1963-11-20

Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, by leave I beg to move:
That the annual report for 1962 of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National Railways securities trust, the auditor's report to parliament for 1962 in respect of the Canadian National Railways, the budget for 1963 of the Canadian National Railways, the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1962, the auditor's report to parliament for 1962 in respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines, and the budget for 1963 of Trans-Canada Air Lines, tabled on May 17, 1963, be referred to the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping.


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


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, on this motion I want to ask the minister a question. Could he give us an explanation as to what we are going to do about the 1961 reports, which as far as I know have not been dealt with by the house?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware they had not been dealt with by the house. If they have not been dealt with, I am afraid it happened before my time. However, I will look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Earlier today the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me when the annual reports of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1961 will receive consideration. I find on checking the records that they were considered by the sessional committee in November of 1962 and were approved by that committee, as to Canadian National Railways on November 23, 1962, and as to Trans-Canada Air Lines on November 27, 1962.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacEwan: X. Was Frank Leonard Banfield of Halifax released from Dorchester penitentiary in November, 1962
and, if so, was he given a certificate of expiry of sentence?
2.	Was Mr. Banfield subsequently arrested by the R.C.M.P. on the 11th of June, 1963, at his place of employment by exercise of a warrant of committal under the Parole Act and if so, was he lodged in the county jail at Halifax and, for what period of time?
3.	Were the R.C.M.P. and the national parole board aware that Mr. Banfield (a) had resided (b) been steadily employed in Halifax since his release from Dorchester and (c) been married since his release?
4.	Was a warrant of committal issued by a provincial magistrate as required by the Parole Act and, if so, what is the name, and the status, of the person who signed the warrant of committal?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1. Frank Leonard Banfield was released from Dorchester penitentiary in November, 1962, and was given a document that certified that he had been incarcerated in the institution serving a term of two years. In addition, the document stated that he had been sentenced on May 10, 1961, and was released on expiry on the 23rd day of November, 1962, after serving one year, six months and 14 days.
2.	Mr. Banfield was subsequently arrested by the R.C.M. Police on June 11, 1963, at his place of employment and lodged in the county jail at Halifax after 12.30 p.m. on June 11, 1963 and was released on bail during the morning of June 14, 1963.
3.	No.
4.	When Mr. Banfield was arrested as described in paragraph 2, the R.C.M. Police had in their possession a forfeiture warrant of committal, purporting to be under the Parole Act, which has not been issued by a magistrate as required by that act. On June 24, 1963 a substitute forfeiture warrant of committal was issued by provincial magistrate Horace E. Dickey, Q.C. at Halifax, Nova Scotia but immediately thereafter and before such warrant was executed a new certificate of parole was issued to Mr. Banfield.


PROSECUTIONS OF COMPANIES FOLLOWING NORRIS REPORT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the government considering legal action against Canada Steamship Lines; The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Co.; David Transportation Ltd.; Guy Tombs Marine Services Ltd.; National Sand and Material Co., Ltd.; Nothwest Steamship Ltd.; N. M. Paterson & Sons Ltd.; Quebec and Ontario Transportation Co. Ltd.; Quebec Paper Sales & Transportation Co., Ltd.; The Reoch Steamship Co. Ltd. concerning agreements signed by these companies with the S.I.U. which were declared by Justice Norris to be in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act; if not, for what reason?

Questions
2.	Is the government considering legal action against Canada Steamship Lines concerning an agreement between it and the S.I.U., whereby the company would be indemnified for any damages arising against it for the agreement with the S.I.U. on behalf of the company's personnel who already had been certified to the N.A.M.E. of Canada by the Canada labour relations board, which agreement was declared by Justice Norris to be in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act; if not, for what reason?


Lionel Chevrier: Counsel appointed by the minister to study the evidence in connection with the Norris inquiry are considering these as well as the other questions of prosecution arising out of such evidence.


*C.N.R. GRAIN ELEVATOR, SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. Bell: Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railway Company to sell the grain elevator on Prince William street, Saint John, N.B., as announced September 19 in Moncton and, if not, what are future plans?


Mr. Caniin:: The elevator at Saint John is not being offered for sale by the Canadian National Railways. Future plans for the elevator are receiving consideration.


RICHARD O'HAGAN
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,377
Douglas Mason Fisher: Has Richard O'Hagan, on the staff of the Prime Minister's office, also been receiving an additional income or expense allowance from any other source, including the national liberal federation and if so, what is the scale of this additional remuneration?


Mr. Pearson:: The only official record of Mr. Richard O'Hagan's salary is the salary he is paid by the government of Canada for services rendered on a full time basis.


C.N.R. EASTERN GRAIN ELEVATORS
Mr. Rynard: Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to dispose of all of its eastern elevators?


George James McIlraith: The management of the Canadian National Railways have been giving consideration to the question of whether it would be advantageous if certain elevators were operated by firms whose main business is the operation of grain elevators, and in order to assess the matter advertisements have been placed in newspapers inviting proposals for the elevators at Midland and Portland.


C.N.R. TRAIN FACILITIES, PORT AUX BASQUES-ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.
Mr. Tucker: 1.	Have any requests been received by the government or management of the C.N.R. concerning the lack of sleeping and dining facilities on trains operating between Port aux Basques and St. John's, Newfoundland?
[Mr. Orlikow.l
2.	Have any announcements recently been made by the management of the C.N.R. with respect to train operations between the above two points in Newfoundland?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to request C.N.R. management to ensure the provision of sleeping and dining facilities on trains operating between the above points?


George James McIlraith: 1. Representations were received by the government from the hon. member for Trinity-Conception and were transmitted to the C.N.R.
2.	The management of the railway advise that the usual announcements were made regarding timetable changes effective October 27.
3.	This is a matter relating to the internal operation of the railway, and consequently the only action open to the government is to draw to the attention of the management any representations received.


FUMIGATION OF APARTMENTS FOR SERVICE PERSONNEL, HALIFAX
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the total number of apartments for naval personnel at Shannon park, Halifax?
2.	What is the total number of apartments for army personnel at Windsor park, Halifax?
3.	How many of these apartments in each of these areas required fumigation in (a) July (b) August (c) September, 1963?
4.	What was the total cost of fumigation in each of these areas in each of the said months?
5.	Were tenders called for such works and, if so, what firms tendered, and what is the amount of each of the said tenders?
6.	Which of the said tenders was accepted?
Answer: 1. 521.
2.	219.
3 and 4. None of these apartments required fumigation. However, pesticidal control treatments were carried out as follows:
Shannon park
(a)	108, (b) 178, (c) 26.
Under contract, inspection and treatment services of all buildings are carried out at an initial treatment cost of $1,980.
(All of these were initial treatment).
Windsor park
(a) 2, (b) 0, (c) 4.
Under contract, inspection and treatment services of all buildings are carried out at a monthly cost of $150.
5.	The tender call for Shannon park covered pesticidal control treatments with separate quotations for a call back inspection and additional treatments.
Bids were submitted as follows: Scotia pest control $1,818 initial treatment, plus $8 for a three bedroom unit, $10 for a two bedroom unit and $35 for a basement area on a call back inspection and treatment basis. W. E. Mackie Ltd., $1,980 plus $3, $5 and $40 respectively. Braemar pest control, $8,400 plus $35, $6 and $25 respectively.

The tender call for Windsor park covered monthly inspection of all buildings and regular monthly treatments as required.
Bids were submitted as follows: Scotia pest control, $150 per month; W. E. Mackie Ltd., $175 per month; Braemer pest control, no quotation.
6.	Shannon park, W. E. Mackie Ltd.; Windsor park, Scotia pest control.


JAIL INMATES RELEASED ON PAROLE
Mr. Maiheson: In the province of Quebec from January 1, 1961, to date (a) how many penitentiary and jail inmates have been released on parole by the national parole board (b) what has been the rate of parole violation in comparison with the national rate (e) how many of the abovementioned parolees have been convicted while on parole of armed robbery and, of these (i) how many had served terms in federal penitentiary (ii) in provincial jails, and
(iii)	how many had never been in detention before
(iv)	had exceptions been made under the parole regulations and, if so, to what extent and, under what circumstances?


Lionel Chevrier: (a) From January 1, 1961 up to September 30, 1963, 1,610 inmates have been paroled from penitentiaries and provincial prisons in the province of Quebec.
(b)	In 1961 the rate of parole violation in the province of Quebec was 11.22 per cent for that year, compared to a national average of 11.84 per cent. In 1962 the rate of violation for the province of Quebec was 11.35 per cent, compared to a national average of 12.18 per cent. We are unable to determine the parole violation rate for the first nine months of 1963, as the information is not yet available.
(c)	Of the 1,610 parolees, 19 have been convicted of armed robbery, which is a violation rate for this particular type of offence of 1.18 per cent of the total number of parolees released, (i) Of these 19 parole violators, six had served a term in a federal penitentiary, and (ii) Seven had served a term in a provincial jail, and (iii) Six had never been in detention before, (iv) Exceptions to the parole regulations had been made in two of these cases. In both cases the men involved were in custody for the first time. One exception was to the extent of 12 days on a two year sentence, and the other exception was to the extent of two months on a 12 year sentence. The reason for both exceptions was that a job was available for them at that time, which would not have been available to them later.


SLEEPING RESERVATIONS, C.N.R. OCEAN LIMITED
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Have any complaints been received by the Canadian National Railways in the last six months in regard to the inability to secure sleeping reservations on the Ocean Limited due to overcrowding and, if so, what remedial action is contemplated to eliminate the causes of these complaints?
Questions


George James McIlraith: The management of Canadian National Railways advises that it is not aware of any complaints. However, it is quite possible, due to the heavy travel on the Ocean Limited, that some patrons have been unable to obtain the type of space desired on the day they wished to travel. Effective October 27, the equipment and schedule of the Scotian have been improved to provide additional sleeping and dining car facilities between Montreal and Halifax.


CONSTRUCTION OF SUGAR BEET REFINERIES IN EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Laiulippe: Has the government any plans to stimulate the construction of sugar beet refineries in eastern Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec, in view of the present situation in the sugar market?


Mr. Drury:: No. It is understood that the government of the province of Quebec is currently investigating this matter. No requests for assistance have been received from the province.


ADEQUACY OF AIRSTRIP, ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.
Mr. Tucker: 1.	Have any studies been carried out to determine whether the existing airstrip and other facilities at St. John's, Newfoundland, are adequate to cope with weather conditions and increasing traffic and, if so, what is the nature of the report with regard to these studies?
2.	Is any consideration being given to the planning of an additional airstrip in a different location to the one now being used?


George James McIlraith: 1. The most recent study indicates that the present runways will be adequate to satisfy any foreseeable operational requirement. Certain work, however, is planned to improve the taxiways and apron and consideration is being given to the provision of an instrument landing system on runway 11.
2. While some consideration has been given to the development of an airport at a different location, the matter is not being actively considered at the present time.


CONVERSION OF HANGAR, WHITEHORSE AIRPORT
Mr. Nielsen: Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the proposed conversion of "A" hangar for terminal use at the Whitehorse airport (Yukon) and, if so, on what date is it intended to commence work on the project?


George James McIlraith: Because of the relatively little difference in estimated cost of construction of a new small air terminal building at Whitehorse as opposed to the earlier approved plan of rehabilitating a wartime hangar to serve as an air terminal, it has been decided to proceed with plans for a new building.

Questions
In selecting a site for the proposed new building, soil tests had to be undertaken and these were only received at the end of October. In the meantime, preliminary sketch plans have been completed.
It is now the intention to submit a proposal to treasury board seeking approval in principle to construct a new air terminal building at this airport in the near future.


COST OF TELEVISION PROGRAM &quot;TELEPOLL&quot;
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	What is the cost to Canadian National Telecommunications of its participation in the television program "Telepoll" carried on the C.T.V. network?
2.	Is the cost of C.N.T.'s participation shared equally with Canadian Pacific Telecommunications?
3.	Does C.N.T. have any discretion as to the program content of "Telepoll" and, if so, to what extent?


George James McIlraith: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1 and 2. "Telepoll" is sponsored jointly by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Telecommunications. Program costs are based on standard C.T.V. network rates and are shared equally by the two companies.
3.	The program is planned and produced by Channel Productions Limited for the Canadian television network. The selection of program content rests with the producers, not the sponsors.


SUBSCRIBERS TO HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES
Mr. Caouetie: What was the total number of subscribers to the English and French editions of the House of Commons Debates in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The debates of the House of Commons are sold and distributed on a sessional basis. Actual circulation figures are only available for the last three sessions.
Fifth session, 24th Parliament, (18 January 1961	English edition	French editionto 18 April 1962) 	
First session, 25th Parliament, (27 September	11,163	2,5871962 to 5 February 1963) First session, 26th Parliament, (16 May 1963 to 2 August 1963 and 26	11,513	2,622October 1963 to date) . .	12,526	2,974
These figures are maintained for procurement purposes to show the upward or downward trend and, having served this purpose, are not held any longer. The distribution of the debates of the House of Commons, in both languages, has gradually increased over the past sessions and it is expected that this trend will continue.


C.B.C. REVENUE FROM ADVERTISING
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Of the $27 million received by the C.B.C. and referred to in the Glassco report (a) how much was received in radio, and (b) how much was received in television?
2.	Of the amount received in television, how much was received through Canadian sponsors?
3.	How much commission was paid to agencies and what amount was paid to affiliate stations?
4.	How much was paid to employees of the advertising sales department of the C.B.C.?


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The amount referred to in the Glassco report is $32,910,000, which is the amount shown as advertising revenue (gross) in the corporation's annual report for the fiscal year 1961-62. (a) $2,562,000. (b) $30,348,000.
2.	The explicit amount received from Canadian sponsors is not readily available, but it is estimated to be approximately $26,000,000.
3.	As shown in the corporation's annual report 1961-62 commissions to agencies and networks $4,620,000. Payments to private stations $4,851,000.
4.	The amount of $1,541,000, shown as Selling expense in the annual report 1961-62 covers all the expenses of the corporation's commercial department, including salaries.


CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.  NEW C.N.R. BUILDING
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is it the intention of the Canadian National Railways to erect a new building at Charlottetown?
2.	If so, what is the type of building to be constructed, and when will the project commence?


George James McIlraith: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1 and 2. Consideration is being given to the erection of a new express-freight shed. However, the starting date for construction has not yet been determined.


BREAKWATER REPAIRS, PONDVILLE, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Have tenders been called for breakwater repairs at Pondville, Richmond county, N.S., and, if so (a) what are the names, addresses, and amounts of those who tendered (b) has a contract been awarded and to whom?


Mr. Badanai:: Yes. (a) The only tender received in response to public advertising was from Gerald J. Forgeron, West Arichat, N.S. at $9,105. (b) Yes, to Mr. Forgeron.


RELEASE OF WEATHER INFORMATION, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,63 7-Mr. Rheaume:
1.	Have any restrictions been put on the release of weather information from D.E.W. line sites through the Department of Transport to commercial carriers operating in the N.W.T.?

2.	If so, what are these restrictions and when were they imposed?
3.	What is the procedure that must now be followed by a commercial carrier and the Department of Transport to obtain weather information from D.E.W. line stations (a) prior to flight departure (b) during flights?
George James McIlraith: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	(a) Information may be requested and obtained from Canadian weather information outlets, (b) Obtained by contacting the D.E.W. line site on the appropriate VHF air to ground facility or by reference to the radio range twice hourly broadcast of reports.


STUDY OF CHESAPEAKE BAY CROSSING PROJECT
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Has the Department of Public Works made arrangements to study the 17.6 mile combination causeway bridge tunnel crossing Chesapeake bay, which is now in an advanced stage of construction, with a view to determining whether any of the concepts and engineering methods used there would have application in a crossing for Northumberland strait?
2.	If not, are plans being made for such a study?
3.	Have engineers of the Department of Public Works visited this project to study the problems met, and the methods used to overcome them?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The department has been observing the progress of this project with keen interest and has studied the plans for it and reports on it. Arrangements have also been made for our engineers to visit the site in the near future.


TRADE MISSIONS TO WEST INDIES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since May 1962, have trade missions been sent to any of the islands in the British West Indies (Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent) ?
2.	What special assistance, economic, technical or administrative, has been extended to these islands?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. The Canadian trade mission to the Caribbean (appliances and housewares) concludes its business in Trinidad this week, after visiting Jamaica and Barbados. No other Canadian trade mission has visited Barbados or the other islands listed since May 1962.
This trade mission comprised 15 Canadian exporters of consumer goods, particularly electrical appliances, hadware and cutlery, plastic housewares and stationery. It was organized by the Department of Trade and Commerce in co-operation with the Canadian electrical manufacturers association.
2. Under the Canadian bilateral program of grant aid for the commonwealth countries and territories of the Caribbean area, both project assistance and technical assistance have been provided since May 1962 to the
Questions
islands listed. The projects are: (a) a deep water wharf and warehouse project for the island of St. Vincent was started in 1962 and is scheduled to be completed early in 1964; (b) a quantity of port handling equipment is in the process of being purchased for the islands of Barbados, Grenada, St. Vincent, Dominica and St. Kitts; (c) during the present fiscal year, construction is scheduled to commence on primary schools in Grenada, Antigua and Dominica, and on port warehouses in St. Lucia and St. Kitts; (d) the drilling and developing of fresh water wells is currently being carried out in the islands of St. Kitts, Nevis, Anguilla and Montserrat; (e) a forest survey for the island of Dominica was completed in the summer of 1962.
Under technical assistance arrangements, students have been trained in Canada and Canadian teachers sent to the islands as shown in the following table:
	Students	Canadian teachers
	in Canada	in area
	since May	since
Country	1962	May 1962Antigua 	. 9	2Barbados 	. 13	1Dominica 	. 7	3Grenada 	. 9	3Montserrat .. .	. 5	1St. Kitts 	. 2	1St. Lucia 	. 2	1St. Vincent ..	. 8	1


FOLLOW-UP PROGRAMS FOR MENTAL PATIENTS
Mr. Orliltow: Will the government give consideration to offering financial incentives to public health departments that employ public health nurses or social workers in order to promote home community follow-up programs for patients discharged from mental hospitals?


Miss LaMarsh:: Federal financial assistance is already provided annually under the terms of the national health grants in support of the development and operation of community public health and mental health programs which employ public health nurses and social workers.
With considerable variation from province to province, patients discharged from provincial mental institutions are visited and followed up under such programs. It would be quite in order for a province to submit further projects under the national health grants for the purpose of extending follow-up programs for patients discharged from mental hospitals.
cf-104 plane losses and replacements


Mr. Lambert: 1. Since putting into use of the CF-104 Starfighter by the R.C.A.F., how many such aircraft have been

Questions
destroyed or retired as being further unserviceable as a result of operations, operational training or instructional training?
2.	What is the breakdown as between losses based on (a) Canada (b) Europe?
3.	How many CF-104 aircraft have been purchased as replacements for the above losses, over and above the original number of aircraft slated to be required in the CF-104 program?
4.	What has been the cost of these additional purchases, if any, and, is it the intention to purchase additional such aircraft to cover possible future losses of CF-104 aircraft?
Answer: 1. 11.
2.	(a) 5. (b) 6.
3.	None, but 16 dual aircraft have been ordered primarily for training purposes which have an operational capability.
4.	The estimated cost of the dual aircraft is $27,500,000. No additional purchases are planned.


NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED, SEPTEMBER 1963
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	How many persons were unemployed during the month of September and, of this number, how many were women and, amongst these (a) how many were married (b) how many were there whose husband was working (c) how many were under twenty years of age?
2.	How many men were unemployed during the same month and, of these (a) how many were married and had children (b) how many were under twenty years of age?
3.	Of the total unemployed during this month, how many were only temporarily out of work and expected to return to their work or to take a job before November 1, 1963?
Answer: 1. As of the week ended September 21, 1963, the number of unemployed in Canada was estimated at 250,000 of whom
58.000	were unemployed women, (a) Of the
58.000	unemployed women, 17,000 were married. (b) Not known, (c) Of the 58,000 unemployed women, 23,000 were 14 to 19 years of age.
2.	As of the week ended September 21, 1963, the number of unemployed men in Canada was 192,000. (a) Of the 192,000 unemployed men, 96,000 were married. The number of unemployed married men with children is not known, (b) Of the 192,000 unemployed men, 39,000 were 14 to 19 years of age.
3.	Not known. However, as of the week ended September 21, 1963, of the total unemployed of 250,000, 13,000 were on temporary lay-off with definite instructions to return to work within 30 days of the commencement of the lay-off.


AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS ACTING AS AGENTS FOR STABILIZATION BOARD, QUEBEC
Mr. Laiulippe: In what transactions did officials of the dairy products division of the Department of Agriculture

act as agents of the agricultural stabilization board during the past two years, in the constituencies of Compton-Frontenac, Megantic, Sherbrooke and Beauce?


Mr. Hays:: Officials of the dairy products division acted as agents of the agricultural stabilization board in the administration of policies concerning the buying and selling of creamery butter and Cheddar cheese.


STABILIZATION BOARD EMPLOYEES, QUE.
Mr. Laiulippe: What are the names, dates of employment, qualifications and salaries of the officials of the agricultural stabilization board who work in the following constituencies (a) Compton-Frontenac (b) Megantic (c) Sherbrooke (d) Beauce?


Harry William Hays: The agricultural stabilization board do not have any officials located outside of Ottawa.


DAIRY PRODUCTS DIVISION EMPLOYEES, QUE.
Mr. Laiulippe: What are the names, dates of employment, qualifications and salaries of the officials of the dairy products division of the Department of Agriculture who work in the constituencies (a) Compton-Frontenac (b) Megantic (c) Sherbrooke (d) Beauce?


Harry William Hays: (a) (b) (c). Mr. R. Levesque, located at St. George de Beauce, works the area of Beauce, Megantic and Frontenac. He has been employed continuously with this division from April 26, 1959. His salary is $5,130 per annum.
(a) (c). Mr. P. E. Leclerc, with headquarters at Sherbrooke, looks after the inspection work in the Sherbrooke, Compton, and part of the Frontenac constituency. He has been employed continuously by this division since December 16, 1957. His salary is $5,130 per annum.
Qualifications for the abovementioned officers require they have at least two years of high school plus graduation from a recognized dairy school. They must also have a thorough knowledge of manufacturing procedures of dairy products.


* REPORT ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Mr. Bell: 1.	Has the Minister of Justice received the report on juvenile delinquency from the departmental committee appointed in January, 1962 and, if not (a) what is the reason for the delay (b) have all meetings and discussions been completed (c) when will the report be handed down?
2.	Will the report or any portion thereof be made available to parliament for study?


Mr. Macdonald:: 1. The report of the Department of Justice committee concerning the nature and extent of the problem of juvenile delinquency and the steps that might be taken to meet it has not yet been received because

members of the committee have found that their ordinary departmental duties seriously limit the time that is available to write the report.
All meetings and discussions by members of the committee with interested individuals and organizations have been completed and it is expected that the report will be available in April, 1964.
The minister, of course, from time to time receives representations concerning amendments to particular provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. All such proposals have been referred to the juvenile delinquency committee. It was to proposals of this limited nature that he referred in response to a question from the hon. member on November 13.
2. When the report of the committee is received a decision will be taken on the question whether it should be made public.


BUTTER SUBSIDY PAYMENTS, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Latulippe: What amount has the government spent under the 12 cent per pound butter subsidy since March 31, 1963, in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac?


Harry William Hays: Claims for the 12 cent per pound butter subsidy in April 1963 and the equivalent payment to eligible producers since that time until October 31, 1963, of 14J cents per pound on butter fat used for the manufacture of butter, have totalled $275,546 for butter manufactured in creameries located in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac.


DEFINITIONS UNDER EXCISE TAX ACT
Mr. Belanger: 1.	Is a person or a company repairing automotive engines, automobile fuel pumps or television screen tubes defined as a manufacturer under the terms of the Excise Tax Act and, if so, what are the defining terms used in the act or regulations?
2.	Does the Excise Tax Act or regulations thereunder define the meaning of a customer, a producer or a manufacturer and, if so, what is such definition?
3.	Does the Excise Tax Act or regulations state the percentage of the primary sales price that may be used to repair an article before it is considered as a new article and once more liable to tax and, if so, what is that percentage?


Mr. Garland:: 1. Rebuilding or remanufacturing is distinct from repairing and falls within the definition of "manufacturer" appearing in the Excise Tax Act and amplified by court decisions.
2. There is no definition of "customer" in the Excise Tax Act and, in general, definition of the word is that found in the dictionaries and in common usage. The definition of "manufacturer" is explained in (1) above. In
Motions for Papers
certain circumstances covered by specific regulation or instruction, the words "wholesaler", "retailer" and "user" are defined for purpose of that regulation or instruction.
3. There is no single test as to what constitutes manufacturing as distinct from repairing. The nature of the manufacturing or repairing operations, the ownership or other rights to the goods and the relative value of parts and components to the total value of the article are some of the factors used in determining whether or not an article is being manufactured. No percentage figure is used in the current regulations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Peiers: 1.	How many persons were admitted to Canada under order in council between the years 1950 and 1960?
2.	What are the numbers of these orders and the names and addresses on those included in each order, signifying in each case those recommended by members of parliament for inclusion following the amnesty provision for those illegally admitted?
3.	How many were included in these orders in council, and what adjustments have been made to correct improper information in the order in council, giving the number of P.C. order in each case?


WINDSOR STREET POST OFFICE, MONTREAL   EXTRA HELP
Mr. Valade: What are the names and addresses of the persons residing in Montreal who were hired as supernumeraries for the Windsor street Post Office, between April 8, 1963 and October 23, 1963, and on what date was each of them employed?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. Ill-Mr. Peters:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all orders in council covering immigration for the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959, and to include any corrections that have been brought to the attention of the government as a consequence of the immigration amnesty order, together with recommendations instituted by members of parliament concerning individuals covered by such orders in council.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I ask permission of the house to withdraw this motion.
Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

Motions for Papers



LEASING OF GOVERNMENT ELEVATOR, PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 164-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents received or sent by the Minister of Agriculture, the board of grain commissioners or any other department or agency of government since January 1, 1962, dealing with the possibility of leasing the Canadian government elevator at Prince Rupert, B.C.
Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 165-Mr. Laiulippe:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence since 1955 between the Minister of Public Works and the town of Lac Megantic with regard to the replacement of level crossings in that town.
[Stage Direction]
He said: Mr. Speaker, I was offered the opportunity to go and consult those documents myself at the Department of Transport, and I shall gladly do so.
Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but I did not hear what the hon. member has just said.


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Speaker, I was told that I could go and consult those documents at the board of transport commissioners. Since the file is quite voluminous and that a great deal of work would be saved if I went myself to the board of transport commissioners in order to consult those documents, I am willing to do so.

Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



RELOCATION OF RAILWAY TRACKS, LAC MEGANTIC, QUE.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 166-Mr. Laiulippe:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence since 1955 between the Minister of Transport or any official of his department, and on the one hand officials of the Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway; and, on the other hand, the town of Lac Megantic, with regard to the removal of level crossings in that town and the relocation of the railway tracks.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there are no papers under the motion as drafted, but I understand that what the hon. member wants is the correspondence with the board of transport commissioners, who are responsible for the administration of this matter. If he is satisfied to make the necessary amendment

by substituting "board of transport commissioners" for "transport department", then there is only one other objection to the motion, in that there is a tremendously large file of correspondence involved. I have arranged with the hon. gentleman that he can go to the board of transport commissioners and select those letters and documents he would wish to have tabled and they will be tabled. Subject to these remarks, there is no objection to the motion carrying.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is accepted subject to the reservation of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 168*-Mr. Choqueite:
That an order of the house do Issue for a copy of all correspondence received by the postmaster general or any official of his department, since April 1, 1958, in connection with post offices, rural mail delivery or any other services which fall under the jurisdiction of his department in the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
Mr. Denis:: Always subject to the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation made by the minister the motion is accepted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 169-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the telegram received from the fisheries association of B.C. which was referred to and quoted in part by the Minister of Fisheries at page 2945 of the House of Commons Debates for August 2, 1963.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would allow this motion to stand today?


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to co-operate with the Secretary of State any time today.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



SELLING AND PRICING OF NEW DRUGS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 170-Mr. Howard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of telegrams, correspondence, and other documents exchanged between the government, the restrictive trade practices commission, or the combines investigation branch, and any person, organization, or company since January 1, 1961, regarding the question of hearings by the restrictive trade practices commission concerning

the selling and pricing policies of certain pharmaceutical houses in respect of new types of drugs.
He said:	May I ask that this motion
stand, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Yesterday the Prime Minister promised to make a statement regarding the two Canadians who are being held prisoner by the Cuban authorities, particularly with reference to whether their trial would be a public trial, and second as to whether the Canadian government would assure themselves that these men would have adequate counsel.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am now in a position to give further information on some of the questions which were asked yesterday. The hon. member for Oxford asked what could be the maximum sentence which might be imposed on the Canadian prisoners. The state prosecutor in Havana has asked in the indictment that the two pilots be given the death penalty.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition inquired whether the trial would be held in public. We have been told that the trial will be held in public and that local and Canadian correspondents will be permitted to attend. An officer of the Canadian embassy in Havana will also be allowed to be present.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam a moment ago, and the Leader of the Opposition earlier, inquired about defence counsel. With regard to Canadian counsel, the Secretary of State for External Affairs informed the house on November 14 that we had asked the Cuban authorities that Canadian counsel be permitted but that our request had been denied. There has been no change in that regard. We are informed that the participation of foreign counsel is not permitted under the Cuban system. However, with the help of our embassy in Havana, each of the accused has now secured his own Cuban defence counsel.
Beyond this, Mr. Speaker, I feel I should not go at this time. I should like to emphasize, however, that the government is following the case with the closest attention and the most serious concern, and is in contact with the foreign ministry in Havana and the Cuban ambassador here. At all times, Mr. Speaker, we have been concerned for the welfare of these two Canadian citizens and
Inquiries of the Ministry are doing everything we can for them. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, we would not wish to do or say anything at this moment that might not be in their interests.


Mr. W. R. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question in view of the Prime Minister's reply. In the event that the two accused Canadians in Cuba did not, in the opinion of the government, receive a fair trial as we understand it, would the government make clear to the government of Cuba in this eventuality that possible retaliatory measures might be considered by the Canadian government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think it would be in the interests of the prisoners themselves at this moment to go beyond what I have already said on the eve of their trial.


RUSSIA-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING PERSECUTION OF JEWS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition about persecution of the Jews in the Soviet union and whether the Canadian government had made any representations on this matter to the Soviet embassy. I have an answer, Mr. Speaker, and it is rather longer than I would like, but it is a very complicated and difficult question so I hope the house will bear with me.
The government has received occasional representations from various Jewish organizations in Canada on the question of antisemitism in the Soviet union. Several of the representations have related specifically to the numbers of Jews convicted for economic misdemeanors and sentenced to death or long prison terms.
I find it particularly unfortunate that any government should find it necessary to resort to those penalties for economic crimes which were abandoned in many countries of the world at least a century ago. Although the penalties have been levied against persons of various nationalities and faiths within the U.S.S.R., the disproportionate number of Jews given severe sentences may reflect the historical tradition of anti-semitism which has prevailed among the population, even though there is no evidence to suggest a state program encouraging anti-semitic tendencies. There is also an element of religious persecution within the U.S.S.R. which is directed not only against the Jews but also against Christians, Muslims and other religious believers. I am sure that not only the government but all the members of this house would join in condemning such persecution in all

Inquiries of the Ministry its forms, whether in the Soviet union or elsewhere throughout the world.
Despite our concern, we have not made representations to the Soviet embassy on the specific question of anti-semitism in the U.S.S.R. If such representations were contemplated the more appropriate channel would be to make an approach directly to the Soviet authorities through the Canadian embassy in Moscow. However, I should remind my right hon. friend who asked the question of the fact that there is in the Soviet union a deep-seated suspicion of cosmopolitanism, that is a mistrust of elements in the population and particularly of minority and religious elements which the Soviet authorities fear might have international connections and loyalties which could conflict with their allegiance to the U.S.S.R. Because of this consideration, Mr. Speaker, the present government, as did the previous administration, wishes to avoid any official action which, by emphasizing the Soviet suspicion of the international affiliation of the Jews, might provoke further restrictions against the Jewish community in the U.S.S.R.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister ascertain whether there has been correspondence between the government and the Canadian Jewish Congress on this matter, and if so, could the correspondence be tabled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been correspondence on this matter, but I am not familiar with the details of it at the moment. However, I shall be glad to collect that and see if it could be tabled.


U.S. REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING TRADE WITH COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Prime Minister, while he was on his feet, would make some reference to the question that was asked yesterday about the NATO ministerial conference and the position which Canada is taking with reference to the United States proposal to curtail credits to the Soviet union to a period of five years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now that I am on my feet again Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to say a word about that. I had intented to because, as my hon. friend knows, I was asked yesterday whether any representations had been received by the Canadian government from the United States government concerning the need for general agreement among NATO nations on trade with the communist block.
While no direct representations have been received on this subject from the United States government, we have been kept informed of United States thinking on this and it was, of course, the subject of discussion at a special meeting of the NATO council on Monday of this week, at which the Secretary of State for External Affairs was present and at which the United States delegate made a proposal concerning the undesirability-and I am just paraphrasing what he said-of granting credits for trade with communist countries beyond a five year period.
The Canadian delegate, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, joined the United Kingdom and certain Scandinavian delegates in opposing that proposal. My hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be back in the house tomorrow, or at the latest on Friday, and he will make a more extended statement on this matter at that time.


REQUEST FOR ACTION RESPECTING RISING PRICES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. The question is somewhat unusual, but it is of urgent and country-wide importance. Has the Prime Minister received representations from some of his supporters in this house urging him to adopt the New Democratic party price control policy on sugar by the introduction of a measure to give effect to such policy? Is so, what action does he intend to take?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the only representations I have received to adopt the policies of the New Democratic party have been from members of that party themselves. On this particular point I have not received the representation my hon. friend talked about, but I do note, as no doubt he has noted, that the price of sugar has dropped $1.80 per hundred in the last day or two.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. A week ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated that negotiations were going on with the sugar exporting countries in the commonwealth regarding the possibility of Canada entering into an agreement for the bulk purchase of sugar at a negotiated price. Are those consultations continuing? What progress is being made, and how soon is the government expecting to make a contract with the sugar industry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Negotiations are going on. I will bring my hon. friend's question to the attention of the minister, who is not in the

house this afternoon, and he will make a statement at the earliest possible moment on the consultations, and on any decisions taken resulting from them.


Mr. Speaker:: Does your question deal with sugar?


Mr. Gregoire:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Reid Scoli (Danforth):: A supplementary question. A week or so ago, the Minister of Justice told us his officials are studying the situation in England where there is a sugar board and where long term contracts have been instituted. Has he anything further to report to the house as to the adaptability of this system to Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: The director of research and investigation did go to London and did have talks with the chairman of the board there. Those talks were satisfactory. The Minister of Trade and Commerce dealt with them in his statement, and I should not like to add to what was said at that time.


REQUEST FOR PROMOTION OF GREATER DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I direct my question to the hon. candidate for the office of minister of agriculture for the east.
Considering the prohibitive price of sugar due to our inadequate national production in that field, does the government intend to give some impetus to sugar beet growing in Canada?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I shall call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the problem raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question?
Has the minister received from the province of Quebec a request concerning the ownership
Inquiries of the Ministry of the islands located in Hudson bay and James bay, in territorial waters, that is within the three mile limit at low tide?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, sir; no such request has come to my attention.


REQUESTS FOR TENDERS NOT IN FRENCH LANGUAGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question. Could the minister tell the house why the tenders called for the drilling to be done under the Dufferin terrace were not published in the French language newspapers, and particularly in those of Quebec city?


Arthur Laing: I will take the question as notice, and I hope to give a reply to my hon. friend as soon as possible.


PUBLICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can give a reply to the question I raised regarding the grievous position, or whether there is a grievous position, of Canadian publications at the present time, on which the government may intend to act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This matter is still under consideration. I hope to make an announcement with regard to possible government policy in this field in a few days, perhaps toward the end of the next week.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. I base it upon the fact that most of us are still getting representations about this matter. I should like to ask the Prime Minister directly whether he feels that there is indeed a grievous situation here, in economic terms, for these publications.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am informed by those who are qualified to speak for the publications in question that there is indeed a serious economic situation.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES


INQUIRY AS TO PURCHASE OF CARAVELLE PLANES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the many representations from Quebec and the serious unemployment situation in that province, does the government intend to recommend the selection of Caravelle aircraft by T.C.A., in order to give work to the employees of Canadair?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will be discussing unemployment at the forthcoming conference with the provinces. On the special point raised by the hon. member, I hope to be able to make an announcement within a few days.


BREAD-PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF IMPORT INTO NEW YORK STATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware of a bill introduced in the legislative assembly of the state of New York with a view to prohibiting the importation of Canadian bread in that state?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I have not been advised of that resolution, although I have seen a reference to it in the press. I will be glad to look into the matter.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the reports published in some newspapers, can the minister tell the house if it is true that the words "Postes" and "Postage" used by the Post Office Department will disappear?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, I must say that nothing will be done 
to change the bilingual character of postage stamps in 1964. As a matter of fact, one will bear the word "Canada", a bilingual word which is very easy to say in both French and English. As far as the others are concerned, they will bear, instead of the words "Postage" or "Postes", another bilingual inscription, to confirm our country's distinctive bilingual character.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General a supplementary question? Does he not think the time is ripe for him to have his picture on postage stamps?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we ought to have the portrait of the hon. member for Villeneuve put there instead, since he is not long for this world, politically speaking, and he will die eventually. In any case, he is surely aware of the fact that only dead people have their pictures on postage stamps.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the words "Postes" and "Postage" are to be removed from postage stamps and, as a result, it will be impossible in other parts of the world to know that Canada is a bilingual country, does not the minister feel he ought to reconsider the decision taken and leave those two words there?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, even if the words "Postes" and "Postage" do not appear on postage stamps, we could still read on them, for instance, "Conference de Charlottetown" and "Charlottetown Conference".


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I ask the Minister of Transport if it is correct that the nimbus satellite tracking station proposed for Neil's Harbour will be cancelled because the Canadian government refuses to provide the housing requirements for personnel who would be employed there.


George James McIlraith: No, that is not correct.


Robert Muir: May I ask a supplementary question. When is this government going to stop playing touch football with such questions as the Newfoundland ferry and the heavy water plant?


George James McIlraith: I do not understand touch football as the hon. member does.


Robert Muir: With respect, sir, that is not the only thing you do not understand.


CHIGNECTO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Can the
Secretary of State inform the house if the Atlantic development board is presently giving consideration to a study of the Chignecto complex?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I could not hear what the hon. gentleman said.


Robert Carman Coates: Can the Secretary of State inform the house if the Atlantic development board is presently giving consideration to a study of the Chignecto complex?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe so, sir.


Robert Carman Coates: I wonder if the Secretary of State would check and find out for certain, and give the house some indication when we might expect a report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to do that when the officials are back from Newfoundland and I can get in touch with them readily.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence. Have we now any nuclear weapons, in one form or another, stored on Canadian soil?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a supplementary question. If we have them stored on Canadian soil, would the minister be aware of that situation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would hope to be, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We hope you would be, too. PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS



SUGGESTED APPEARANCE OF PRIME MINISTER BEFORE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to appear before the standing committee on privileges and elections to outline
Inquiries of the Ministry to that committee the details of the government's program for making a contribution from the public treasury toward the costs incurred by parties and candidates during election campaigns?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not been invited to appear before the committee, so the question is indeed hypothetical.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: I had
a question for the Minister of Agriculture or for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but since they are both absent today I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister assure the house the government will investigate the reason eastern farmers have to pay such a high price for grain produced in the western provinces?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Because we produce a good quality grain.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The grain is of good quality, but I shall be glad to look into the matter. However, I do not believe this is a suitable question for orders of the day.


Raymond Langlois: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. I know that the western farmers produce good wheat-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Raymond Langlois: -but we have been asking this question for quite a long time-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please take his seat when I am on my feet? Is the hon. member putting a question?


Raymond Langlois: Yes. I have been putting it for months, Mr. Speaker, and I still have not had an answer from the government. I went to the Prime Minister this time, and he gave an arrogant answer which was not in keeping with what should be an answer on the part of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member got rather tied up in the form and phrasing of his own question. If he does not realize it, I should tell him that is not the type of question one should put. I am sure he will take notice of that.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question I asked the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to investigate the operations of the grain exchanges as to the difference in prices of wheat between eastern and western farmers?
4362	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: With great respect, I do not think this is the kind of question I can answer on orders of the day.


Raymond Langlois: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have been coming back to this question for the past month, and all we have got on the part of the government have been delays-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Raymond Langlois: -and arrogance without precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the second time this afternoon I have to ask the member to resume his seat when I am speaking. If he would refer to the rule book he would see he has to keep his seat.


Raymond Langlois: With all due respect to Your Honour I would still like the government to answer normal questions when they are asked, and then maybe I would not have to get up and call on the rule book and have Your Honour make statements every so often.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to ask the Prime Minister a question, and it is a rather unusual one. During the last week or two has the Prime Minister received correspondence from Liberal candidates who ran in the Kootenay or Okanagan areas advising him that they are supporting the hon. member for Kootenay West with regard to his views on the Columbia river?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot recall receiving any communication of that kind with that kind of suggestion, that I should support the hon. member for Kootenay West. I may have received it, and I will look into that matter because it is very important.




Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Yesterday, in regard to the Columbia river treaty, the Prime Minister said that the governments of the province of British Columbia and the United States were working together on the downstream benefits; that is, as to the sale price. Is Canada participating in those negotiations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is participating in these negotiations.


David Vaughan Pugh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are those negotiations going on fairly continuously, or have they stopped?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are going on fairly continuously, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure of all the details, but I know that technical committees were set up, representing all the parties to the discussion, to look into some of the technical questions. I believe those discussions are completed, or almost completed, and that there is to be a discussion next week on a rather different level. I will look into the matter and obtain more details for my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event of agreement being reached among the three parties concerned, is it still the Prime Minister's intention to refer this treaty to the external affairs committee of the House of Commons before proceeding with it in the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think, Mr. Speaker-and again I speak subject to correction-the commitment has already been given that the treaty, when all the difficulties that have been encountered have been removed and the treaty has been signed, will be referred to the external affairs committee of the house before ratification.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Is the government ready to accept the offer made by Russia to send its own icebreakers to the St. Lawrence river in order to keep it open so as to expedite the shipping of Canadian wheat to that country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such offer. In any event, we have our own Canadian facilities which I hope are adequate for this purpose.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm concerning Canadian shipping facilities. Have the Canadians got facilities to keep the St. Lawrence waterway and other waterways open,

in order to ship wheat out of our ports during winter time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As my hon. friend knows, we have icebreakers that are used for that purpose.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: As a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, is he suggesting, although I am sure he is not, that icebreakers will be used to interfere with the traditional position of the Atlantic ports in handling wheat shipments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I quite understand my hon. friend's preoccupation with that question. I hope nothing I have said will add to his preoccupation in that regard.


George Clyde Nowlan: Or to my worries.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of what has been said about icebreakers on the St. Lawrence, will the Secretary of State contact the Atlantic development board officials as soon as he can communicate with them, and try to arrange hearings in Saint John about this matter of winter navigation, which is now under consideration by the board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to bring the hon. gentleman's speech to the attention of the board.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Oxford, who inquired about consultations now under way at the United Nations in preparation for the forthcoming debate on the question of enlarging the security council.
The principal aim of the Canadian delegation in these talks, and at meetings of the commonwealth group, has been to emphasize the importance of retaining the commonwealth seat. Pressure for enlargement has developed, notwithstanding Soviet opposition, from the newer member states of Asia and Africa. In their view geographical considerations should be accorded greater importance than others in determining the composition of the council.
This has an obvious threat to the seat which is normally held by a commonwealth member. We are doing all we can to drive 28902-5-316
Inquiries of the Ministry home the point that states which contribute significantly to the maintenance of peace and security should be assured of a reasonable prospect for equitable representation on the security council. The commonwealth has an outstanding record of contribution in this regard, and we believe that contribution deserves recognition in the allocation of seats on the security council.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In his capacity as house leader could he make the necessary arrangements to call together the committee on lands, forests and waters while the members of the Northwest Territories council are still in the city? I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would agree it would be a very useful and helpful exercise to have the members of the committee meet these distinguished northerners.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as house leader I did everything I could in this regard by moving the motion drafted by the hon. member for Peace River. The committee has been in existence for months. I will try to act as an honest broker and see if we can do a little more to get the committee to meet.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to that honest broker, the Secretary of State, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the house leader. Would the minister discuss with his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the possibility of bringing before the house a motion to refer the subject matter of the Canada pension plan to an appropriate committee, without prejudice to the right of the legislation to remain on the order paper and without prejudice to the right of the house to proceed with the legislation at any time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir. I think that would be a most undesirable thing to do on the eve of the federal-provincial conference. It seems to me, from what I read in the public press, that we have enough committees at the present time competing for the attention of hon. members,

National Centennial Act and I doubt if an academic exercise of the kind suggested by the hon. gentleman at this stage, before the federal-provincial conference, would further the end he has in view.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, will the government consider such a proposal immediately after the federal-provincial conference has been held?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this is a matter in which the government should take its responsibility in the normal way, according to the rules of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what it should do.



NATIONAL CENTENNIAL ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 19, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Pearson-Mr. Batten 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.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, following my remarks of yesterday, I should like to deal today with a most important point.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mand-ziuk) wanted to know what it is we would like to change in our Canadian constitution, in the British North America Act. We said that we would like to modify the way the British North America Act has been enforced, and the constitution carried into effect.
I have here the British North America Act, and I would like to show the house that this act has been violated several times by the federal government and that when there was violation of the B.N.A. Act, it was not done by the provinces to the prejudice of the federal government, but by the federal government to the detriment of the provinces.
If one reads clause 91 of the British North America Act and considers the various matters which are the federal government's responsibility, one finds that never did the provinces interfere in the fields placed under the federal jurisdiction.
For instance, let us take the first point:
Amendments concerning the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
Never did the provinces interfere in that field. Second:
The public debt and property;

The provinces did not busy themselves with what concerns the federal public debt. Here is another point.
Unemployment insurance;
The provinces did not enter that field either.
And then:
The borrowing of money on the public credit.
The provinces were not concerned with that field.
And further:
Postal service;
The Postmaster General himself would be the very first to say that the provinces never concerned themselves with that matter.
And, further on, we find:
The census and statistics;
The same can be said here.
Further along we see:
Militia, military and naval service, and defence;
Navigation and shipping;
Currency and coinage;
Banking, incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money;
Weights and measures;
Bills of exchange and promissory notes;
Interest;
Patents of invention and discovery;
Copyrights.
In every case, it may be noted that the federal government has been free to legislate in those fields, and that the provincial administrations did not deal with those matters, which are under federal jurisdiction.
On the other hand, if we read clause 92, which lists the exclusive powers-I repeat "the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures"-and consider, among others:
The establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions-
-we find that, through its hospital insurance scheme, the federal government did enter that field.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think considerable leniency has been shown in this debate, but I fear we are getting away from the resolution before the committee.


An hon. Member:: Everyone spoke of just about anything yesterday.


Gilles Grégoire: We are speaking of the centenary of confederation and it is in connection with the celebration of that event that I am referring to the act which established confederation. I feel my remarks are entirely relevant, considering especially the speeches which were made by those who spoke before me in the house. In my opinion, I am not straying from the subject under consideration by mentioning the act on which confederation

is based. Since we are speaking of the centenary of confederation, we have to go back to the origins of confederation if we wish to celebrate that event which occurred 100 years ago. I am just going back to the origins.
Paragraph 8 of section 92 reads as follows:
Municipal institutions in the province;
The legislation concerning loans to municipalities, winter works, etc., shows once more that the federal government has infringed upon provincial jurisdiction.
A quick look at section 93 of the British North America Act, which deals with education, shows that the government has violated provincial autonomy by providing assistance for universities and vocational training establishments.
That is because the government does not abide by paragraph 2 of section 92 which states:
Exclusive powers of provincial legislatures.
Direct taxation within the province in order to provide the raising of revenue for provincial purposes.
In other words, direct taxation comes under the provinces, not under the federal government.
It is precisely because this clause of the constitution has been violated that today so many problems crop up in the path of confederation.
When the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asks us what we complain of, then I answer him that we complain of the Canadian constitution not being respected today by the federal government, for they infringe upon the rights of the provinces; and the day such infringement by the federal government stops, we will no longer complain about confederation.
The hon. member for Port Arthur could perhaps take time off to study that clause of the British North America Act, the Canadian constitution; perhaps he would then understand our complaints and would no longer tell us that his knowledge of the French Canadians of the province of Quebec is restricted to Lili St. Cyr and Maurice Richard.
Mr. Chairman, 95 years after confederation, the hon. member for Port Arthur, a former professor, comes and tells us that it is all he knows about the province of Quebec; he certainly has much to learn about our culture.
Had he opened his eyes a little more, he would have seen that we have not only Lili St. Cyr and Maurice Richard, but also great artists such as Raoul Jobin, Leopold Simo-neau, Richard Verreau, Wilfrid Pelletier, who have given brilliant performances on the most famous stages in Canada and in Europe.
28902-5-316J
National Centennial Act We have had great artists, scientists, doctors, engineers, who have been a credit to the French Canadian nation.
Had he studied a little more, he would have learned that we have had great statesmen, such as Henri Bourassa, and great politicians, such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Mr. Chairman, we may tell him that we know also some great English Canadian artists, great singers, such as John Vickers and James Milligan, and the hon. member for Marquette should certainly know about Irene Salemka, who performed on the stage of the Hamburg and Vienna operas.
We know them because we opened our eyes on the whole of the English Canadian civilization, and the hon. member for Port Arthur should have opened his eyes as we did, to see what was going on on the other side. But he did not; that is why he stated there is only Lili St. Cyr and Maurice Richard as products of the province of Quebec.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I can tell him that we are proud of Maurice Richard, who was a great player on a wonderful hockey team. I can tell him also that he should have opened his eyes to see all our artists and actors who are a credit to Canada on the international scene. Furthermore, I can tell him that, for one who is a school teacher, I find him ignorant for not knowing those things. It may well be that, according to his standards, the value of a man is determined by the thickness of his pocket-book and the money he has in the bank. Should that be his conception of culture, I shall say to him that we, for our part, have a different notion of what real culture stands for. The real value of a man is surely not indicated by the thickness of his pocket-book.
In my opinion, instead of telling us things I would call "stupid", the hon. member for Port Arthur should have remembered all the distinguished citizens of the province of Quebec who have contributed not only to the growth of their own province but to that of Canada as a whole; in short, before asking what we are complaining about, before running us down, he could at least have ascertained whether our demands and claims are justified.
As a former school teacher, he is talking through his hat when he tells us, without knowing what it is all about, that our educational system needs to be changed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member and advise him that his time has expired.


Gilles Grégoire: May I have one minute?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
4966	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Centennial Act


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, in making a few remarks on the resolution now before the committee I am reminded of the fact that I am a representative of one of the eastern provinces which together with the two central provinces about 100 years ago made of the union a great nation, and it is with that sort of thought in mind that I rise to make some observations on the resolution. In listening to the opening remarks of the President of the Privy Council yesterday I realized that the government may consider there are reasons for the resolution now before us. Without going into the reasons he gave for the resolution, I submit that when the government brings a resolution before the house for its consideration and states that it is expedient to amend a certain statute it should give the reasons for it in language and in argument which they can justify.
The resolution before us has the name of the Prime Minister attached to it. He is associated with it, of course, as its sponsor and it bears all the influence and prestige of his office. Presumably the government has given consideration to the subject matter of the resolution and is satisfied that these changes are good for Canada. Presumably the government is prepared to be held responsible for the proposition that there is need for the amendment of the original statute and that the amendment is good and will strengthen the original legislation. Obviously that is the situation.
I cannot agree with any such proposition. I find myself compelled to reject the substance of the resolution. I find myself compelled to reject the premise that there is any need for this amendment. The minister has stated that objections have been raised. I do not propose to go into those. I think the fact that the government has submitted the resolution to the house is what should be before us today.
The government seems to have got in the habit of withdrawing, and it would appear to me that they might properly be accused of a withdrawal in this particular case. Let us examine the proposed amendment and let us see what the contemplated changes are. They are going to change the title.


Mr. Lamoniagne:: No.


Hugh John Flemming: They say the title must be the "Centennial of Confederation Act".


Maurice Lamontagne: We do not change the title of the act.


Hugh John Flemming: Suppose I read the resolution.
That it is expedient to amend the National Centennial Act to change its short title-


Maurice Lamontagne: Not the title.


Hugh John Flemming: I am
reading from the resolution.


Maurice Lamontagne: The short title, but not the title.


An hon. Member:: Make your own speech.


Hugh John Flemming: If the
resolution is wrong perhaps the minister would like to have it corrected. I am reading from the resolution.


Maurice Lamontagne: I said we do not change the title but only the short title.


Hugh John Flemming: I read again.
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-


Maurice Lamontagne: The short title.


Hugh John Flemming: I continue:
-and to change the title of the national centennial administration to that of the centennial commission.
I do not know what the minister is quibbling about because he is certainly going to change the title. That is the suggestion in the resolution.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit there is nothing in the resolution that will change the title of the act, which is at present "an act respecting the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada". That is the title of the present act and the resolution does not change the title.


Hugh John Flemming: I wonder what we are debating here today. Are we debating what the minister says we should be debating, or are we debating what the resolution says, which I have read?


Maurice Lamontagne: Perhaps the hon. gentleman might go back to the act which was passed by his own government and he would see that there is a title and a short title. We are not proposing to change the title in any way but only the short title.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: That is what I call splitting a hair right down the middle.


Maurice Lamontagne: No.


Hugh John Flemming: The
minister says he is not going to change the title but he is going to change the short title.


Maurice Lamontagne: Exactly. They are two different things.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You should get a lawyer.


Hugh John Flemming: The hon. member for Rosedale says he should get a lawyer.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, I said you should.


Hugh John Flemming: No, you
have told the minister what to say. You are the lawyer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: I have been heckled before by people of the same political persuasion as this crowd.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They threw you out of office too.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I am going to have to ask the committee to allow the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton to continue his speech.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Chairman, the argument I was going to advance was this. Regardless of what we say in this year of our Lord 1963, we should be influenced to quite an extent by what history says was the concept of the people who brought about this union in 1867, which in my opinion was the building of a great nation. What did they have in mind? The minister says he is not going to change the title of the act much. He is going to change the short one and leave the long one as it is-something of that nature, and something just as ridiculous as that, too.


Maurice Lamontagne: Why did you have two titles?


Hugh John Flemming: The
question about which people must make up their minds is, have we been a nation for 100 years or not? Moreover, I submit that when the government brings before this house a resolution which in effect is playing down Canada they are doing a disservice to the country. There is nothing wrong with the original title. It was explained that we were a nation before 1867, and no one is quarrelling with that; but the B.N.A. Act and the joining together of these four provinces came about in 1867. There is no argument that that is the event we propose to celebrate.
I want to read from a book dealing with the history of the most important province,
National Centennial Act and hon. members can understand which one that is. I have in front of me the book: "New Brunswick: A History, 1784-1867", written by Professor MacNutt. Part of it concerns the events leading up to the union of 1867. At that time New Brunswick was a colony. It had a governor, and it might be of interest that the governor's name was Gordon, and he was not very popular. I do not say he was any less popular than the Minister of Finance, but he was not very popular.
At the time of confederation the province of New Brunswick and the province of Nova Scotia, together with Upper and Lower Canada joined together and were bound together through the medium of the British North America Act. This is what Professor MacNutt says about a nation. It seems to me that when a professor of history, someone who has looked into the past, writes about a nation it has some significance, more significance than opinions expressed by us gathered here 100 years later. He says that after the election at which the people of New Brunswick decided in favour of confederation the jubilation that followed was Protestant and British rather than a paean of praise for the new nation. He goes on:
On many an occasion in later years Smith declared that it was a racial and religious cry that had defeated him. Edward Barron Chandler had assured the people that in the new union the maritime provinces could hold a decisive balance of power between Upper and Lower Canada. Tilley had satisfied them that they would endure no increase in taxes. But of the rhetoric and prophecy that frequently accompany the birth of new nations-
And here again is the comment about a new nation-
-there was little in New Brunswick, especially during the excitement of elections.
Then on page 454 of the same book he continues:
Behind the adroit persuasions of Macdonald and his colleagues in Canada lay the authority of the British government, not forced but nevertheless strongly asserted, working for the composite solution British world interests required. The problem had not been of New Brunswick's making, but she was compelled to recognize its existence. Her elemental loyalties powerfully invoked, exposed to the appeal of building a new and great nation whose promise hung upon imponderables, pressed by the impact of immediate events, cajoled by rather flimsy assurances of commercial prosperity, and somewhat bribed, the province entered confederation with very little grace and no gratitude.
My reasons for these quotations from a great historian, who has gone back into the prevailing opinions expressed by various people 100 years ago when this nation came into being, is simply to show what was the concept at that time of Canada as a nation. Now, Mr. Chairman, do we take the opinion of an historian who is an expert in the field,
4968	HOUSE OF
National Centennial Act or the opinion of somebody who has not made any particular investigation into the matter? I submit there was no need for any change to the title.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: You do not even know the reason for it.


Hugh John Flemming: Well,
these interruptions do not matter to me. The hon. gentleman has a right to his opinion as I also have a right to mine. The difference is that I have proven mine, whereas all hon. members opposite have is mere assertion. However, that is not unusual for them. If we pass this resolution as it stands I consider that we will, in effect, be saying that we cannot do business under the title of the National Centennial Act. It will be construed that we have not yet become a nation. I wonder what those heroes who went over in the first world war and those who went over in the second world war would think about that.


Maurice Lamontagne: May I ask the hon. member a question. When did somebody in this house say that there was no Canadian nation?


Hugh John Flemming: I said that if we passed this resolution it would be construed as an admission that we have never been a nation. There is no one so blind as he who will not see, and there is no one so deaf as he that will not hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: And there is no one so dumb as he who has nothing to say.


Hugh John Flemming: Well,
the hon. member for Rosedale should be an authority on that particular subject. I said that I did not subscribe to any such fallacious doctrine that we have never been a nation. Go upstairs to the sixth floor, and in the dining room you will see pictures of at least two outstanding prime ministers of Canada, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Do you remember, Mr. Chairman, what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said when he was asked about the place of Canada in the commonwealth, or in the British empire, as it was then called? He said: "Daughter am I in my mother's house, but mistress in my own". If he was mistress in his own, then we were a nation; there is no question about that. That is what the great Laurier said. He said we stand for the unity of Canada. Only a few days ago I read, because I was not here at the time, what the hon. member for Three Rivers said in support of the principle of the unity of Canada. That is the important thing, the thing we should be stressing.


Maurice Lamontagne: Will he speak during this debate?


Hugh John Flemming: I said I was not here.
That is all I have to say as far as our nationhood is concerned. If our friends over there wish to deny our nationhood, that is their privilege: I am not going to deny it.
Toward the end of the resolution, it says:
To provide also that the centennial commission shall consist of a commissioner, an associate commissioner-
I see no objection to that. Indeed, if I wished to extend compliments to the minister I would say that the adjective "associate" seems to be an improvement over the word "deputy". I am expressing no objection to that change. Then, the resolution continues:
-and not more than 12 directors in lieu of eight directors-
This brings us back to the story of the Atlantic development board. Hon. gentlemen opposite had to gain control of that board so they brought in six extra directors to accomplish this purpose. The resolution speaks here of four more, bringing the number up to 12. I will say that the commissioner appointed by the previous government is just about the best appointment which could be made in Canada.


Maurice Lamontagne: No patronage.


Hugh John Flemming: No one
has more knowledge of Canada than Mr. John Fisher and we are fortunate in having his services at our disposal. Four new members are to be appointed. We should have those names as soon as possible.


Maurice Lamontagne: You took a year and a half to appoint the national conference.


Hugh John Flemming: I would prefer that the president of the council did a little more acting and a little less talking. It will be better for him and it will be better for his party, too. The resolution ends:
-and to provide further for certain administrative changes in connection therewith.
I have grave misgivings about this. I presume we shall know in a short time, when the resolution passes, just what is contemplated. I hope the minister will not make any attempt to introduce changes which will be considered as being partisan in character. To do so would, in my opinion, be to defeat the very object of this legislation and I hope it will not come to pass.
I say, in summary, that some of the concepts which the government are now recommending to us are incorrectly founded. I do not subscribe to them. I think there may be other things in the legislation, things we have not so far seen, which may be equally difficult to accept. I urge the minister to make

public, either by laying them on the table of the house or by incorporating them in Hansard, the names of the proposed new appointments at the earliest possible moment. I am speaking about the personnel of the conference.


Maurice Lamontagne: They have already been made public.


Hugh John Flemming: There have been some misgivings about provincial representation on this conference, which will be composed of 60 members. Twenty are to be appointed by the provinces, two by each province. I am sure this is a most desirable situation.
Canadians have a habit of playing themselves down. The government has done us a disservice by playing down the nationhood of our country by the change which is contemplated in this resolution. It should not be so. The government should be furnishing leadership to the people of Canada in the process of building ourselves up rather than the opposite. That is what should have been done and that is why I view this resolution with misgiving. I hope my fears will prove not to be well founded. I travel, or used to travel, a good deal outside Canada. I found that the name of Canada is held in high esteem wherever I have gone outside the borders of this great country. I hope my misgivings concerning the result of the change contemplated by this resolution will be unfounded.
Finally, I hope the machinery provided by the new act will be effective and that it will produce results of which all Canadians can be proud.


Mr. Cowan:: I heard the hon. member who has just resumed his seat attribute to Sir Wilfrid Laurier the lines: "Daughter am I in my mother's house but mistress in my own". Should this not have been attributed to Rudyard Kipling, from "Our Lady of the Snows" published in 1897?


Hugh John Flemming: If the
hon. member wants my opinion, I would say that Laurier probably quoted it.


Mr. Barnett:: I listened with some interest to the remarks of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) comes from one of the original provinces of confederation. I feel that those of us who come from other parts of the country, such as British Columbia, are happy to be joining the rest of Canada in celebrating this centennial even though we may not have been part of Canada for a hunded years by 1967.
I cannot say I was greatly impressed by the hon. gentleman's argument as it applied to
National Centennial Act the major change which this resolution will effect. As to his misgivings on this subject, my only reaction is to suggest that a rose by any other name would smell sweet-and I doubt if that particular quotation originated with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, either.
I was one of the members of this house who was honoured to be present when Senator Donald Cameron on behalf of Canada extended an invitation to the commonwealth parliamentary association to visit this country in 1967. In these circumstances the prospect of our celebrations in that year came to my mind very often when we were touring the new commonwealth country of Malaysia, as guests of that country. If our centennial celebration is to be what many people hope it will be we could very well attempt to capture some of the zest and fervour which I found in the country of Malaysia, which has yet to celebrate its first anniversary let alone its one hundredth, in respect of their own federation and in respect of their feeling of belonging to the commonwealth of nations in which they feel parliamentary democracy is a vital thing. I found I had some rather strange reactions when I first entered their commons chamber, because if there was one single thing which struck me in Malaysia it was their endeavour to create the symbols of nationhood. Not the least of these is their new parliament buildings which those of us who were on the tour saw officially opened by the king of Malaysia.
This new building is a symphony in stone and glass, beautifully spacious and air conditioned from start to finish. In fact, I told one of the members of the Malaysian parliament I was beginning to wonder if we in Canada had constructed our parliament buildings 100 years too soon. I have always regarded our own Commons chamber as a rather beautiful room, and one that does in some ways symbolize the Canadian nationhood. However, I have to confess that when I came back after my trip to Malaysia I noticed for the first time how smoky and grimy our chamber is.
I must say I am wondering, as we approach our one hundredth anniversary, whether or not we might be getting a little shaky and decrepit in so far as some of our enthusiasm for the symbols of nationhood is concerned. If I might make a suggestion to the President of the Privy Council as a contribution to this debate, I would suggest that one of the things we should do, perhaps long before 1967, would be to restore a little brightness to this chamber.
The new nation of Malaysia, in my view, is going all out to do some things to make their first anniversary as worth while as our one

National Centennial Act hundredth anniversary should be. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the hope that we would have something more than fine speeches. I should like to see us have some of the new symbols for our one hundredth anniversary that the people of Malaysia are going to have for their first. The delegates to the commonwealth parliamentary association were invited to witness a display of mass bands before His Majesty the King of Malaysia in a stadium the like of which we have not anywhere in this country, so far as I know. I refer to the stadium Negara, their new national stadium. We, in Canada, put up some sort of a barn-like structure for a stadium, and we erect a horrible mess of structural steel for our floodlights. These people created a stadium in which the floodlight columns look like national monuments. They were beautiful stone columns, shapely in form and proportion. I must say that many times I wished all the members of this house could have the experience of touring Malaysia, just as the delegates to this conference did. I can think of nothing that would give us more zest or more inspiration for having a one hundredth anniversary celebration that is worthy of our nation than the experience those of us had who were there.
Certainly, I feel that we in Canada are not yet too old or decrepit to be able to revive that sort of youthful enthusiasm for nation building and for the development of parliamentary democracy that I found in the newest member of the commonwealth, Malaysia. I recalled that when I left this chamber to go on that trip, the house was involved in a rather long and sometimes heated discussion concerning where certain members were going to sit in this chamber. I must say that, with that in mind, I was a bit appalled when I found the veneration in which Canada, as the senior member of the commonwealth, was held by the people of Malaysia, as they voice their enthusiasm for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.
Malaysia is a country of minorities with about 50 per cent Malays, some one third of the people with Chinese ancestry and the other largest minority coming from the subcontinent of India. This is a land where people speak many languages, a land where people have a great variety of cultures and yet-


The Chairman:: Order; I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I am just wondering whether he is not straying quite a bit from the resolution now before the committee.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have listened rather attentively to the discussion of this resolution, and it seems to me that my remarks are pertinent

to my own desire, and I take it to the desire of those who wish the passage of this resolution, to do something to stimulate action in connection with our celebration plans and to get some real centennial building into the proposals for this celebration in 1967. It was with that in view, Mr. Chairman, that I thought I should like to say these few words in support of the resolution, relating them to my own recent experience in the development of nationhood in Malaysia.
I am not going to prolong these remarks. The point I am really trying to make is that the important thing to consider in connection with our centennial is the attitude of mind with which we approach it. If I may say so,
I think one of the prerequisites is a change in the attitude of the members of this house collectively. I was saying that the contrast between the attitude towards the institution of parliament which was evident when I left here and the attitude which I found in Malaysia was something which did not make me proud to be a Canadian or to be a member of this house. I feel that if there is any virtue in some of us going abroad and seeing what others are doing, it is in getting a fresh approach by seeing ourselves through the eyes of others. We should talk about this when we do come back into the house.
I was mentioning that Malaysia is a nation of minorities, a people with many languages and many cultures. I was about to say that they are making a tremendous effort to create unity and harmony, yet retain the variety and colour of their various cultures. I have to say that even during this discussion, the sort of petty bickering in which we indulge in respect to some of the language and cultural features of our own confederation, does not sit very well in contrast to what they are attempting to do in Malaysia. I would hope that the passage of this resolution, if it has any value at all, will help us enter more fully into the spirit of confederation. That was really the point I wished to make when rising to discuss it.
In line with some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I could go on to point out what might be some of our centennial projects. In Malaysia, for example, 50 per cent of the total federal budget is being spent on education. It has one of the most beautiful universities to be found anywhere in the world, a university which was started from scratch in 1958.


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


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes.


Maurice Lamontagne: In order to shorten the debate on this resolution, which has a very

restricted scope, I wonder if he would agree to postpone his remarks about centennial projects until we come to the estimates of the centennial administration?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I had no intention of launching into any lengthy discussion of what I might consider to be appropriate centennial projects, but I was going to mention by way of illustration and by way of emphasis of the remarks made earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that this is the kind of emphasis being placed by the government of Malaysia in building its new federation. This is the sort of thing which I would like to see us doing in Canada, when we enter upon the second 100 years of our existence as a nation. In deference to the point raised by the minister, I will now admit this was about the extent of the remarks I intended to make.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I do not
intend to delay the committee and I certainly hope it will pass the resolution shortly. I believe there is only one speaker to follow, although I am not sure of this. However, as I read once again the terms of the resolution and the changes that are to be made, although they do not seem consequential there is still a slight fear that there is another meaning for the changes that are being proposed. This has been referred to by the President of the Privy Council and by other speakers, and I have had private conversation about it earlier this afternoon.
I wonder if there is not some significant meaning in the actual changes that are proposed. Is the government changing its attitude about Canada as a nation, and now thinking of it as a two nation state? This may be the case, but we do not know. Although there is no doubt we will accept, on division, the resolution as it stands, considering the statements that have been made so far I feel I have something worth while to add in the progress of debate.
The previous speaker indicated that, by comparison with what he has seen in recent weeks, Canadians would not be proud to be members of parliament if they could see the deportment of such a new nation as Malaysia. I say to you now, Mr. Chairman, if there is anything wrong with Canada we can find some of the ills right here in this parliament. One of them is the proliferation of parties in this house, and we have seen what this has meant to Canada and the Canadian people in recent weeks.
Pleas have been made for progress in parliament, but they have no relationship to the actual business that has been transacted inside the house, and the people of Canada must recognize this. If changes are to be 28902-5-317
National Centennial Act made it is entirely due to those people who have held up the work of parliament.
During the course of this debate references have been made to what transpired in our history, and in regard to who came here, what nations sent people, and the purposes of their coming. My colleague from Marquette made a noteworthy contribution yesterday afternoon, and my background induces me to tell the house my forefathers came here from the United States to seek the freedom of this country and to leave the area of conflict that existed in the United States at that time.
They came as a type of loyalists, loyalists to the British crown, loyalists to the Canadian flag, and loyalists to their faith. I believe that as we go on to celebrate the centennial of Canada we must remember the faith our forefathers had in coming here. We must remember the efforts that were put forth in order that we might enjoy the bounties of this country that exist today. If we forget those basic things, how can we go into the celebration of our centennial with the proper concept of what we should do?
With regard to the list of people being invited to the conference, and especially with regard to their political affiliations, surely it is not our intention to proceed to our hundredth anniversary on the basis of a political connotation such as that list had? I certainly hope that before the debate concludes the President of the Privy Council will table that list of names for all our people to see.
Listening to the statements made yesterday, seeing the parrying, the setting back and forth, the swaying made to our ideas, I could not help thinking of the effort that was put forth during two world wars. This was something which was mentioned by another of my colleagues. Surely these people, as they went to fight for Canada, did not think they belonged to this or that part of Canada, and did not care whether their comrades spoke this tongue or that tongue. Indeed, if I am to be honest with the committee, when I myself went into the second world war I left a section of the country which was bilingual. The other language used was German, but my comrades and I went to fight for Canada. We did not go to fight for any situation that was local, or any situation that would divide the country. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will know why we and others made this effort.
The crew with which I flew in the second world war-this is the second time I have mentioned this in the house, but I think it is more important this time-had a skipper who was French Canadian. I am sure he would be proud if he knew that today one of the members of his crew sat in this house, in the highest court of Canada; nor would he ask,

National Centennial Act "Do you belong to this group, or do you belong to that group?" That was not why he gave his life. This very great comrade of mine, whose name was Emile LeBlanc, came from Prince Edward Island, and as I stand here I realize that I owe my existence to him, because he could have been out of that situation much sooner than I.
Then I think of the things that were said in this house yesterday and wonder where on earth we are heading when hon. members make statements about what they think are the right things and the wrong things. Surely as far as our friends are concerned-and I say "our friends" in all sincerity-from the province of Quebec, if they are being denied any rights, surely we have these rights set out boldly and clearly not only in the Quebec Act of 1774 but also in the British North America Act. I would be the first to stand up for these people if those rights were being denied. But we in this parliament of Canada cannot expect to have the advantages of an area of prosperity or the advantages of the contribution from one end of the country to the other if sections of our country are separate and apart.
Yesterday I heard the hon. member for Lapointe say, "We do not want anything in Quebec. We do not want anything else from Canada. We do not expect anything. But don't take anything away from us". I do not have his exact words in front of me at this moment, Mr. Chairman, but I think that is the gist of what he said. The hon. member went on to say, "We want our share". I agree with him. If through the legislation that exists in the Canadian statutes he is being denied his share, or his people, as I said before I would be the first to stand up in my place and demand that those rights be honoured. In the meantime, as we are considering the celebration of our confederation let us be together and let us be one. We must not be divided. We cannot be divided and be a nation. This is the fear that I have with regard to the terms of the resolution that is before us. This resolution is presented by the government and it is an odd thing that we hear these types of statements coming from some hon. members. I refer to the statement made recently by the hon. member for Lotbiniere in regard to Canada's present status. These are not the type of statements that draw us together; they are not the kind of statements that will make us a great nation and give us, as representatives of the people, a better understanding of the situation. Then there are the statements of the hon. member for York East, whose letter to his constituents I hold in my hand. He says, "This is dead" and, "That is dead", and 
he does not believe the government is accomplishing anything. If it is not accomplishing anything, it is as much his fault as anybody else's in this house.
I should like to point out, again, some of the things that keep us together and those which tear us apart. I think of the speech made by the hon. member for Three Rivers the other evening. This is the type of thinking that we want; it is the type of thinking that will carry us into 1967 and beyond as a nation, and with the possibility of being a great nation; not being divided by petty arguments among ourselves. I listened to the speeches made last evening. Some of the things said were devastating and only denigrate the picture of Canada and its possibilities as we draw toward the centennial of our confederation.
I hold in my hand a clipping from the Toronto Star which carries an article bearing the headline, "Legion 'Worse than reds'- Caouette". I have a further article here which deals with that hon. member's reason for not serving his country. This article goes on to say:
Caouette evaded military service simply by re-tusing draft calls. "They sent me white slips and blue ones and pink ones but I refused to go", he said recently. "I had gone through the depression and I didn't think Canada had given me anything worth fighting for".


An hon. Member:: He should resign.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think, as we are considering the 100th birthday of confederation and its celebration, and our great historic past, and when I think of the days when the English minority in Canada depended on the French majority to bring us through to 1867 and on to where we are today, and the statements made yesterday by one of the hon. member's colleagues, an honourable course for the celebration of our centennial would be for this hon. member to resign his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member for Lapointe spoke for this party in the house yesterday. The general theme of the hon. member's speech was that we wanted mutual respect as does anybody else. As we give respect to the English speaking citizens, we want it the same way. Does the hon. member go along with that principle?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has the floor.


Eric Alfred Winkler: There is no question about what the hon. member said, and if the colleague of the hon. member who has just

spoken will come back into this house and say this was a mistake-


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Eric Alfred Winkler: -that he is repentant, I would be the first to accept that-


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wishes to quote what somebody has said, he should quote what was said and not what is reported in a newspaper. The newspaper report might be mistaken, and it is because of such mistakes that we have the present situation. On my question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I would like the words of the hon. member cited as they were said, and not as they have been reported in the newspapers, because this leads to mistakes being made.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am wondering whether we are not getting some distance away from the subject matter of the resolution which is before the committee. Certainly the comments that were just made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce are of interest to the committee, but they seem to be getting away from the resolution that is before us. Perhaps the hon. member would take that into consideration.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and will certainly try to follow your direction. But I cannot deviate from the fact that these things are important to this country. These are important questions when we are considering the celebration of the 100th birthday of confederation in 1967. I quoted directly from the speech of the hon. member, the report of which will be found in the Star Weekly of December 15, 1962.


Raymond Langlois: Was that a written speech?


Eric Alfred Winkler: When I was dealing with this particular question, Mr. Chairman, I did not want to be misunderstood. I was dealing with this point because of the area from which I come, where the people are generally of German origin. We do not ask to be recognized as a separate group. There is not an ounce of separatism in our souls. We want to be recognized as Canadians. We want only to be known for the contribution we make to Canada and all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: As I look forward to 1967 and the celebration of the 100th anniversary of confederation I would invite my colleagues to consider what I am saying, because then
28902-5-317 J
National Centennial Act I think our centennial will be celebrated in a suitable manner. I will reiterate what I said earlier. Having regard to the terms of confederation as laid down in the British North America Act and the rights available to every citizen of Canada to be used for the betterment of Canadians as a whole, if any situation arises where these rights are not being adhered to I will certainly stand up with any fellow citizen of Canada and fight for those rights. Before I take my seat I might ask the President of the Privy Council once again to be so good as to put on the record the names of the people who will attend the conference in this regard. I am sure every member of the house will appreciate it if he will do so.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, in looking at the resolution, which is in the name of the Prime Minister, one of the things that I would very much hope the centennial commission, as it is now to be called would do would be to recommend to the Prime Minister a design for a distinctive Canadian flag, because certainly this is one of the most important things that the people of Canada will expect to have when our 100th birthday takes place. As a matter of fact, if I heard the Prime Minister correctly he said in the house recently that he would recommend a flag to parliament within two years and that the design of the flag would be debated by the house.
I would hope that the centennial commission would hear representations and would be able to make recommendations to the Prime Minister in this respect. All of us who have been members of the house for a number of years and, indeed, those with a shorter length of service, have received over the years many views on this subject, which is one of great interest to most Canadians. I know that in the more than 10 years I have been here I have collected a very large file with designs for a proposed Canadian flag. These designs are varied in nature, size, shape and colour. A great many of them are extremely abstract and are composed of red and green triangles, circles, rectangles and the like. I suspect that in some cases they are so subjective that they mean nothing to anybody except the designer. I am reinforced in this view, inasmuch as most of these odd looking designs are usually accompanied by a very careful explanation of what each triangle, circle, rectangle or square means.
Many representations have been made concerning a flag. There is one group in the country that feels that a distinctive Canadian flag-I am sure all of us agree our flag should be a distinctive one-should contain some symbols which-
4974	HOUSE OF
National Centennial Act The Chairman: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member will allow me to interrupt him to remind him that we seem to be straying from the subject matter of the resolution before the committee, which has to do with the amendment of the National Centennial Act.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With great respect, Your
Honour, as I read the resolution it calls for a reorganization of the national centennial administration, to be called the centennial commission, and provides for an additional number of members and for certain administrative changes. With great respect, I would think it would be very clear that one of the very important things the commission might do would be to recommend to the Prime Minister and the government a design for a national flag.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is certainly not part of the resolution.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member and I will let him go on, but perhaps I could mention to him that the subject matter of the resolution is not what the commission is going to do. This might have been discussed when the original legislation was before the house, but when we are considering amending legislation the discussion should be limited to the terms of the amending resolution or bill. I know that the discussion up to now has gone far beyond the bounds within which it should have been limited, but in any case I think it is my duty to bring this point to the attention of the hon. member and I hope he will take it into account.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With all respect to Your Honour, I would point out that the last part of the resolution contains these words: "and to provide further for certain administrative changes in connection therewith". It is not made clear at all what these changes are and therefore I thought that would give us considerable latitude in discussing the resolution. Certainly other hon. members have done so. However, I do not wish to make an issue of the matter and if Your Honour wishes I will discontinue my remarks and make them on another occasion.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry, but I did not hear the last remarks of the hon. member. Do I take it that is the end of his remarks?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It is my understanding that Your Honour was objecting to the line I was taking on this matter. I do not wish to make an issue of the matter with Your Honour and if it is your wish I will take my seat and make my remarks on another occasion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I feel badly about what has happened to the hon. member for Oxford, because I cannot find anything about the member for Port Arthur in the resolution and he was the subject of one of the very wide ranging speeches in this debate. It seems a pity that he should take precedence over the flag that we may have in 1967. I hope the hon. member for Oxford appreciates that he has some sympathy with regard to his intention and the remarks that he was making.
I wish to touch on only two matters in relation to the resolution. One is the intention of a group of young people in this country to focus attention at the time of the centennial on a youth parliament. I understand they have put their suggestion before the national centennial administration, as I suppose it is still called, and I thought it might be worth while to express the sympathy of our party toward this project and our hope that the minister will encourage Mr. John Fisher, who I understand is carrying out the liaison work in this matter, to do something about it. It certainly seems to me that the idea of having in this place in 1967 a meeting of our young people elected on some kind of basis that would allow for constitutional representation-


George Clyde Nowlan: If we reduce the voting age to 18 will that not accomplish the end?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings suggests that the reduction of the age to 18 will create a youth parliament here anyway.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: They will not be able to own any property.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I hate to think what the real parliament may be like in 1967. I am in favour of the centennial administration taking up the idea of a youth parliament or youth session of parliament and giving Ottawa the central focus among young people. I happen to have spent a great deal of time doing research on the year 1876 as it affected the United States. It was their centennial year and they did things up in a very large way. They had almost too much of an outburst of patriotism, and in that year activities of every kind ran riot in the United States. The field I happened to be interested in was sports and athletics. Here again the build-up was tremendous for every possible kind of sporting event, with some national championships involved in it. There were a great number of conferences held in which youth took part and in which sport was the centrepiece. I think the idea of the youth parliament in 1967 can be promoted and developed just as well as anything the Americans did in 1876.


Gilles Grégoire: You mean 1776.


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, 1876, which was their centennial. I have not lost a century, even though the hon. member for Lapointe obviously thinks I am a poor school teacher.
In view of the introduction of the minister, a relevant point seems to me that he told us the main reason for introducing these amendments was because of objections taken by the province of Quebec. I assume this is the reason why members such as the hon. member for Lapointe were allowed the latitude they were in dealing with the fact that Quebec had objections to this. I should like to take the opportunity offered by the hon. member for Lapointe and straighten out one thing for his own observation, as well as that of my hon. friends who have this obsession with Lili St. Cyr and Maurice Richard. I discovered some years ago that Lili St. Cyr was not a French Canadian. I think she was born in Waukegan, where I think Jack Benny comes from. She is rather statuesque, due to the cultural nature of her activities, and her reputation really came into full flower in the fine city of Montreal, where she adopted this name, I understand because it flavoured of Paris or Montreal. She developed in Montreal a great reputation for that particular art in which she specializes, and became widely known because her art had a certain popularity in much of the United States.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, I do not want any questions yet.


Gilles Grégoire: Just one question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The remarks which are being made by the hon. member for Port Arthur are, of course, very interesting, but I find it difficult to relate them to the resolution before the committee.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to point out that I was not the one who introduced Lili St. Cyr into this debate, but I feel I have every right to get the matter straightened out, because there is a printed record in Hansard. I find a tendency on the part of our very lovable French Canadian brethren, whenever they get exasperated to fly to such statements as: "The hon. member for Port Arthur said that the only culture in French Canada is Maurice Richard and Lili St Cyr". That is nonsense. I knew that Lili St. Cyr was not a French Canadian. I know a fair amount of what Maurice Richard has achieved; he is certainly the most exciting hockey player there ever was. But I never made any positive statement at all. All I did, in all innocence- and one thing I have discovered is that one should never approach a French Canadian audience with innocence-was to put the
National Centennial Act matter in the shape of a question. I asked: How do you expect the people in western Canada who have little contact with French Canadians to know anything about your culture? Then I asked: What do we know about your culture, except Maurice Richard or Lili St. Cyr-because they happened to be two names with a French Canadian connotation which might be known in western Canada. I said that, in order to underline the fact that the people of Quebec, the French Canadians, have done very little to tell us in the rest of the country about these marvellous painters, poets, historians, and all the rest of it, which they are supposed to have-and I do not doubt that they do have them. I have an ambition to be able to buy, if ever I can afford it, a de Tonnancourt painting to hang up over the mantlepiece. However, the argument I was trying to make at the time still holds good, and the hon. member proves it. As far as the majority of them are concerned, whenever they want to get their backs up they berate the English speaking Canadians for not knowing anything about them. They never let our part of the country know what these magical and wonderful facets of French Canada are.
After I made this statement, which was so torn out of context, a newspaper in Montreal sent a journalist up to see where this stupid fellow came from. This journalist came to Port Arthur and picked out the names of 25 French Canadians from our telephone directory. When I say French Canadian names, I mean common names like Robichaud, La-fontaine, Labelle, and so on, which fit into our picture. This man telephoned these 25 people one after the other and opened a conversation in French, and he was not able to find a single one who could reply to him in French. When I finally got to him this man was still suffering from shock. But he made two points to me. He said it was obvious that the French Canadians in my part of the country assimilate quickly. Second, he said it was obvious that French Canada or Quebec itself is not permeating or getting out into the rest of Canada. Thereafter he was much more sympathetic to the point I tried to make. This is the argument I should like to get home in this context.
The premier of Quebec has told the federal government that this National Centennial Act is not a satisfactory title, and has to be changed because of French Canadians' consciousness of history. I wish the premier of Quebec would get out into the rest of the country, instead of making demands, as are so many of my French Canadian colleagues here, and tell what are his objections. Why should he leave it up to the President of the Privy Council to make the sort of explanation
4976	HOUSE OF
National Centennial Act which led to the rebuttal we had yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition? I do not want to be put into an extremist position because I have already been attacked by one of the extremists, but I think it is about time we started to level on this question of the relationship between French Canadians and English Canadians.
I am a mountain of prejudice with regard to a great many things, but I think like most people in English speaking Canada think. 1 do not speak for them but I think like most of them. We want to know more. We want to co-operate, establish liaison and sympathize. But the way things are going now we seem to be continually trapped into keeping our mouths shut while these people go ahead and attack us. I do not feel, and most of the people in my part of the country do not feel, responsible for Maurice Duplessis and what may have developed in Quebec. We do not feel we are responsible for the fact that the premier of Quebec is at the present time objecting to this title and wants this petty little change. But we would like to know more about it. My argument is that the government, in this particular case the minister, has given us a pretty inadequate explanation of changes such as this. I think the minister should be prepared to recognize that it always seems to be a matter of the English speaking Canadians in a sense having to back down or retrench because of these very sensitive co-nationalists of ours.


Maurice Lamontagne: May I ask a question? Does the hon. member know that the correspondence exchanged on this issue was tabled in the house on June 27 and that the whole matter becomes very clear on reading that correspondence?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, I have checked the debate and read the reference to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did you read the letters?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes. My point in this regard is that here again we have to respond to the demands and to the requests of Quebec and of the French Canadians within this chamber. I think the matter should have been handled at an earlier time than this, and I do not like to see a government, and an administration which it has created, attacked on the basis on which it was attacked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. Yet this is the length to which we are constantly being driven by the attitude of our friends in French Canada and by the spinelessness, I guess it could be called, of English speaking Canadians. I should like to make the point that English speaking Canadians, if I understand them, are not bigoted, are not narrow and not antagonistic. But they have a very


difficult time understanding. I should like to suggest that some of those who are doing all the wailing about the mistreatment they have suffered in the past should take a good look at our history, because their interpretation of history is one of the most one-sided I have ever encountered. I should like them to look at the British North America Act closely. Let them look at section 133, for example. When they complain about the British North America Act not being followed, and the rights of Quebec being sidestepped, they should recognize that most of these sidesteps or end runs around the provisions of the act have been made with the agreement of the representatives of Quebec who sat in this chamber; that the representatives of the province of Quebec went along with them as far as provision for unemployment insurance and things of that kind are concerned. It is measures of this kind which constitute the major changes which have taken place. It was not a case of the English speaking politicians conniving in such a way as to leave the French Canadian politicians in ignorance of what they were doing. The Quebec representatives co-operated; they took part in reaching the decisions.
I sometimes wonder whether Laurier and St. Laurent were French Canadians when I hear the extreme opinions expressed by the hon. member for Lapointe. There were representatives from Quebec in this chamber and in its antecedents long before 1837 and the revolution. This piling up of the misdemeanours or wrongs committed, I suppose, by English speaking Canadians, these suggestions of interference with the arrangements of confederation in the course of some scheme practised upon French Canadians has, it seems to me, gone too far. I wanted to get this on the record particularly in view of the attack by the hon. member for Lapointe, who seemed to feel that any English speaking Canadian who expressed an opinion on a subject such as education was getting into a field which he should not enter. If this is so, why is it that these wonderfully pure constitutionalists from Quebec should for so long have accepted grants in relation to education, universities, technical training and so on?


Gilles Grégoire: I can tell you.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If the hon. member has the answer, I believe I know what it is. If they did these things, they were probably not being correct in doing so under the terms of the constitution.


Gilles Grégoire: It was because the federal government took all the money. That is the answer.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That might very well be. It is time we had a revamping of the constitution to meet the objections and ideas which people are putting forward. This could really be a wonderful centennial project. Maybe if it could be focused upon some kind of conference, we would really have a lively year in 1967. But I do not wish to leave this point without telling the hon. member for Lapointe, as far as constitutional changes may be concerned, that if he wants to hammer home the assertion that Quebec has a special status he should start by admitting that the people who live in the other provinces may also have a different conception of what the federal or national government should be, and if there is to be any solution to this it will not only be a case of the hon. member or his friends seeking to establish their point of view or their objectives, because other people will be seeking to establish theirs.


Gilles Grégoire: We do not object to that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member says he does not object to this. That is fine. I was under the impression that that is all he has done ever since he arrived in the house.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to stray so far from the matter before us. I can only reflect that your predecessor in the chair perhaps allowed us to stray too far from the terms of the resolution, and that none of us were zealous enough to try to get the speakers back on the subject.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question? The hon. member for Port Arthur said he and his friends have to stay put and shut up while we alone were talking on these subjects. What does he think about his own declaration that the province of Quebec should change its system of education? Does he think that this is the business of the members from other provinces?


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is certainly irrelevant to the matter now under discussion, but all I was doing the other day was saying that the brief showed that Quebec has problems in connection with its educational system, particularly with regard to the retention rate in schools. I should like to say to the hon. member that I do not divide my loyalties. I am not a citizen of Ontario at one moment and a Canadian at another. I happen to think that opportunities for young people in Quebec are just as important to me as opportunities for young people in Ontario. I even think that the trees and the rocks and the iron ore of Quebec belong to me just as the resources of the province of Ontario belong to the people of Quebec.
National Centennial Act This somewhat emotional answer is the only answer one can give to a question such as the hon. member asked.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I have allowed the hon. member to ask the question and I have also allowed the hon. member for Port Arthur to answer it. But I do feel we are ranging far and wide from the resolution which is now before the committee.


Maurice Lamontagne: I certainly do not intend to discuss the whole range of the subjects considered yesterday and today in this committee. I think many of these matters might best be discussed when the estimates of the centennial administration are before us.
When I spoke yesterday on this resolution I made a brief statement on what I thought were the nature and significance of the very simple amendments we proposed to the act. I assumed that members had already read the two versions of the present act and that they had also read and carefully studied the exchange of correspondence which was tabled in the house at the end of June.
However, the Leader of the Opposition chose to extend the scope of the debate far beyond the limited field of this resolution and in doing so he made several assertions which cannot go unchallenged. In the first place, he referred to the composition of the national conference on the centenary, which was made public at the beginning of October.
I want to remind hon. members that the act authorizing the creation of that conference was assented to on September 29, 1961. During the year and a half from September, 1961 to April, 1963, the previous government did not take any steps to set up the conference or to appoint its members. One year and a half of precious time was lost as a result of the indecision and confusion of the former government. It is true that appointments had been made in January, 1963, to the national centennial administration. However when we took office in April, there was practically no staff there, so the administration itself could not properly operate. Finally, the national committee of ministers had not met since the fall of 1961. This is the situation as it was back in April. This is an indication of how seriously the previous government approached the preparations for the centennial of confederation: An act had been passed by parliament, but practically nothing had been done to implement that act a year and a half later.
Now, I come to the composition of the national conference itself. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said that in appointing the members greater consideration had been given to political fitness and

National Centennial Act to patronage packing than to the great issues that face us. He added that the list of members was a who's who of Liberalism to the extent of about 75 per cent of the appointments. The right hon. gentleman should be the last in this house, it seems to me, to raise the issue of patronage in connection with appointments. But let us consider the assertion that about 75 per cent of the members of the national conference are Liberals. The conference is composed of 60 members, 20 of whom have been nominated by the provincial governments. This is one third of the members, so that the right hon. gentleman's claim that 75 per cent have been appointed by this government on a patronage basis becomes clearly untrue and unfair.
Let us look at the other members who have been directly appointed by the present government. In setting up the conference, we wanted to secure as wide a representation as possible by regions, ethnic groups, municipalities, artistic movements, university and professional groups and the population in general. I readily recognize that there are known Liberals amongst the members of the conference, but there are also active members of other political parties. I am one of those who believe that prominent Canadian citizens should not be denied the opportunity of serving their country just because they are active in the Liberal party. I resented more particularly the reference made by the Leader of the Opposition to two of our most eminent judges, Mr. Justice Michaud and Mr. Justice Monnin, who played a very active role in their respective communities in New Brunswick and in Manitoba.
We wanted to have a broadly based representation on the conference from the mass media. Here are some of the names of the representatives of that most important field of activity so directly related to the preparations for the centennial.
Mr. Donald Jamieson, president of the Canadian association of private broadcasting.
Mr. A. F. Mercier, president of the Canadian Press and general manager of Le Soleil.
Mrs. David Anderson, editor of a leading Canadian women's magazine, Chatelaine.
Mr. Jacques Brillant, president of radio and television stations CJBR.
Mr. T. Horton, mayor of Yellowknife and editor of News of the North.
Dr. Pierre Jobin, president of L'Action Sociale Ltee de Quebec and professor at Laval University.
Mr. Frank Glogowski, president of the ethnic press club and editor of The Alliancer.
Mr. Fred McGuiness, publisher of the Medicine Hat News and one of the most active organizers of the Saskatchewan jubilee.

Mme. Jeanne Sauve, a well known television commentator and a very active member of the artistic community in Montreal.
Reverend Keith Woollard, television editor, United Church of Canada.
Mr. Mavor Moore, a well known television personality and art director in charge of the celebration in Charlottetown to commemorate the 1864 conference.
Mr. Baxter Ricard, owner of a radio station in Sudbury.
We have there 12 members representing the mass communication media. Where is the 75 per cent of patronage packing? Will the Leader of the Opposition deny that these 12 Canadian citizens will very effectively and very adequately represent this most important field of the mass communication media? What names would he recommend that we should delete from the list?
We also wanted to have a good representation from the professional groups. What are the names of these representatives?
Mr. Claude Jodoin, president of the Canadian Labour Congress.
Mr. David Kirk, secretary of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Mr. Don Morrell, general manager of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. D. M. Thompson, secretary of the Royal Canadian Legion.
Mr. Ralph Steinhouer, member of the Alberta farmers union and former president of the association of Alberta Indians. Again, I ask, where is the 75 per cent of patronage packing? Will the Leader of the Opposition deny that these five members will very effectively and very adequately represent our most important professional groups?
Then, we felt that in addition to provincial representatives it was essential to have representation also from the territories and municipalities. What are the names of these representatives?
Mr. Horace Boivin, former president of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities and mayor of Granby.
Mayor S. L. Buckwold, former president of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities.
Mr. Gordon Cameron, commissioner of the Yukon Territory.
Mr. Maurice Finnerty, mayor of Penticton.
Mr. Harry Viner, one of Canada's most colourful mayors.
Mr. Richard Wilson, mayor of Victoria.
Finally, we also wanted representation from the universities, artistic movements, cultural groups and from the population in general. What are the names of these representatives?
Mrs. H. F. Angus, wife of H. F. Angus, dean of faculty of graduate studies at the

University of British Columbia. She was also nominated for the position of chancellor at University of British Columbia two years ago.
Mrs. Austin Brownell, member of the board of governors, Acadia University.
Mrs. Saul Hayes, past president of the National Council of Women and wife of the executive vice president of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
Mr. Norman A. Hesler, chairman of the regents of Mount Allison University.
Mr. W. A. Johnston, president of the Winnipeg art gallery.
Dr. J. F. Leddy, vice president of the University of Saskatchewan.
Mrs. Lloyd J. Lewis, widow of Judge Lloyd J. Lewis.
Father Malcolm Macdonnell, professor of history, St. Francis Xavier University.
Professor John Meisel, professor of political science, Queen's University.
Judge J. Michaud, eminent jurist and Acadian.
Hon. Roland Michener, former speaker of the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A well known Liberal.


Maurice Lamontagne: Judge Alfred Monnin, president of the Winnipeg symphony orchestra, final festival chairman of the dominion drama festival.
Mr. Frank Pagotto, businessman from Montreal, of Italian origin.
Mrs. E. S. Russenholt, who among other things was chairman of the women's branch, Canadian institute of national affairs, chairman of the national radio awards committee for public affairs, free-lance broadcaster, and a member of the national advisory board of the Canadian association for adult education.
Again I ask the Leader of the Opposition, where is the 75 per cent patronage? I would like very much to get an answer from him, and I would also like to see some justification made of the accusations levelled against me, which were also a most unfair reflection on the eminent citizens who have so generously accepted to serve their country through the national conference on the centennial.
Such an unfair reflection will certainly not contribute to bringing together, as the Leader of the Opposition hopes, all parts of this country in a unity of dedication.
I should now like to deal with the other major point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He claims that 1867 marked the birth of our nation and that in that year colonies by the sea such as-I quote more or less from Hansard-Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick joined together as a nation. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten
National Centennial Act the history of his country. If I am not mistaken Prince Edward Island joined confederation in 1873, not in 1867, and Newfoundland came to the same decision in 1949, not in 1867.


An hon. Member:: Small potatoes.


Maurice Lamontagne: Look at Hansard. This is another example of the accuracy of statements made by the right hon. gentleman.
It seems to me that whether we would like to do it or not, we cannot change the facts of our history. It is quite clear to me, as it should be to the right hon. gentleman, that our nation and Canada existed before 1867. What did happen in 1867? United Canada and two other separate British colonies joined together in a confederation to form a single British colony, which became sovereign in fact much later in the present century. Thus, the only event we will celebrate, strictly speaking, in 1967 is the centennial of confederation.
We certainly do not want to downgrade Canada, as some hon. members claim, but I maintain that to state that Canada existed before 1867, that our nation was born before 1867, is not to downgrade Canada or our nation. It is merely a statement of fact to say that, in the strict meaning of our history, we will celebrate in 1967 the centennial of the Canadian federation, and we should all be proud to celebrate together this most important historic event.

I should like now to add a few words on the precise character of the resolution, as well as on the usefulness of the bill which will follow.
I should like in the first place to refer to the gist of the debate which went on between the former prime minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the premier of Quebec in October, 1961.
It must be pointed out that the English version of the present legislation, in the wording it uses, does not agree at all with the French version. When the Leader of the Opposition became aware of that mistake, in my opinion, he should have taken at once the necessary means to bring about the changes in the other official version of the legislation.
To show you very specifically the differences between the two versions, I would like to take, as an example, the official name of the administration. The English version reads: "National Centennial Administration"; this should have been translated: "Administration nationale du centenaire". In the official French version, it was translated by "Administration du centenaire de la nation", which is not at all the same thing.

National Centennial Act It is in part because of this rather significant mistake from an historical standpoint that the Hon. Mr. Lesage, following a letter from the former prime minister of Canada, replied on October 19, 1961 as follows-in my opinion, this letter should be recorded in Hansard, since very few hon. members, it seems, have read it. I quote:
My dear Prime Minister,
I hope you will excuse my delay in answering your letter of October 4. I have recently been away on a trip to Europe and, especially, to Paris for the opening of Quebec House.
No doubt will you be inclined to excuse that delay in view of the much more striking one which seems to have occurred. I refer to the fact that, in your letter, you are asking me to appoint two delegates to a "national conference on the centennial of Canada". I think that centennial could have been celebrated either in 1634, a hundred years after Jacques Cartier, or at the very beginning of the eighteenth century, a hundred years after Champlain, whose glorious achievements cannot be brushed aside off-handedly by a mere stroke of the pen.
Your act is aptly entitled "An act respecting the observance of the centennial of confederation in Canada", but that title is inconsistent with section 3, which refers to the "national centennial", and section 17, which refers to "Canada's centennial".
I do not feel I can take it upon myself to let such an ambiguity remain nor do I dare ask my colleagues of the executive council right away to assist me in appointing two persons to represent the province of Quebec at the "national conference on the centennial", for fear of sanctioning something which French Canadians have too much pride to accept, let alone the fact that it would compel their political representatives to take, for the sake of dignity, a stand not in keeping with their true feelings of friendship and their desire to co-operate.
I rely on your sense of justice, my dear Prime Minister, to admit that Canadian history did not begin in 1867 and that to say otherwise is seriously prejudicial to French speaking and English speaking Canadians whose forefathers founded this country long before confederation.
Awaiting your official letter asking the Quebec government to appoint two representatives to the national conference on the centennial, I remain, my dear Prime Minister,
Yours truly.
That letter was dated October 1961, and since the reply of the former prime minister of Canada was not satisfactory, Mr. Lesage renewed his request on May 2, 1963. This time, he wrote to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). This letter has already been tabled in the house and I do not intend to read it again. I should like, however, to put on record the letter that the present Prime Minister sent to Mr. Lesage on June 7, 1963. Here it is:
My dear Premier,
In the last few days, X had the opportunity to look more fully into the objections you raised in your letter of May 2 regarding certain expressions used in the Centennial of Confederation Act. Those objections seem justified to me.

As early as possible in the course of this session, we will introduce amendments to certain sections of the act so as to bring them in line with the general title and historical facts.
I hope that, following those changes, the Quebec government will be able to participate in the celebration of the centenary of confederation and to take the necessary steps in that connection.
Later on, when the Quebec legislature was considering a bill concerning the celebration of the centenary, the two major political leaders, Hon. Jean Lesage and the leader of the opposition, Mr. Daniel Johnson, both agreed that the provincial legislation should not be enacted until the federal act was amended as I have just indicated.
I believe that the problem raised by this resolution is very simple. First of all, I am not the one who delivered the ultimatum, and I think that in this particular case, it is an absolutely justified request, because it agrees perfectly with historical facts.
In my opinion, the problem which we are facing as members of this parliament is very simple. Either we rectify the obvious historical mistakes, which have crept more particularly in the French wording of the present legislation, or, as the leaders of the two main political parties of the province of Quebec have stated, the latter, through the will of the legislature, will refuse to participate in the celebration of the centenary.
Several members of the official opposition have expressed their desire to satisfy the justified grievances of the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, I heard the whip of the official opposition say something to that effect this afternoon.
In my opinion, the resolution under consideration aims precisely at settling such a grievance. And the time has come, I feel, as much for them as for us all, to put right an obvious wrong, to refrain from needlessly increasing the tensions that exist in our country today and to get ready, all together, to celebrate the centennial of Canada's confederation.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks shall be brief, but 1 should like to set some facts straight on matters discussed by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) and at the same time, set the historic facts in their true context.
The purpose of this resolution, to change the present title of the act to the "Centennial of Confederation Act", is quite justified.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lamontagne) did quite a good job of shedding light on facts concerning the observance of the centennial of confederation which, I think, will be one more step towards the future of this fine and great country of ours.

Sometimes, facts have to be set straight on the basis of history. It might be a good thing to simplify some observations when we talk about celebrating a centennial.
It is said sometimes that 50 years in the lifetime of a happy couple is a short period. We could also say that 100 years of confederative life, in the lifetime of the Canadian people, is in fact only one period because Canada existed before the 1867 confederation. Indeed, it is somewhat like when people prepare to celebrate a 25th wedding anniversary, the husband being 50 and the wife only 40. It does not mean that they will celebrate the wife's 40th birthday or the husband's 50th birthday, but rather their 25th wedding anniversary.
Mr. Chairman, when we consider that confederation which united in this Canada of ours a country with the greatest future, the two great races which served as its basis, I think it would be proper for several of us to recall the discussions held at that time to justify that fusion, that union of the two great races which gave birth to Canada as we know it today.
Something was said about the Charlottetown conference; and something also about the Quebec conference, held in 1864.
When the project for the creation of a Canada with a great future was introduced to the legislators of that time, we must admit that it was a marriage between two great races which were anxious to protect themselves against invasion and assimilation dangers coming from a powerful neighbouring country which had already shown certain aspirations with regard to the British colony that was Canada at the time.
Like in all marriages, there are sometimes some little disagreements, but this does not mean that we are going to divorce. I am convinced that with the good will of our English speaking fellow citizens and of those who believe in the future of our country, we shall celebrate the centennial of confederation in a grand way.
Celebrate the centennial of confederation. I find that those words are appropriate. Unfortunately, in the course of a debate such as this, certain expressions are used at times which show more partisanship than a genuine wish to see this centennial take place in cheerfulness. All those who are nationally minded enough realize the importance, the greatness and the beauty of our country and actually look forward to a revision of the constitution whereby the wrongs and the mistakes which have slipped into the British North America Act would be corrected.
I noted earlier that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce was reading from newspapers
National Centennial Act which reported certain statements made recently by an eminent Canadian politician who even referred to military service, among other things.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce that he could also have recalled to all legislators in this house the stand taken by Hon. Ernest Lapointe in 1940 or 1941 or by Camilien Houde, who was a member of the same party as the hon. member.
I think the man who made the statements reported in those newspapers has the right to be treated fairly and that those statements should not be recalled to arise political passions, to revive old feuds between men of good will who would like nothing better than reach an understanding to make of the centennial of confederation another step toward unity and understanding in this great and beautiful country of ours.
The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) seemed deeply hurt by the remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) last night about the education system in the province of Quebec. He maintained and deeply regretted, after having revised some of his statements that then, in the west the province of Quebec and French Canadians were unknown, except for our hockey star, Maurice Richard, or Lili St. Cyr.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for Port Arthur the struggles carried on for French survival in the western provinces and for the establishment of a French radio station in Alberta. I think that we could also point out the more recent struggle by our fellow citizens of British Columbia in connection with the schools in Maillardville.
The hon. member for Port Arthur could also remember that French Canadians live throughout the country and that they wish to be in good terms with everyone, so that Canada may become the country with the most brilliant future.
On the other hand, I think that this resolution is in keeping with the historical facts of our country. We are really celebrating the centennial of confederation and not the centennial of the nation. If the wrong interpretation given to this legislation in English as well as in French, is due to a translation mistake-this is what I hope-I think that we have the opportunity by approving this resolution of giving it its true interpretation.
We should adopt the bill which will be introduced and not play politics or launch a fight among the various ethnic groups of our country. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) referred yesterday, and rightly so, to the cultures which were brought in our country by other groups. I think that

National Centennial Act we have readily endeavoured to encourage these ethnic groups to adjust themselves, especially in the province of Quebec. I know what I am talking about when I say that there can be found in Montreal ethnic groups from various European countries. I think they felt at home in the province of Quebec.
I am sure that other new Canadians found a similar welcome in the other provinces.
Once again, I say that the question of racial culture should not be raised to recall events, unfortunate no doubt, that may have taken place. We must rather look toward the future of our country and prepare the centennial celebrations. I am convinced that with the co-operation of all men of good will and, as the President of the Privy Council said, by increasing the number of directors on the centennial commission, we may expect for 1967 greater celebrations than for a fiftieth anniversary. When a couple celebrates their golden wedding anniversary, people often say that they have little time left to live.
On the occasion of the centenary of confederation, we foresee that our country will set an example to the world and that its legislators will succeed in guaranteeing to their constituents not only freedom and security but also countless opportunities.
In this country which has not only vast natural resources but a variety of cultures, we will succeed in establishing a Canadian spirit of which we will all be proud.
[Text1


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have already spoken in this debate so my remarks at this point will be very brief. In fact, my purpose in rising is to move a one word amendment to the resolution now before us. The amendment I am seeking is in order under the provisions of the appropriate citation which provides that money resolutions can be amended if the amendment comes within the framework of the resolution. I believe also that the amendment meets the points that have been made by the President of the Privy Council and at the same time it will put into the short title a word which I think all of us would like to have there.
I may say before I move the amendment that I thought it was unfortunate that the President of the Privy Council did not make yesterday the explanation that he made today. Some of the debate we have had might have been unnecessary. I am sure he will agree with me that it would be desirable in the short title to recognize that it is the Canadian confederation we will be celebrating when we observe our centennial in 1967. So, Mr. Chairman, since this has been gone over and it does not need to be spelled out at greater length, I
[Mi\ Perron.]
simply rise to offer this amendment. Amendments in committee do not require a seconder but my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster, would like to be associated with this amendment. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster:
That the resolution be amended by Inserting therein, immediately after the words "the Centennial of", the word "Canadian".
Hon. members will see that this will make the short title read, "the Centennial of Canadian Confederation Act". I ask the President of the Privy Council to recognize the fact that this does not deny the existence of a Canada and of Canadians prior to 1867, but I ask us all to recognize that confederation as we know it did take place on July 1, 1867. It was on that date that the Canadian confederation became a reality. Let us be proud of it and let us say in the short title of the act that what we are celebrating is the centennial of Canadian confederation.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, we certainly have no objection to the amendment and we will see to it that the bill will reflect the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the resolution-


Stanley Howard Knowles: As amended.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As amended-in reply really to the remarks of the President of the Privy Council. First of all, I do not think that in meeting the charges of the Leader of the Opposition he was impressive in reading out that list, because as we listened to the list we wondered whether the percentage figure given by the Leader of the Opposition was too conservative. I am not quarrelling about that so much as the fact that the President of the Privy Council in his remarks made it very clear that the act was really being amended for one reason only, because there was an ultimatum served by Premier Lesage of Quebec.
On this particular subject of the ultimatum as to the title I do not think it is a serious enough matter on which to start a quarrel, but in the celebration of our birthday I think it is a great pity that the word "ultimatum" has to be used. Surely in this day and age of political thinking we have enough experience and judgment that we can resolve all these matters without the use of the word "ultimatum". As the hon. member spoke I wondered whether this ultimatum included the world fair in Montreal. If the house decides not to play in this little game of quibbling about the title, does that mean that Quebec

will cease to participate in the world fair? These are questions in our minds.
My point in rising, Mr. Chairman, is simply to express the distaste which we feel, not only at this subterfuge of bringing in patronage-that is a small issue and we can override that-but at the fact that we are amending the act because of an ultimatum.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question. Does the hon. gentleman not think that all this difficulty and the need for this whole measure could have been avoided had the right hon. gentleman, who was prime minister when the original legislation was enacted previously, consulted all the provinces, as his party is' constantly admonishing us to consult, before they brought in this legislation? Then there would have been no difficulty about having a French version and an English version which meant something different, and we would not have had to take all this time. Surely we should all be glad to correct this little problem in semantics and get on with the important business of the house.


Mr. Vincent:: That was the work of the opposition in 1961.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Secretary of State, by rushing into this short debate in order to ask this question, remembers not that this matter was the subject of discussion for months before the act was passed in this house. Why did he not bring this matter up then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because your party was the government.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There was all sorts of time to consult the provinces. I am making the point that it was the President of the Privy Council who a few moments ago said that the reason for these amendments was primarily because of an ultimatum from Premier Lesage; and I am making the point that the matter is too small to start a fight over-I agree with the Secretary of State there. I am saying that I have a feeling of distaste as a Canadian because this house has to do something by virtue of an ultimatum. I do not think the use of the word "ultimatum" is the way to correct errors.
I was one who many years ago during the war, when I found so many of my comrades overseas so unaware of the reason for the position they were in, in the lonely hours raised the question over and over again: What is it all about? As an older person knowing a little about the history of the country I took it upon myself in the tents to explain as best I could what it was all about. I know many others who knew a little about our story, did the same. History is the story of mankind and institutions. You cannot move
National Centennial Act forward in history and achieve the fulfilment of your destiny without knowing your background.
We formed ourselves into a federal state in 1867 for better or worse. We are one nation now and this is our 100th birthday coming up. Many of us thought that if many of these men serving their country overseas did not know our story, what a failure there had been in Canada to tell the young people the story of their country going back to the days of the Indians and Eskimos. Do not stop at French Canada; go back to the very beginning. We knew our educational system had failed us, and one of the ways we thought we could put these ideas forward and make Canadians conscious once again of that story was to use the birthday celebrations of 1867. We should tell the story during the intervening years leading up to 1867. This was to be rededication of Canadian people to the great principles which brought people to this continent and enabled them to go through the pioneering and suffering they went through to build this nation. This was a contribution made by many people.
I had hoped at this time that we would be well on the way with our centennial celebrations. To me our centennial was not just a question of building buildings and holding fairs. To me the primary purpose was to educate the people of Canada, not only the million people who have come to our shores during the last 18 years, but the two or three generations who have been educated in our new system of education, where they learn little history. Let us turn back the clock a little and open up the pages of history showing what men in this country endured. This is the purpose of our centenary.
We will not quarrel with the government over the title. We will not quarrel with them over the type of people the appoint. I am sure they are all good people. But some would have liked to see the acceptance of the fact that maybe a few of them should have been from other parties than the Liberal party, that is all. We ask the government and the centennial staff to remember that their primary job is to tell all the Canadian people the story of what has happened in this country, the story of the men who went across the country, and the men who came after and developed it. This is a story which will bring pride to us all. I personally am proud to live in a country which has two legal languages. When I go abroad I am proud to say that in my country two colonial groups from two parent powers in Europe united to form one country and to welcome all other people.
I am proud to say that, and I want every other Canadian to know this story.

Admiralty Act
This is why I rise in this debate, to say that I do hope we will not have to continue the federal system by continually giving way to ultimatums. I think as a matter of principle there should be a co-operative approach. I think this approach could have been achieved, and I feel very unhappy at this moment that we have to accept today these amendments to this act. But in accepting them, and feeling unhappy as I do, I hope the government will not fail to carry out the primary function of this birthday celebration, but will use the years and the months which remain to build up in Canada a knowledge of what has gone into the country, so that we can dedicate ourselves to the principle more successfully to carry out the future before us.
Resolution as amended reported and concurred in.
Mr. Lamoniagne thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-107, to amend the National Centennial Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the next item is called, so that there would be no misunderstanding, I wonder if it could be understood that the bill which has just been given first reading, and which is in fact already printed, I believe, could be presented in the form in which it was printed so as to enable us to get on with the work tomorrow, and that the corrections consequent upon the resolution could be deemed to be made in the bill, so that it is regularized and the matter thereby not held over for another day?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the suggestion made by the Secretary of State will be acceptable, unless it is possible to print the bill overnight. My friends over at the printing bureau work fast and I am sure they could do it if necessary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it is possible, it will be done, but I should like to be doubly sure we do not have a lot of difficulty about a technical point tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the said bill be read a second time? Next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ADMIRALTY ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution.
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Admiralty Act to permit the governor in council to authorize the payment of a salary not
[Mr. Hamilton.)
exceeding four hundred dollars per annum to a surrogate judge in admiralty and a salary not exceeding three hundred dollars per annum to a registrar in admiralty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: The purpose of this resolution is to make provision for the emoluments and remuneration of a number of administrative officers who are responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Admiralty Act. I may say briefly to the committee that the subject of navigation and shipping has, under the British North America Act, been made the responsibility of the parliament of Canada and pursuant to this responsibility the parliament of Canada has enacted the Admiralty Act. In so doing it set up as the court responsible for admiralty proceedings the Exchequer Court of Canada and by the same statute it divided the country into eight admiralty districts coextensive with the eight Canadian provinces which have a salt water coast line. Courts have been set up in each province for this purpose and as a matter of practice the administrative officials responsible for the functioning of the courts have commonly been employees of the provincial governments of the provinces. The two particular positions referred to in this resolution, that of surrogate judge and registrar, while provided for in the Admiralty Act were positions for which no remuneration was provided.
It has been found difficult in recent years, due to the low tariff and the comparative paucity of business, to provide through the fees sufficient remuneration to pay to these officials not only a return for the time and thought involved in the performance of these duties but even the actual cost of maintaining the admiralty records. The practice heretofore has been for the registrar and the surrogate judge to retain for themselves the fees received in accordance with the general tariff and the rules and orders under the Admiralty Act. The purpose of the bill proposed in this resolution is to permit the governor in council to authorize the payment of a salary to each surrogate judge in admiralty and each registrar in admiralty, respectively, of $400 and $300 per annum. In other words, the officials will be paid these emoluments; and the fees in question, which hitherto have been their emoluments, will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. My information is that this resolution is in substantially the same form as that in which it appeared on the order paper last year.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Chevrier) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-108, to amend the Admiralty Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the house would be disposed to consider going through the other stages of this important measure so that we could give something to the other place to do? The explanation given by my hon. friend from Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) will, I am sure, have convinced everyone-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Secretary of State does not take up all the time until six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Salary of surrogate judge and registrar.
Mr. Aiken:: I do not wish to delay the proceedings but there is one matter which occurred to me on the resolution and it oc-currs to me again, now that I see clause 1 of the bill. The bill appears to authorize only one salary of $400 to a surrogate judge and $300 to a registrar. I am asking the minister whether it is clear that this could affect any surrogate judge and any registrar. From the way it appears here, it would seem that only one surrogate judge and one registrar would be entitled to a salary, and this is the way the resolution read. Is the minister satisfied that these provisions will cover any surrogate judge and any registrar? I should like to know how many are involved.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The real purpose is to cover the registrar and the surrogate judge in the admiralty district of Ontario. These positions have been held by an officer of the supreme court of Ontario as registrar and by the senior master of the supreme court of Ontario as the surrogate judge. Due to the situation in the Ontario courts, this has been the area in which there has been difficulty in getting people to continue this operation. It is for this specific purpose that the bill has been brought forward.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Do I understand that this affects only one surrogate judge and one registrar?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Does the bill change the situation with respect to fees, or will the officials receive the fees in addition to the small salaries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The second subsection of the proposed new section 14A indicates that the emoluments provided in subsection 1 shall be in lieu of the fees which have hitherto
Business of the House
gone to the two officials concerned. As provided by subsection 2, if they receive remuneration those fees will go into the consolidated revenue fund.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I hope the judge and registrar are satisfied with this very large emolument they are now receiving.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I inform the hon. member that while this may not seem like a princely sum, it will meet their requirements.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: While this measure seems to apply to only one judge, I notice that in the explanatory note there is a reference in the plural to admiralty districts, surrogate district registrars, admiralty judges and so on.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I agree with the hon. member that the plural is used in the explanatory note, but my understanding is that the measure is only intended to apply to the province of Ontario.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Next sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if the acting leader of the house would give us the business for tomorrow and possibly Friday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not realize that the hon. gentleman was suffering from blindness. I think we would just take the third reading, and I would hope there would be no great time taken with it, of this important measure that the house was good enough to carry so far today, the Admiralty Act. Then, we would take the second reading and the other stages, if possible, of the bill that was given first reading just before this one, respecting the Canadian centennial. After that, we would like to take the three resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of Transport in the order in which they were indicated yesterday by the Solicitor General.
In so far as estimates are concerned, it is not proposed-I may say I have discussed this through the usual channels-by the government to take any government legislation beyond five o'clock tomorrow. Tomorrow evening in committee of supply, the understanding is we would continue with the estimates of the hon. lady, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When they have been completed, we would hope to conclude also the estimates of the Department of Public Works. On Friday-

Business of the House Mr. Knowles: That is a change from the Department of Labour, is it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I indicated to the hon. gentleman it was only if the Minister of Labour was available, and he is afraid he cannot be. On Friday, we intend to go into supply as soon as the orders of the day are reached and begin with the estimates of the Minister of Industry, and all the various departments and agencies for which he is
responsible. When they have been completed we will resume consideration of the estimates of northern affairs, and when they have been concluded we will resume consideration of the estimates of Mines and Technical Surveys. I believe the Minister of Fisheries will also be available to complete his estimates before 10.30.


[Stage Direction]
It being seven minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 21, 1963