation of the provinces. I wonder whether it would not be possible to divide these amounts of money in order that some of them might be used for the erection of monuments commemorating the period of our history before 1867, and others for memorials to recall that part of our history after 1867.
Mr. Chairman, when we were in office, the then prime minister and his government made a step forward to help celebrate the centennial of confederation by taking the required steps to have the world fair held in Canada. In my opinion, that was an important action taken by the government of that time. I urge the President of the Privy Council to make every effort so that international conventions will be held here in Canada in 1967.
I had the opportunity to be a member of a Canadian delegation to Belgrade, recently, under the chairmanship of hon. Senator Des-sureault. He carried on the task initiated by his predecessor. And I congratulate him publicly in this house for the work he has done in Belgrade. He obtained from the members of the interparliamentary union that they hold their important sittings here in Canada, in 1967.
I think that will be another important event that will help to make our country known at the international level.
I also wish to make a suggestion in anticipation of the centennial festivities. I wonder whether it would not be possible, for the centennial year, for the provinces to select students according to their talents, in secondary schools, high schools, colleges and universities to whom a free trip paid entirely by the federal government would be offered, for example on C.N.R. trains, to enable them to visit Canada from coast to coast. In my opinion, that suggestion would allow the elite of the nation, the younger generation, to know their country and this would foster better understanding and national unity.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a certain evolution in this country since 1867, and the trend must continue.
I also remember that at the last Conservative convention, for instance, a resolution was moved to change the constitution so that the word "dominion" be deleted. It was put to a

National Centennial Act vote and a majority of delegates voted to have the word "dominion" suppressed.
Mr. Chairman, if we are anxious to celebrate the centenary of confederation, we must at the same time try to do something to improve the present situation and remove the stress which is now prevailing in this country.
It is all very well to erect monuments and to work out great plans, but it would also be necessary, in my opinion, to have a much higher ideal. Besides, it was very well understood that in 1967, all the governments, both federal and provincial, would remain supreme and that they would be in a position to raise the necessary funds to exercise their respective rights.
I believe that the fathers of confederation made serious mistakes. First, granting the federal government the right to veto any provincial law; second, leaving the federal government vague and almost unlimited powers of taxation; third, the authority to grant subsidies to the provinces; fourth, restricting the use of the French language to the province of Quebec, the federal parliament and the federal courts of justice.
We know that the fathers of confederation got together to work out a constitution to be submitted for the approval of the government in London. Incidentally, the British North America Act was drafted in English only. It is a legal document passed in England. Of course, it has been translated into French but it is not like a bill which is drafted in both languages here in Ottawa.
When I referred to mistakes, here is what I really meant. My intention is not to blame the fathers of confederation too much; the problems as well as the means of communication were different then. It was very difficult for the fathers of confederation to see one hundred years ahead.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that the government will add another program to the centennial objectives. An ideal objective would be, in my opinion, to revise the Canadian constitution completely, in co-operation with the provinces.
The Canadian constitution has existed since 1867. The federal government could avail itself of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference to make this suggestion to the provinces in anticipation of the centenary. The Canadian constitution might be revised in co-operation with the provinces by being adjusted to modern times.
I know that this ideal objective can meet with difficulties, but if we really want to celebrate the centenary of confederation in a spirit of unity, we must work towards that end. And, I already said, provincial cooperation is essential.


It is all very well, to set up royal commissions on biculturalism but, in my opinion, this is not the best means to give national unity a concrete form. Besides, the value of that royal commission was questioned by the conseil de vie francaise because culture and education belong to the provinces.
I think we should find a system to completely revise the Canadian constitution in order to bring it into line with our modern world. Also, the provinces should be given back their taxation powers, definite powers in the provincial as well as in the federal field. The knowledge of the French language should be extended, not only in the province of Quebec, at the federal level, in the courts, but on a national scale in co-operation with the provinces. Surely, there must be a way to do something in that direction.
Those are the few suggestions I wanted to make and I spoke in accordance with my conscience-


An hon. Member:: Now he has two consciences.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, those are precisely the people who stamped out the rights to the provinces. Those are the very people.
For instance, when you see the President of the Privy Council say, as he did in a televised press conference last Sunday-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He stated: "We will abolish some joint programs but we will set up some others." That means that the policy of the government is contradictory and by the way, the President of the Privy Council is a good example, because he wrote a book and since that time, he contradicts himself quite often.


Maurice Lamontagne: But you never read it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the President of the Privy Council wants to succeed, I wish him-


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order, and I do so on the basis of these last words uttered by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who speaks about contradiction when he himself leads us into confusion.
He speaks about the erection of monuments and afterwards-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is not well taken and I rise on a question of privilege.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: I would like to know-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a question of
privilege.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to tell me whether he agrees entirely with the statement made this afternoon by the leader of his party, whereas he himself is asking us tonight to try to grasp the meaning of his words. This is absolute inconsistency.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I understand the hon. member has raised a point of order; but I feel there was no point of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are perfectly right, Mr. Chairman, for the point of order was ill founded.
Moreover, before venturing into that field, the hon. member should learn the standing orders of the house. Instead of sending an open letter to newspapers to criticize his leader for having given Mr. Gordon another term of office, he should, according to the dictates of his conscience, look after the interests of his fellow citizens from Quebec at the caucus.
With this, I conclude my remarks. If the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet wishes to speak, he will have the opportunity to do so since we live in a democracy. If he does make a speech, he will show that he is not gagged by caucus dictatorship nor by members of his party.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, anyone who comes from a province other than Quebec, who either sits in the house or is seated in the galleries, will get the impression tonight that at least 75 per cent of the discussion which takes place in this chamber is about the province of Quebec and is participated in by only French Canadians. There is nothing wrong with their participation, and we do realize that they have a tremendous number of problems. But, I wish to deal with one point brought up by this resolution, we want one Canada and we want a united Canada. What is more, when 1967 rolls around we still want a united Canada. I come from the province of Alberta. I happen to be half French and I know that those who are speaking for the French Canadians are not telling the truth. I want to repeat what the President of the Privy Council-


Mr. Langlois:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I shall answer the hon. member's questions later when I am finished if he cares to ask them at that time.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I understand the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: He is just interrupting. He has had the floor.
28902-5-315
National Centennial Act


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair should have the opportunity to hear the question of privilege.


Raymond Langlois: I think an insinuation was made about French Canadians that was not quite true. I should like the hon. member to tell us exactly what was wrong and what was right, or what was not true.


An hon. Member:: Sit down and listen.


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest to the hon. member that this is not a true question of privilege and I would ask the hon. member for Macleod to continue.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: The President of the Privy
Council stated that unless changes are made in the act the province of Quebec will not co-operate in the centennial celebration of confederation, or words to that effect. Those are not the exact words.


Maurice Lamontagne: They are not my words.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: If they are wrong, let the minister correct them, because my point is based on what he said. It is all well and good for one province to say: Do this or else. If we in other provinces are approached with the thought that there are features in the bill which are good for all of us, including Quebec, all right; but when we are approached with the ultimatum, do this or else, it is blackmail. It does not sit well with the other provinces in Canada.
I do not think this is the feeling that the good people of Quebec wish to disseminate among the people of the other provinces of Canada. I think the minister either made a mistake or the government of Quebec has made a mistake. If the government of Quebec has come to the President of the Privy Council and pointed a gun at his ear and said, "Do this or else", it is up to him to tell the house, if that is the reason he has taken the position he has, and why he made that statement. If there is some other reason then I as one who comes from another province, would like to know.
Mind you, I have no qualms about certain features of the bill, but I do detest this particular statement of the President of the Privy Council. We all know that on the government front benches there are 10 cabinet ministers from Ontario and eight from Quebec. The government is loaded with ministers from those two provinces. If the President of the Privy Council is going to stand in his place and say, "Do this or else", he is rubbing the rest of the provinces of Canada the wrong way.


Maurice Lamontagne: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I believe I never said what the hon. member is saying I said.
4940	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Centennial Act I would advise him to look at the correspondence exchanged between the former prime minister of Canada and the present premier of Quebec, which was tabled in the house on the 27th of June, and he will understand the situation.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I gave you the opportunity to correct me if my words were wrong, but you did not do so.


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes, I did.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: You brought an extraneous matter into the picture by referring to the former government. I am referring specifically to what you said in the house tonight.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that he should address himself to the Chair.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Right. I shall be delighted to do so. I turn now to the increase from 8 to 12 in the number of directors. We have never had any explanation why the government intends to add four additional directors.


Maurice Lamontagne: In order to give sufficient provincial representation.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: All one has to do is to use his imagination, and it does not take the imagination of anyone with any great degree of intelligence to know that the government is simply padding the board of directors. They are creating more places for political appointments. I say that we want a centennial celebration in 1967 that will be representative of all Canada, and if the government frontbenchers are going to continue to act in the manner they have since this bill was brought before the house today, I say to them that they are acting wrongly, if they hope for a united Canada in 1967.


Maurice Lamontagne: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he against the intention in the resolution, that there should be representation from all the provinces? Is he against that?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I will put it this way. There are 10 provinces in Canada, and the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon. If the government were to act in a non-political way and put a representative on the board from each of the provinces-they might even go so far as to give Quebec and Ontario two each, because of their greater population-if the government were to bring in people from all parts of Canada to serve on the board-


Maurice Lamontagne: That is exactly what we want to do.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: -then it would not be so distasteful. But the President of the Privy

Council has never indicated to the house that he intends to carry out any such suggestion.


Mr. Mather:: Mr. Chairman, with the customary brevity of my party, there are only four or five things I should like to say on the resolution now before us. First, I think it must be fairly obvious to most members of the house, as I am sure it is to most people in the country, that so much time has already been wasted by the former and the present administrations in regard to organizing our centennial birthday party that those in charge will have to move very quickly unless they want to go down in history as party poopers. Second, I want to point out that there are only about- 40 months left to get the centennial party on the rails. Third, I should like to emphasize what I think is in many members' minds, that not enough attention is being paid in the organization of the party to permanent public projects that will last. I feel that we should want to come out of the celebration with something more than the dishes in the sink, after the party is over.
This afternoon my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, suggested that we in the New Democratic party are at least as eager to have a national consciousness instilled into Canadians as any other party in the house. However, we are ready to forego the wording which the resolution seeks to take out, the use of the word "national" in the title of the act and elsewhere in the centennial phraseology, if it will help to bring together the people of all the different regions of Canada as Canadians, so we can celebrate our centennial party as one people. We favour, instead of the word national, the word "Canadian". The language of this title should be the celebration of the Canadian confederation centennial.
As one who had something to do with the organization of the British Columbia centennial, Mr. Chairman, celebrated in 1958, and who observed the Alberta and Saskatchewan celebrations in the same period, I should like to draw to the attention of the centennial people generally the value of paying more attention to the practical achievement of these provincial centennial organizations. I am not one who supports the provincial government of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. However, I must say in fairness to them that the organization they inspired and set up did a good non-political job, and that the province of British Columbia has come out of that centennial celebration a much richer province culturally than it went into it. I think the same thing could be said about the Alberta and Saskatchewan celebrations.

I should like to urge also, in supporting the resolution before us, that the centennial administration pay a little more attention to what I consider to be the external effects of our coming celebration. As well as having a party within Canada, I think we should try to do things in our centennial celebration that will attract good will and impress the world with Canada's stature. I think we could do this in several ways if we think big enough. I feel that 1967 should be the year when we decide on what kind of official, distinctive Canadian flag our country should have. It may be that we would decide in favour of the red ensign. It may be that we would decide on some other quite distinctive flag. Surely, on January 1, 1967 we should unfurl around the world the officially designated Canadian flag.
Second, sir, I think internally it would be an excellent thing in 1967 if we could do something for our older citizens, such as reducing the pensionable age without a means test to 67 at the most.
Finally, I have one particular point I have brought to the attention of the official centennial organization, and I am hopeful that others would agree it would be a matter worth considering. I think Canada should set the world an example in international thinking on the occasion of our birthday. One way we could do that would be to invite, through the United Nations, one child from each country affiliated with the United Nations to come to Canada as our guest for two or three weeks during the height of our centennial celebrations. We have the planes to fly them here, and we have the trains to take them across Canada so that they could see something of the achievements of their forebears from their own country who have pioneered Canada and helped to give us what we have today. I think this would be a very good method for celebrating our birthday in Canada. It is imperative that we pass this resolution and that we encourage our centennial people to think large and think fast.


Mr. Mandziuk:: We cannot minimize the importance of the amendments contained in this resolution, Mr. Chairman. It is true that they fall into three parts. The first is the increase in the number of directors from eight to 12. I would not quarrel with that. If experience has shown that eight directors do not provide sufficient representation to the provinces, or if a directorship of that size would not properly carry out the duties of the directors, I am quite happy to see the number increased to 12 or, if necessary, more than 12.
The second purpose is to simplify directives to this administration. I would not quarrel
28902-5-315J
National Centennial Act with that. However, the change in name puzzles me. I have listened with interest to the very eloquent address of the hon. member for Villeneuve, as well as others. It is true that they went into the history of this country of ours. I do not quarrel with that, either. Why are the words "national centennial", changed to "centennial of confederation"? I can understand the basis of the argument. Some people will contend that Canada existed from the time of the first explorers, but Canada did not exist as a nation at that time. I am in accord with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition when he said that it was in 1867 that Canada, the nation as we know it today, was born. We are, therefore, celebrating in 1967 the centenary of that birth.


An hon. Member:: What were we before?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder where the hon. member was before.
What puzzles me is that the President of the Privy Council has said he made this change at the whim of the premier of Quebec.


Maurice Lamontagne: I did not say that.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The minister did not use the word "whim", but I am using it. He did not tell us-but perhaps he will before this debate closes-whether or not the other nine premiers felt the same way as the premier of Quebec. Did they have any objection to the name as it was? Did they have an opportunity to concur, and if they did not, why not? This would be very interesting to us.


Maurice Lamontagne: I can answer that question.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The President of the Privy Council will have an opportunity to answer that question. He can do so after I have finished my remarks or when he closes this debate.
I agree with what my leader has said, Mr. Chairman, that the birth of Canada as we have it today occurred in 1867. What did we have before 1867? I studied Canadian history from the time of Cabot and Champlain and all those discoverers who came to this new land. At that time lower Canada might have been called a province, but it was an abandoned child, abandoned by its motherland. Let us not twist history or deny historical facts. Upper Canada consisted of people who came from south of the border because they did not want to live under the stars and stripes. They wanted to live under the British flag. These were the two founding races who conceived this structure, this pact, which eventually welded this territory into one Canadian nation.

National Centennial Act
Now, Mr. Chairman, regardless of what we say, and facts can be twisted, this was a union of necessity. Lower Canada knew full well that if she were left to herself she would be absorbed by the United States. Quebec, as we know it today, would have been non-existent. Upper Canada, the present Ontario, knew quite well that if she did not enter this pact she, too, would be absorbed by that giant, the United States, that was growing up at that time. It was a case of necessity, so that these two peoples welded their swords into plowshares and started building a nation. That is why I believe the centennial of the birthday of the nation dates from there, unless I have misunderstood Canadian history. It was a case of either unite or perish. Every Canadian of today knows that, and we might as well face it.
Other peoples came into this country after 1867. Some came for economic reasons. I can name various racial groups that came to Canada for the simple reason that their homelands were overpopulated. They came here, where they found open spaces and opportunities. Others came in search of freedom like the race from which I descend- in search of the freedom which was denied them in their homeland. They found that freedom in Canada.
They came in here, not as hewers of wood or drawers of water. They felt they were coming in as equals, as partners in the building of this nation, and they so feel today. That applies to everyone, Mr. Chairman, to everyone in this house, and we have the descendants of many races in this chamber. These people who came were prepared to make maximum contributions to the development of one over-all Canadian culture. They are making those contributions today to a national culture embracing the best of all cultures.
It is natural for a nation such as ours, made up of so many peoples from different parts of the world, a nation that I believe is still in the process of uniting into something more solid and stronger, to go through the pains of birth. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote a few sentences from an address given by Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman, who is now a judge of the appellate court of Manitoba, to an audience in Toronto in 1959, at a time when he was chancellor of the University of Manitoba. This is what he said:
The two major groups and many smaller ones are learning the lesson of living together as Canadians.
This was as far back as 1959.
But there are still dangers to overcome. Sometimes extremists have encouraged group isolation and exclusiveness. Sometimes, on the other hand,
[Mr. Mandziuk.l
there have been demands for compulsory conformity to a fixed pattern. I believe, however, that provided there is only one politicial allegiance, namely to Canada, and that all groups participate as Canadians in its corporate national life, there is still room for secondary cultures as well.
There are various parts of this nation where certain people feel that they want to isolate themselves, to be exclusive. There are others who feel we should all conform to their pattern of life. But I believe that this learned judge, when he spoke to his Toronto audience, expressed himself more clearly than I could, in giving us a lesson in what we must do to overcome the difficulties we face today. Certainly there is considerable disagreement. We cannot all think alike. It is only in a communist dictatorship that people are compelled to think alike, but here we are free to think and speak as we please.
I am talking about these people who feel they are equal partners in the building of this nation. Originally they had to overcome prejudice. My father did, and so did I. We overcame the prejudice. They had other difficulties to overcome. They had to learn at least one official language and many of them today know both official languages. Those who wish to retain their mother tongue and teach it to their children do so on their own account, and they do not expect the state to pay for it.
According to the latest statistics there are over 5 million people in our country who are descended from neither French nor British stock. They have entered into every sphere of our national life, legislative, judicial and educational. Two of my daughters are teaching school in a strictly English speaking district in Winnipeg, and this district does not take any exception or objection to their name. They are building up the next Canadian generation. They are proud to be doing so, and I am proud of them.
These people also entered the industrial life, and when the call came to shoulder arms they answered that call. They felt Canada was worth fighting for, and many names that a lot of hon. members cannot pronounce are on the rows of crosses in the fields of France, in the fields of Asia, and in the fields of Africa. Why? Because they believed in Canada. They believed in what this Canada meant to them.
These people pray, and I believe I have a right to ask on their behalf, that they be not left behind in celebrating the hundredth anniversary of this great nation of ours. They wish to celebrate. They wish to take stock of what they have achieved and what they have contributed to this nation. They hope that

the two founding races appreciate their contributions, and they are not asking for anything else.
They are not looking forward to speeches. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre very ably put it, we do not expect to pass that year over just in speeches. We expect to take stock and show what we have achieved as a nation, to show we have achieved unity instead of fighting over whether or not it is the centennial of confederation, the centennial of Canada, or the centennial of what. No matter what it is, it is a centennial of the birthday of this nation, and this act can be called whatever the government pleases. They can railroad the name to suit, but it will still mean the centennial of the birthday of this nation as we know it, which took the best the French had to contribute, and also took the best the English had to contribute, British tradition, British fair play, and British justice. This is the best guarantee, not only to French Canadians but to us all, of these freedoms which we enjoy today. I said, Mr. Chairman, there were over 5 million of these people. They ask for the privilege of full participation. They do not fail to recognize the two founding races. We do not deny history; we are not going to deny history; we are not going to twist it to suit ourselves. They do not ask for official recognition, which is the impression some people have. I am proud of my racial origin and I am proud of being a Canadian. Some people think my compatriots expect official recognition. No, Mr. Chairman; that is a false statement for anyone to make. I do not pretend to speak for all these 5 million or more Canadians, but I know the people of the race from which I descended do not want to be hyphenated Canadians. I think hyphenation is coming back into fashion again; everything is hyphenated.
I do not want to get away from the resolution, Mr. Chairman. If I were to do what some hon. members have done, I would get away from the resolution that is before us, and I know you would permit me to do this because you have extended that privilege to others. I could cite many examples of where this hyphenation is in full swing across Canada today. In plain language, the people for whom I speak do not want to be left out of these birthday celebrations, because they are as concerned as the rest of us, if there are no second-class Canadians, if we are all Canadians. If not, let us put that on the statute books: we will have wood hewers and water carriers, and the elite, which is contrary to every concept of Canadianism and freedom that is on our statute books. These people want this because they owe political allegiance to Canada, and Canada alone. We have people
National Centennial Act who came here and acquired citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance. Their children were bom here, and in the eyes of the law they are full Canadian citizens and are entitled to all the privileges, as well as the obligations, inherent in Canadian citizenship. They owe allegiance to no other country. They have renounced the state from which they came. They may be interested in what is going on in their homeland, but they are Canadians and as such are interested in what is going on in the Congo, for example. We sent our boys out there, at the risk of being shot down by the negro tribes. We are interested in what is going on in the Gaza strip, where our boys are trying to keep peace between two warring nations. Some of these people in Canada who have acquired Canadian citizenship and are loyal Canadians are interested in what is going on in their homeland, particularly if their homeland is behind the iron curtain; but that does not mean they feel their allegiance is divided. They want to be recognized as participants in the corporate national life of Canada, while fully recognizing that there are two founding races. It is just the same as if you organized a partnership or corporation and two men entered into the business, and then, as business expanded, other people joined in. Are the first two people the only ones who have a share in this corporation? I think this is contrary to our bill of rights; it is contrary to our constitution, and it is contrary to everything that we believe in and that these people expected when they came to this country.
I think the word "national" is a word of pride. I do not know why people should take exception to it. If we are a nation, this is a national celebration and the purposes of this act would remain the same if it were called the national centennial act. If Canada is not a nation, what is it? Is it just a hyphenated monstrosity? No, Mr. Chairman, it is not.
I should now like to deal with what has been said by other hon. members. I listened with interest to the speeches of hon. members, and in particular that of the hon. member for Villeneuve, who spoke about some injustices and unfairnesses that exist in our constitution under the British North America Act. I say, Mr. Chairman, that if these things do exist, let us correct them, in all fairness Why not? I am going to point out an injustice
that is in the British North America Act_____
just one. This applies to those of French origin. I am not going to call them French Canadians, because I do not call anyone a hyphenated Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The British North America Act guarantees the English full equality in Quebec, but gives no such guarantee to the
4944	HOUSE OF
National Centennial Act French in Ontario. Why not? I am pointing this out, Mr. Chairman, and saying that if there is any amendment that needs to be made to our constitution, if it is necessary, if it hurts some part of this nation, let us correct it, but let us not ruin this nation. Let us keep this nation united. Let us keep this nation strong. Let us keep this nation so that everyone, regardless of racial origin, owes allegiance to no other country but Canada.


Mr. Macaluso:: Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in the hon. member's speech. I found in it many points with which I agree, but there was one statement about which I should like to ask a question. The hon. member referred to his two fine daughters who are teaching. He mentioned, I think, that they are teaching in a solely English district and this district had no objection to name. Is the hon. member inferring that there are districts or areas in this country where anybody does object to a person's name, no matter what that name may be?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I started by saying that we had to overcome prejudices; that there was discrimination; that there were such areas; that there were such districts. However, I have not seen any in the last 20 or 25 years, or at least since the last world war.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the resolution is precisely to change the expression "national centennial" to "centennial of confederation".
The hon. member who has just spoken, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) said: "Whether it is the centennial of the nation or of confederation, what does that change, those are only words, let us get some action".
Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to the hon. member for Marquette that those may be words but to us, they have their meaning. If, in 1812, that is 55 years before confederation, when the nation already existed, when there were Lamontagnes, Tremblays, Mer-ciers, Caouettes and Gregoires who fought in the Canadian army against the invader, if it had not been for them, he could not boast of being a Canadian citizen today. He could simply call himself an American citizen.
Before confederation, there was a Canadian nation, there was a Canadian country, there was a Canadian fatherland and Canadian citizens who worked, fought to develop that country. It is precisely because there was a Canadian history prior to 1867 that the hon. member for Marquette can be proud to live in a country which progressed, developed and expanded.
If it had not been for that period before 1867, the hon. member for Marquette might


think to himself that he would not be welcome in Canada. It is because Canadians fought for Canada before 1867 that he is here today.
That is why words mean something to us. "Centennial of confederation" and "national centennial" do not mean the same thing at all.
Does the hon. member for Marquette realize that it is because of our forefathers who were here in Canada before 1700 and 1800 that he can share with us the benefits of this country? I cannot tell what his ethnic origin might be, but two centuries ago those people were not here.
We welcome as friends all those who come to live in Canada. We want to recognize their rights and privileges, but we want them to recognize that, before they came to Canada, our two great nations worked towards the development of this country.
We are happy to grant them all the rights which every Canadian citizen can enjoy, but we do not want them to forget that we fought, before they came, so that they might enjoy the rights and the freedom which are now ours in Canada.
A while ago, I heard the hon. member for Marquette say: We want our rights without taking anything from anybody, but let no one take anything away from us either. If ever a Canadian citizen from another ethnic origin is deprived of any right as a Canadian citizen, I will be the first to stand in this house to see to it that he is granted his rights, and that, in any province, in Quebec or elsewhere.
We favour the respect of the rights of each and every one and we are not asking Canadian citizens to give up their rights, because, on the contrary, we want to preserve them.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said to me: "You are engaged in a fight; what have you got against English Canadians? Why are you fighting against us?" I answered him: "Since we sit side by side, then read Hansard or stay in the house and listen to us; then you will realize that we do not want to take anything away from the English Canadians, we want nothing from them, no concession, no privilege, we do not want them to give up anything, we are simply insisting on our right to grow, to expand and progress as French Canadians.
I think it is possible to do so without taking anything away from the English Canadians; furthermore, we want to help them to grow.
I was just reading part of a speech made by the hon. member for Port Arthur who, it is said, is known to be outspoken. Well, I will

say that he went into this matter of education like a cow in a rose bed or a bull in a china shop.
Here is what the member for Port Arthur said:
Quebec, like many other provinces, stands in urgent need of a new educational system.
What concern is it of his? What business has he to tell the province of Quebec what it should do in the field of education?
I am very happy to note that he has just come back. He told us: Stop complaining-
The member for Port Arthur was telling me just yesterday: But stop complaining about the English Canadians.
We are not complaining about the English Canadians, but when someone like the member for Port Arthur says it is urgent that Quebec, like the other provinces, get a new educational system, then I say to him that it is none of his business.
It is precisely because there are too many English Canadian members or citizens who wish to meddle in the affairs of the province of Quebec that there is today what might be called some sort of antagonism-


An hon. Member:: It is part of Canada, isn't it?


Gilles Grégoire: It is part of Canada.

But the educational system of the province of Quebec is under the exclusive jurisdiction of that province and not of the federal government.
We are not seeking the suppression of anything whatsoever in your educational system in Ontario. You can do as you wish. This is not our business.
There will be mutual understanding when everyone will mind his own business. Nowadays, everyone wants to interfere with the province of Quebec's business.
I note also that the member for Port Arthur said this:
The factor I want to hear about is whether all these screams, yells and howls-in connection with such program may be the reasons for the government not going forward with something that is long term and embracing.
Mr. Chairman, the other provinces are free to accept that program if they wish to do so. It is up to them; that is not our problem. Education does not come under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons or of the federal government but under the provinces.
If the latter wish to set up such a program with the help of the federal government, they are free to do so, but it is none of their business if the province of Quebec
National Centennial Act chooses to establish a scheme of its own. That is precisely what is meant by "biculturalism": two cultures.
Language is the chief medium of culture. It gives birth to another way of thinking. But let us not to try to be all in the same boat, because it will become a melting pot.
If English Canadians want to develop in a certain way, they should feel free to do so. The province of Quebec wants to set up its own educational system, in keeping with its French culture and its methods for its own citizens. It should be allowed to do as it pleases.
I wish to stress this point: when everyone will actually mind his own business, then everything will be fine and it will be possible to get along, to co-operate and to build a nation where the two great races will be able to live side by side.
But let everyone start by minding his own business. Let nobody come and tell us what to do and we shall not tell others what they should do. That is a rather important aspect as far as the co-operation between the two races is concerned.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Port Arthur seems to be up in arms. I challenge the hon. member for Port Arthur to mention a single example where we have indicated to the other provinces what they had to do. We have requested our share for ourselves, our share only according to our rights.
For instance, when have we tried to interfere with the customs system, the embassies or the consulates? Never. They are the responsibility of the federal government. When have we told the province of Ontario to do such or such a thing?
In the riding of Port Arthur for instance, can the hon. member for that electoral district mention a single instance? He will never find any. But let us look after our own educational system, our own roads, our own hospital system and everything we have at the present time ourselves, for ourselves and by ourselves, under the British North America Act.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) said a while ago: Tell us just one thing that is wrong with confederation and we will be ready to change it. Well, what is wrong with confederation is that it was not carried out just as it is, it was not respected. Its true meaning was lost sight of and it was not applied and respected over the years, ever since 1867. That is what is wrong with confederation.
Let us go back, for instance, to 1942 when, if I am not mistaken, the federal government asked the provinces to lend it their sources
4946	HOUSE OF
National Centennial Act of revenue accruing from individual income tax, corporation income tax and succession duties.
At that time, this order in council provided that if the lieutenant governor in council of a province asked for return in full of these sources of revenue, the federal government would have had to give them back within 30 days. That condition was stipulated in the order in council of 1942, under which the provinces agreed to lend their sources of revenue to the federal government which, in turn, committed itself to give them back to the provinces within 30 days, on request made by the lieutenant governor in council. So it means that this concerned the rights of provinces.
Mr. Chairman, speeches on that matter have been heard for a long time in this house. I am of the opinion that, at the present time, after all those speeches, people have all the required information and it would be time to take action. Still, it must be a step in the right direction, because if we are not ready to apply the proper remedies to confederation, we will not be able to cure what may be ailing it; we will just make its condition worse and heavens knows that it is bad enough as it is.
What would be the proper cures? They have been mentioned several times and there is a fairly wide consensus of opinion on that point in the province of Quebec today.
First of all, the provinces must regain possession of their sources of income, so that they may develop by themselves and without the assistance of the federal government all the fields which come under their jurisdiction according to the B.N.A. Act.
As the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) stated, that should be done, and indeed I am glad to say it here in English, so that my English speaking colleagues may better understand.

What we as French Canadians want in this country is this. We do not require other people in Canada to speak French in our country. That is not what we call our right under the constitution. What we want is our right to speak French in the country. We do not require that same right for every Canadian citizen. We do not require people in Toronto or Vancouver to speak French, but we would like French Canadians to have the opportunities to speak French, their own language, in their own country. I do not think that is wrong.
As the hon. member for Villeneuve mentioned, when we from the province of Quebec come into Ontario, the first road sign we meet


when entering the province of Ontario on the road from Montreal to Ottawa says: "Observe speed limit". We do not require that a road sign should be written in both languages. It might be a courtesy, but that is not what we want. We want the opportunity and the facilities to develop ourselves, and to develop by ourselves in our country. We do not require anything from English speaking Canadians. They can develop themselves as they wish, but let us have the same opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that this is fanaticism. I do not believe that it is demanding concessions from the other group. No.
There is no concession to ask in this regard. The thing is simply this: the principle of two nations is being recognized more and more in our country, and those two nations must both have the opportunity to develop and to expand, so that the whole country may develop.
To my friends, the new Canadians, who seem to fear this inquiry on bieulturalism and who would like it to become an inquiry on multiculturalism, I say that it should not be attempted to make of Canada a country with an English, French, Polish, Italian, German, Ukrainian culture, because we would end up unavoidably with a melting pot as in the United States. Let every Canadian citizen strive to protect two cultures in Canada. Then, the descendants of other ethnic groups who will come to settle in Canada will have the opportunity to keep at least their traditions, their folklore and even their native tongue in certain cases; they may safeguard part of their cultural heritage if two nations can live together in Canada. If on the contrary, we try to preserve many of them, we will end up with a melting pot, as it is the case in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, we will celebrate the confederation centennial if on one hand, we act accordingly; if each ethnic group looks after its own business so as to develop itself and expand and if on the other hand, we act in such a way as to enable both races, both cultures to develop themselves according to their own ambitions, their character, while preserving their language and their culture.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Lapointe permit a very simple question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: I have listened, to a certain extent, with pleasure to the speeches made tonight by the hon. members for Villeneuve and Lapointe. But there is that ever-recurring word "we": "we say", "we want", "we wish"

-I would like to know what the word really means, for it is a plural form that is rather peculiar to me.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I believe that I know my French Canadian fellow citizens well enough to say that French Canadian cultural, ethnic and national progress, prosperity and development in Canada is their earnest desire and I think that the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet is included among them.
I am pleased to see he is indicating that he is happy to be included in such a group.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. In his speech he stated that the French Canadian population and the English speaking population should foster only two cultures in this country. Does the hon. member's group back up his statement that other groups-I will not use the word "ethnic", although it is popular, but those of Ukrainian background, or those of Italian or other European ancestry-should forget their own cultures and the advancement of those cultures within their own family and within their own community?


Gilles Grégoire: No. I think the contrary, that each of these groups should try as much as possible to keep its heritage and tradition which it received in its own country. Each group should keep its own culture as much as possible, but I think there should be only two official cultures in this country, the cultures of those who founded and established Canada. I think the others, the Italians and the Ukrainians, to which my hon. friend drew attention, should try to retain as much as possible their own heritage and traditions, which would enrich the country even more.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: If the hon. member would go back in history a little bit he will find that this has already taken place.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being ten o'clock shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



THE LATE DONALD SUMMERVILLE


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of parliament from metropolitan Toronto I regret to advise the
Business of the House
house that the mayor of Toronto, Donald Summerville, passed away this evening in office. It will be three weeks ago tomorrow that he was in Ottawa representing the city of Toronto, which he graced before the transport committee of the Senate. There are no Conservative members from Toronto and he did me the great honour of asking me to accompany him before that committee. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) went with him as well.
As all hon. members know, Mr. Summerville was a very active man. Possibly he had been endeavouring to do too much in the recent past. I regret his death. The halls of parliament have been graced in the past by former mayors of Toronto. I think of the late H. C. Hocken and the late T. L. Church. I could name many others. I am certain Donald Summerville would have graced the halls of the House of Commons in the very near future. All members of parliament from metropolitan Toronto, including New Democrats and Liberals, have lost a friend in this true blue Conservative, Donald Summerville, and I regret having to be the one to bring the sad tidings.


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, we on this side would also like to join with the hon. member in expressing our deepest sympathy to Mr. Summerville's family. The mayor was a very close friend of mine and just three or four days ago we attended a meeting together. I am sure he was a great man and representing Toronto he did a great deal for that city and also for all of Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the acting house leader would give us a resume of tomorrow's business and possibly Thursday's.


Mr. MacNaughl:: Tomorrow we will continue with the resolution we have been discussing today. When it is finished we will take up the resolution preceding the amendments to the Admiralty Act and the resolution preceding the C.N.R. financing act, then the second reading stage of the act to amend the Bankruptcy Act and the second reading stage of the act to repeal the Newfoundland Savings Bank Act, 1939. If there is any time left we will consider the three resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Transport, namely, the grade crossing fund, the St.

Business of the House
Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder whether the acting house leader would be able to give us any information on what departmental estimates are planned for the latter part of the week?


John Watson MacNaught: I am sorry, but I cannot give that information now. I understand that conversations will be carried on through the usual channels tomorrow to arrange a satisfactory program for Thursday and Friday.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 20, 1963