1964-11-27

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
20220-648i

[Stage Direction]
queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1964
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 19, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer a certificate of the election and return of Max Saltsman, Esquire, for the electoral district of Waterloo South.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Max Saltsman, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Waterloo South, introduced by Mr. T. C. Douglas and Mr. Reid Scott.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure all members will agree with me that it is a proper question of privilege.
Lawrence Gibson of Carbon, Alberta, in the constituency of Bow River has just been named world wheat king at the age of 19. May I say that in the last ten years we in Alberta have made what amounts to almost a clean sweep of world records for No. 1 wheat: 1955, Robert Cochrane, Grande Prairie; 1956, William Deurloo, Granum; 1958; Miss Gail Adams, Drumheller; 1959, Douglas J. Mackintosh, Granum; 1961, Ralph Eardman, Lethbridge; 1962, F. W. Howarth, Taber; 1963, George Luco, Lethbridge; and this year Larry Gibson, Carbon.
I think this is a good advertisement for the great product of Canada, wheat, which has brought prosperity to this country.



MR. KINDT-WINNER OF WORLD FLAX CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I also have an honour to perform. It is in connection with Mr. Harold Hansen who won the world flax championship at the Toronto Royal and who lives at Ensign in the Macleod riding.



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. H. Pit Lessard (for Mr. Asselin, Notre Dame de Grace) moved: that the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Tuesday, November 17, 1964, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he tell us why the government allows the national film board, an agency financed with the Canadian taxpayers' money, to have its films dubbed in France, thus depriving Canadian artists of needed and quite important revenue?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire to find out if the hon. member's statement is founded and will answer his question later.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the Secretary of State to a speech made by Mr. Duceppe yesterday in which he gave a lot of details?



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding the location of a grain elevator site on the north shore of Burrard inlet, which will involve the moving of some five industries located there. I would ask the minister, because of its pressing nature and the existence of a deadline, two things; first, whether he would be prepared to table the report of the national

Inquiries of the Ministry harbours board on the various locations that were studied, and second, whether he would ask the national harbours board to hear representations from interested persons before any final decision is made.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be any problem in acceding to the second request right away. I will ask the chairman of the national harbours board to receive anyone who has any proper representation to make; I will be very glad to do that. As to the first request, I think the hon. member will realize that I would have to look into that matter before I could give a reply. I do not think I will be able to give a reply until Monday, because I would like to talk to the chairman of the board and I believe he is in Vancouver.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INQUIRY AS TO PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, we shall have the opportunity to answer questions of that kind later on in the day.']
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet concluded the very careful consideration that he is giving to grain elevators.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Almost, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether he has any plans for the over-all port development of Prince Rupert, inasmuch as we can only get the consideration of the Minister of Agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not any right in my head, but I could perhaps make some in half an hour if the hon. gentleman would come and see me.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he confirm or deny the report from Brazil to the effect that Canada has asked to join the O.A.S.?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am in order in commenting on newspaper reports at this time, but if the report referred to by my hon. friend is the same as the one I read it has no foundation in fact.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Even if, as he says, this report has no foundation, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the government intends to approach the American states or Brazil to this end?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend knows that this is a matter which has been under consideration for a considerable time and is under consideration at present.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on a report in this morning's Le Devoir to the effect that the special envoy of the Canadian government, Mr. Robert Thompson, has now left Addis Ababa for Paris without apparently being able to effect the release of the Canadian hostages held in the Congo. It is further reported that Emperor Haile Selassie has expressed his uneasiness with regard to the condition of the hostages, and I ask the minister whether he has any report to make to the house.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: This, of course, is a matter I could deal with later today, Mr. Speaker, but I should say that the United States government has expressed gratitude for the efforts of the hon. gentleman in question.


Colin Cameron: As a supplementary question, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether the Canadian government has received any information with regard to the safety of these hostages, so that the Canadian government may be equally grateful?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is equally grateful; and I must say that the situation in Stanleyville, as my hon. friend knows, is of the

greatest seriousness involving many hundreds of people, including 38 Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
We have noticed for quite a while the absence in the house of the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Could the minister tell us what success his second representative in Africa, the Minister without Portfolio, has achieved?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we shall have the opportunity to answer questions of that kind later on in the day.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry, who is responsible for agriculture in eastern Canada.
Can he tell us if he has received requests for assistance from farmers or municipal councils so as to compensate for losses incurred through bad weather this year?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. As it concerns the Minister of Agriculture I shall ask the latter to reply to it.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question I may say that requests for assistance were received from municipal councils on behalf of farmers who suffered crop losses as a result of weather conditions. They were advised that they should make their representations to the provincial authorities, since the responsibility for providing emergency assistance of this nature rests with the provincial governments. They were also advised that the federal government was prepared to reimburse the provincial government for part of the cost of any
Inquiries of the Ministry approved assistance programs established by the province to assist these producers.
Early this fall my department entered into an agreement with the government of the province of Quebec to pay half the cost of the freight assistance program established by the province to assist farmers in securing necessary fodder supplies.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Forestry a supplementary question.
Can he tell us whether the experiments made this summer by the Weather Engineering Corporation in Abitibi were carried out under the ARDA program?


Maurice Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question following the answer of the Minister of Agriculture. The minister stated that he had communicated with the government of the province of Quebec. Could he also state whether he has communicated with the provincial government of Ontario regarding special assistance needed by farmers in the Ottawa valley?


Harry William Hays: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it was on August 14, and supplies are now being purchased for these farmers.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry.
Would the minister have an inquiry made on damages done to crops and farmers in the Abitibi and Saguenay-Lake St. John areas through cloud seeding?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, this problem does not come within my jurisdiction.



QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATION OF ARDA PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. In view of the fact that the minister is about to meet with the provincial ministers responsible for the ARDA program in their respective provinces, in order to discuss the renewal of the agreement concerning that program, does the government intend to enlarge the scope of that

Inquiries of the Ministry act so it may participate in a wider variety of projects than at present?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, it will not be necessary to amend the act in order to achieve the objective suggested by the hon. member for Charlevoix.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: fTranslation]
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Can the minister tell us if there will be repercussions in the Canadian national defence following the statement made yesterday by the United States secretary for defence that 95 American military bases will be closed down?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I do not think it would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to comment on the announcement made in Washington until we have the details here, which we would expect to receive fairly shortly. As far as I know there are no changes proposed which would have a direct effect.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to that asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) about the decision of the U.S. government to close some military bases.
Has the U.S. government advised Canada that they wished to close some military bases which they now have in our country?
We would like, of course, to obtain an accurate answer in order to know if it is true that the United States will put an end to such activities in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, must the Secretary of State for External Affairs prompt the Minister of National Defence with an answer?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has suggested that I take the question as notice for him.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with reference to the answer given by the

Minister of National Defence. I put my question to the Prime Minister. The Minister of National Defence received a question as notice on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is this an indication of a further cut-back in the Department of National Defence, and are we finally going to have only one minister for the department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid if there are any cut-backs they will be in the ranks of the opposition.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received a telegram from the president of the board of trade of Pictou regarding unemployment in the local shipyard as a result of the recent lay-offs. The minister will recall that a couple of weeks ago I drew to his attention the telegram sent by the union. I should like to ask him whether he has had any success in having any naval refit work placed with this yard.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the telegram to which the hon. member refers drawn to my attention, but I will be glad to check and find out whether it has been received. I can assure him, however, that we in the Department of Defence Production are seeking ways and means of finding additional work for the Pictou shipyards.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he will indicate to the house why he advised the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to have the portraits of the Queen removed from the citizenship courts.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the assertion made by the hon. member is completely without foundation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question. Does the Secretary of State accept

Inquiries of the Ministry responsibility for the advice given by the and consideration has been given to this mat-under secretary of state to the Minister of ter by the Secretary of State for External Citizenship and Immigration as disclosed in Affairs and myself, the directive tabled yesterday by that
minister?	FINANCE


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I was informed by the deputy registrar general that he had given a personal opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wish we could get to the root of this matter. May I ask the Secretary of State whether he disclaims all authority for this statement which appears in the document tabled yesterday by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration:
I have now received advice from the undersecretary of state which allows direction for a uniform procedure as follows:
(a)	The coat of arms of Canada should be located on the curtain backdrop behind the judge's dais in the court room.
(b)	The Queen's picture should be displayed in the judge's chambers in order that applicants may see it when being interviewed at the hearing.
I ask the Secretary of State whether that is not the advice tendered by his under secretary, and does he not accept responsibility for the same?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
In view of the point raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative party in this house, could the Secretary of State provide for additional copies of the Queen's portrait, in order to give them some, since it seems to be their wish?


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question on this subject, and I direct it to the Prime Minister. Now that the government has adopted the practice of giving special assignments to hon. members on the opposition side of the house, and in view of the particular interest in the matter of protocol displayed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, will the Prime Minister consider assigning to that hon. member a special responsibility in the field of protocol?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As it happens, Mr. Speaker, very close study 20220-649



RENEWAL OF U.K.-CANADA TAX AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. According to reports the current Anglo-Canadian tax agreement will lapse on December 31, 1964. Will the minister say what efforts he is making to renew this valuable agreement, or inform the house what course the government intends to follow?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, meetings of officials of the United Kingdom and Canada were held in Ottawa starting on September 28 to discuss a revised agreement. At these meetings a draft for a revised agreement was prepared, and in accordance with usual practice this draft was then placed before the two governments for their consideration. As I mentioned yesterday, I think it was, there has been an election in the United Kingdom in the interim which has no doubt slowed up this matter to some extent.
I should like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say it is incorrect to suggest that double taxation will suddenly exist or that business firms will be hurt if the new agreement is not ready to be put into operation on January 1, 1965. Both Canada and the United Kingdom have measures in their income tax legislation to prevent double taxation by allowing credits for taxes imposed by other countries, and these provisions will continue in operation even if there is no income tax agreement between the two countries in question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister say whether it is his intention to press for the renewal of the agreement?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO TARIFF CHANGES RESPECTING TOBACCO IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Does his department intend to increase the tariff on cigar tobaccos which are produced in Canada?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as I think my hon. friend knows, government policy on all matters in connection with tariffs and other economic policies are announced at the appropriate time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Have any representations been made to him on behalf of the workers at G. A. Boulet, Limitee, St. Tite, Quebec, who have been on strike since August 20 because of the refusal by management to bargain collectively with the workers? Is the department taking any steps to look into this matter, inasmuch as this firm does most of its work for the Department of National Defence? Is the department doing anything to make sure that firms which take national defence contracts are providing fair and proper working conditions for their employees?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defence Production has looked into this particular problem. Unfortunately I do not have the details in front of me, not having had notice of the question, but I can say that to my recollection this matter involves an industrial dispute relating to recognition of the employees' organization for bargaining purposes at Boulet and Company in Shawinigan or Grand'Mere. We have not had occasion for some time to place a contract with Boulet and Company, and at the present time they are engaged in processing a contract which was awarded prior to the breaking out of this dispute. As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defence Production has not suffered any prejudice as a consequence of the dispute with respect to either prices or time of delivery.


Léon Balcer: As a
supplementary question, would the minister consider sending an inspector to that plant to see whether the labour conditions are really as bad as we have been told and, if they are, would he consider suspending this contract altogether?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman is not suggesting that the Depart-

ment of Defence Production should in effect start discharging what are the functions of the Quebec department of labour. The responsibility for this resides with the provincial department of labour. I would be glad to have my officers communicate the views of the hon. member to the Quebec department of labour, but I do not think this is a proper area in which the Department of Defence Production should operate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. The departments of public works across Canada, federally and provincially, generally require in all their contracts that there be provision for certain fair wages and working conditions. Is such a clause inserted in contracts granted by the Department of Defence Production? Is there such a clause in the agreement with the company in question, and what steps does the minister's department take to police these contracts to see that the fair wage and labour condition clauses are complied with?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely this is a question for the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when you say to put the question on the order paper may I point out that we have had questions on it since June, some five or six months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Here is a question involving men who are out on strike and who have been on strike since August 20, and these men are working on Department of National Defence contracts. Surely the federal government has some responsibility to see that those working on government contracts comply with minimum labour standards. That is all I am asking the minister to do, to see if these minimum labour standards are being kept and if these clauses are being policed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made that point at least twice, but I still think it is a question for the order paper.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister of Industry communicate with the minister of labour of the province of Quebec or with officers of that department to try and settle the strike at the Boulet, Ltee industries in St. Tite?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I understood the question well, Mr. Speaker, and, to my knowledge, the answer is no.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-SETTLEMENT OF STRIKE OF HERRING FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask whether he has any indication of an early settlement of the strike of herring fishermen in B.C.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the house that I have just received word from Vancouver to the effect that the association and the union have reached agreement on the basis of $14.48 per ton, plus agreement on a medical plan to be operated by the companies. The association has also reached agreement with vessel owners. A membership vote was being taken this morning in Vancouver, and it is anticipated that the fishery will recommence at noon on November 26.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that the Minister of Fisheries has no responsibility whatever for these matters?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, it is, but that does not deny me the privilege of giving this information to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: Well, it should. May I rise on a question of privilege on that point, Mr. Speaker, in that I do not object to receiving the information, but persistently you have ruled out of order and ministers have objected to answering questions which do not fall within their responsibilities. I believe we should persist along that line.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Speaking to the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say the hon. member for Skeena is just annoyed that he did not ask the same question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: His party leader just asked five questions relative to a strike in the province of Quebec. I think I am entitled to ask one question relative to a strike in the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely we have gone far enough along that direction.
20220-649J
Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT BY QUEBEC PREMIER ON PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Has he made himself acquainted with the statement made by the premier of the province of Quebec in Toronto last Monday, in which he requested a special status for Quebec, and is it the intention of the Prime Minister to communicate with the premier of Quebec in this connection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of reading the statement made by the premier of Quebec in Toronto, and I thought it was a very good, Canadian, constructive statement.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Canielon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance of which I sent him notice. I understand that on Monday and Tuesday there was a meeting of provincial and federal representatives to discuss the administrative details of the student loan plan. Would the minister care to make a statement on the matter?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I think it was on Tuesday I said I anticipated that I would be able to make a statement by the end of the week. I want to include as many up to date statistics as I can and it may not be possible to obtain them until Monday, but I shall be making a statement at the beginning of next week.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry?
Would the minister make a statement to the house concerning the establishment of the

Inquiries of the Ministry Renault and Peugeot plants at St. Bruno, in the province of Quebec? Does the selection of this site meet with the wishes of the federal Minister of Industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think it rests with the General Investment Corporation to make such a statement.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman anything further to say to the house with regard to civil service collective bargaining? On May 14 he told us he did not think the committee dealing with this matter would be able to make a report until the autumn. Now that autumn has turned to winter, has the Prime Minister anything to tell the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have nothing to say at the moment, but I Will be glad to look into the matter and see whether I can say something useful on this subject next week.



ABSENCE OF CREDITISTE MEMBERS DURING VOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["No, Mr. Chairman, I have a few more words to say on this. I think we should now call it ten o'clock.\nResolutions adopted in committee of sup ply this day reported and concurred in."]
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to put a question, but to raise a point of privilege.
In today's Le Devoir, we may read:
Last night, a vote was taken in the house... [Text]


An hon. Member:: You were not here last night.


David Réal Caouette: -with regard to deferring legislation to a joint committee of both houses.
If you will listen to me you will understand why.
The article says:
No member of the Ralliement Creditiste was in the house when the vote was taken.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.
[Mr. Rondeau.)


David Réal Caouette: I do not think this is a matter for shouting "Order, order."
I suggest that we should give an explanation because this newspaper wants and tends to inform the people. Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were in the house, and in the afternoon I stated that we objected to the distribution of poverty in Canada. That is why the members of the Ralliement Creditiste were not in the house when the vote was taken last night at 5.45.



The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-moureux in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates (part recoverable from those organizations) and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners (international commissions for supervision and control in Indochina), secretaries and staff by the governor in council; official hospitality; relief and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and their dependents and reimbursement of the United Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable); Canadian representation at international conferences; expenses of the third commonwealth education conference; a cultural relations and academic exchange program with the French community, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,826,300.
Mr. Nesbitt:: I rather thought the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have a statement to make on the first item of his estimates. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could let us know whether he intends to make a statement at the present time.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: As the hon. member knows, the committee has already spent a full day discussing the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. 1 see the hon. member for Edmonton West in his place, and I am prepared to deal with the question he raised the other day. Perhaps he wishes to put some further questions in connection with that matter.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It was my understanding the other day that the minister intended to make a statement to the committee; he indicated this

would be the case. A great many important events have been taking place in the world, and I know that many of the members of this committee would like to hear some observations by the secretary of state on various matters such as recent events in the Soviet union, China and the like. I had hoped he would give us an up to date statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is asking me to cover a wide area, but I would attempt to do so if he would put questions. However, in the light of the request made by the hon. member for Edmonton West I would like to deal now with one matter which is of current importance. Perhaps I could speak later on some of the other subjects which the hon. member has just mentioned on the basis of questions which he or others may wish to put to me.
I refer, of course, to reports of serious difficulties which are alleged to exist within NATO. I do not wish to hide from the committee the fact that I have been extremely concerned in the past few weeks that some of our major allies appear to be embarked on a collision course which could have incalculable consequences for the western alliance. Two or three weeks ago it looked as though in this context the storm clouds were gathering over western Europe. In Paris on November 2, the French foreign minister, Mr. Couve de Murville, with his usual incisiveness, described the storm warnings as he saw them; the danger of deteriorating Franco-German relations, the danger to the European common market because of the failure of the Six to agree on cereal prices, and the danger for NATO if Germany and the United States were to push ahead with their plan for a multilateral force of mixed manned ships carrying Polaris missiles jointly owned, controlled and financed by the participating nations.
I may say now, reflecting on the events of these past few weeks, that thanks to the efforts which have been made on both sides of the Atlantic by a number of countries, there are indications that given a little more time- and I think this will be forthcoming-accommodations can be reached with regard to some if not all of these major issues. Nevertheless it would be misleading for me to pretend that everything in the Atlantic world is satisfactory, just as it would be improper to reveal in detail what we know of the elements of other peoples' problems based upon the consultations and discussions we have had in Canada and which our heads of missions in other capitals have had with representatives
Supply-External Affairs
of friendly governments. We wish not only to keep ourselves informed but to bring whatever influence we can to bear on these problems, in the hope that conciliation may be encouraged and co-operation strengthened among all our allies on both sides of the Atlantic so as to maintain and develop the essential trans-Atlantic nature of the NATO community which is, of course, of such vital importance to Canada.
In the course of the past week consultations took place in Ottawa with the foreign ministers of Belgium and Norway, and we have had discussions, as I indicated a moment ago, with the representatives of other countries here in our capital as well as through our missions abroad. We are by the very nature of our situation, obliged to recognize how much we in Canada depend, as do other NATO countries, on collective security. We live in a world in which the members of the NATO group must proceed with balanced forces to provide for their defence on a purely national basis and through collective effort. We in Canada are therefore, by the very nature of the situation, committed to the doctrine of achieving a balanced defence by making our forces, and therefore our policies, interdependent with those of other members of the Atlantic alliance.
Some of our allies, as we all know, would prefer to see their forces organized on a purely European basis, but not on an Atlantic basis if that means yielding to the United States the final right of decision on matters vitally affecting national security. At the same time we know on no less an authority than that of the French prime minister, Monsieur Pompidou, that a purely European defence- that is, a defence of Europe without the assistance in the final analysis of the United States-is considered a quite untenable hypothesis. In other words there is a large measure of agreement on the basic aims and assumptions of the alliance even in this highly controversial field of how to work out the modalities of military planning and how control is to be exercised and whether the accent should be European or Atlantic.
It goes without saying that we are particularly interested in the evolution of French foreign policy, as is every member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is quite normal that this should be so. An important part of our population is of French culture, and it is a well established policy of this and of previous governments to develop satisfactory relations with France. For these reasons we in Canada believe that we have some obli-

Supply^-Extemal Affairs gation to try to fully understand the basis and aims of French policy. This is not with any intention of playing an intermediary or mediating role, although this we would not shirk. We believe, however, that on certain occasions we could usefully encourage some of our allies to adopt a more sympathetic attitude toward French preoccupations. In particular we understand and support the French view that no hasty decisions should be taken when crash programs are not really required. We also agree with the head of the government of France that it is important that there be a fair balance between the European and North American contributions to the Atlantic alliance.
So if by waiting a little now, as is recommended, the right balance can be established between the contributions which North America and Europe can make to Atlantic defence, we believe that a delay, which in any case is required for the consideration of new British proposals, would be justified. On the other hand we hope the government of France will acknowledge the importance which we attach to the ties which bind us to Europe and display appreciation of the advantages both for Europe and for France of a vigorous and deepening Atlantic partnership.
From our point of view there can be no doubt as to where we stand. We have upheld the trans-Atlantic links with our mother countries in Europe. This is indeed so much a part of our heritage that we can trace the same thread from the time of our reactions to the American revolution through our part in two world wars, to our role in the evolution of the commonwealth idea and the conception and development of NATO. The government of Canada is therefore bound to be concerned that every possible effort be made to avoid any cracks or cleavages within the alliance and to arrest the development of continentalism, whether of the European or North American variety, since such concepts would tend to isolate us and weaken the effective influence which Canada can exert internationally. The serious potential consequences for our defence and for our economic prosperity, and in the long term for our political independence, must be recognized.
Mr. Chairman, we in Canada believe that NATO has served a very useful purpose, not only for the defence of its members but for the peace of the world. One of the consequences of the so-called disarray which exists is the fact that it has been a successful defensive alliance providing defence for its members and serving to contribute substantially to the peace in the world.

There are differences as to the nature of the military organization of NATO, one group taking the position that only by an integration of forces can we hope to pursue the effective development of the organization, and the other taking the position that the alliance should be based on the contribution made by individual national military bodies co-operating together for the purpose of common defence. NATO is an organization made up of freedom loving nations, and because they are free nations they suffer the disability of the consequences of that very freedom. There is not the same dissentient expression in bodies that are not made up of free nations.
We are thus the inheritors of some disadvantages which arise out of the very strength that gives meaning to the concept of freedom which each of the 15 nations in the NATO alliance enjoys. I think nothing is to be gained by failing to recognize that there are differences of view as to the kind of military organization that should be pursued in NATO. There is public discussion of this, and there have been discussions at the ministerial meetings of the council itself. These discussions have reflected efforts to see if some compromise arrangement could not be arrived at.
As I said in answer to a question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition a few days ago, it would be a matter of the greatest regret if as a result of these differences in the concept of organization there was to be any slackening in the unity or the integrity of NATO itself. This I think can be avoided, but it is only correct to emphasize that some feel that in order to avoid a confrontation of a serious nature we should seek to arrive at some modus vivendi among the various partners. The new British government has informed its allies that it is engaged in a thorough review of British defence policy, including an examination of the proposals for a multilateral force. As this review progresses I have no doubt it will be discussed by the British government with its NATO allies. We for our part will look forward to the visit to Ottawa on December 9 of the British prime minister and his foreign secretary. We believe this will provide the opportunity for the two commonwealth members of the western alliance to have a direct bilateral exchange of views on the range of problems covered by the British review.
Shortly thereafter the Minister of National Defence and I will go to the NATO ministerial meeting in Paris. There we will have the opportunity for further conversations with the French government, continuing the series of

Franco-Canadian ministerial meetings which began over a year ago. It is my expectation that the whole subject of how to ensure a greater sharing in the direction of the alliance will be thoroughly aired at the NATO ministerial meeting and at consultations which will take place at that time.
Any development that could create a special group within the western alliance to the detriment of a broadly based trans-Atlantic NATO alliance is bound to be of concern, I wish to re-emphasize, to this country. By the same token any development that could start an irreversible trend toward the break-up of our alliance or to an alliance based on con-tinentalism of either a North American or European variety will be contrary and prejudicial to our national interests.
The smaller countries of the alliance, because they must depend on collective security for their defence, have special cause to seek a way out, and this was emphasized to us in the talks that we had with Mr. Spaak and Mr. Lange here last week. The extremely useful discussions that we had gave us an opportunity of emphasizing the large area agreement that does exist on the basic aims of the alliance, even though in this highly controversial field, there are divisions of view as to how we should conduct the strategic planning of the organization. These discussions reinforced my view that special efforts would have to be made to convince our allies that a fresh examination is essential if the alliance is to avoid a perilous division over certain aspects of its policy.
We have asked our allies who have supported proposals for a multilateral force whether the present form of the proposals is necessarily the only way to deal with what all of us recognize to be necessary, a means of giving the European members of the alliance a greater degree of participation in the strategic arrangements of NATO. There is always a danger that a formula appropriate to one period can harden into policies which are too rigid to another.
We should ask those who do not like the multilateral force and the proposals based on it, and who suggest that our alliance does not correspond to the realities of 1964, what is suggested as an alternative. I am sure there is no member of the alliance that would not welcome constructive counter proposals. Since all members of NATO recognize-and this was fully apparent at the last NATO ministerial meeting at The Hague-that the need for the alliance remains undiminished. It follows that we can neither afford to split the
Supply-External Affairs alliance in two nor plunge it into a course against the will of a major member.
It is to the avoidance of these extremes that the Canadian government is devoting its most careful attention at this time in the discussions we are having. It is traditional for Canada to look for a compromise when friends disagree. As I suggested a few weeks ago, we believe there may be an alternative course that has not yet been sufficiently explored. We have wondered whether we could not make use of the existing machinery within the alliance to bring about a greater sharing in the military direction of NATO.
In the next few weeks, when all NATO countries will be preparing for the December ministerial meeting, we shall be exploring- indeed we have already begun to do so-with our friends general lines of approach designed to meet the situation that has developed and which has been developing for some time, in the hope that we can strengthen NATO. The usefulness and the necessity of NATO in this nuclear, interdependent period continues to be so obvious, I am sure, to anyone who fully appreciates the difficulties in the world situation.
The world situation has featured a number of important develpoments within the past few weeks. The changes in the top direction of the government of the Soviet union have naturally evoked conjectures. We have been given the assurance both here in Ottawa and by the government of the Soviet union in Moscow, that these changes do not involve any change in foreign policy; nor do they mean a reversion to the Stalinization of an earlier period.
In addition we have been faced with the critical but notable fact that the Chinese people's republic has successfully detonated an atomic bomb. While this was anticipated and to a great extent discounted, particularly in the western world, no one can be oblivious to the fact that it has produced a very important reaction in the continent of Asia itself. This additional factor is one which will be noted not only by NATO members but must be noted by nations all over the world. We in Canada are of the view, as we were of the view before this event took place, that in the 18 nation group meeting in Geneva which is discussing the problems of nuclear and conventional disarmament, there was an opportunity for all countries, particularly the major countries which obviously have such influence on the state of international tension, to join in conclusions and ultimately in the discussions which have taken place.

Supply-External Affairs


Gordon Minto Churchill: You would have to have the discussions before the conclusions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. We have asked China to join in supporting the nuclear test ban treaty which was solemnized in August a year and a half ago. The Chinese people's republic have refused to join the 107 nations who have acceded to this pact. I suggest that one of the first steps that the Chinese people's republic might take would be to readily accept the nuclear test ban treaty provisions, and this might well serve as a means of bringing that important country into the disarmament discussions. The conclusions of these discussions cannot be complete without the participation of a country of the importance of China.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister who invited mainland China to become a signatory to the test ban agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was no invitation. Most of the nations which signed the pact urged China to join. In this house when we announced that we had signed the pact, I expressed the view, as I express it again, that since China had announced its intention to build up a nuclear capacity it should join the partial nuclear test ban group before it undertook to add to the contamination of the air by nuclear detonation.
China has said that she does not propose to join the nuclear test ban arrangement. She has called upon the nuclear powers to hold a world conference for the purpose of entering into an agreement for the prohibition of the manufacture of nuclear weapons. We believe that this is one phase of disarmament that ought to be discussed in the context of the wider agenda before the conference that has been under consideration in Geneva.
Finally, I think we should now recognize that we have to go one step further than the efforts which were made at the United Nations and elsewhere to try to achieve nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Canada was one of the countries which subscribed to the limited but important resolution introduced by Ireland at the general assembly in 1961. Canada is one of the countries that from the beginning has had a nuclear capacity. Canada, however, committed herself completely in 1946 to the use of this new found energy for peaceful purposes only.
There are some 20 countries in the world which have, in varying degrees, a nuclear capacity but are not now manufacturing nuclear weapons. It might be that it would be useful to suggest, as a contribution to the

non-proliferation of such weapons, that these countries, including Canada, should give further meaning to and strengthen the formula provided for in the Irish resolution. This is a matter that likewise is now being given consideration in some of the consultations we have had.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would answer one question. Is Canada now actually engaged in negotiating itself out of the nuclear weapons field, as promised by the Prime Minister? Are negotiations actually taking place?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we have dealt with that subject on other occasions, and I should like to complete my statement at this time.
All these important matters, and they are vital, affect us and every other country in the world now as perhaps they have not affected us for a long time. They arise at a time when we are concerned about the future of the United Nations itself. We have had questions asked from time to time on orders of the day about the financial situation of the United Nations. Canadian foreign policy is predicated upon support for the United Nations and for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We take into account in the formulation of our policy our relations with the United States and our membership in the commonwealth. It must be obvious to everyone that while there is not at the moment a critical world situation, in the sense of one overwhelming issue which threatens the peace of the world by itself, there are a number of problems which have arisen, and I referred to one of them-the situation in NATO-which have caused great concern on the part of those who look forward to the establishment of conditions which will provide some guarantee for a more steady and certain peace.
One of these is the financial situation of the United Nations. The general assembly will open on December 1 next, at which time we will be confronted with the fact that a number of countries, including the Soviet union, are indebted to the organization in amounts greater than the assessments on those countries for the two previous years. This means that under article 19 of the charter that country and other countries in a similar position could lose the right to vote.
The Soviet union has said that it will not pay any money toward past peace keeping operations. The United States, for one, takes

the position that the Soviet union must pay-up the moneys that it owes or lose the right to vote, and has intimated that it proposes to call upon member states of the organization to take steps to give meaning to article 19.
It is obvious that every country in the United Nations has an obligation to pay, in accordance with established assessments its portion of money required to maintain the organization. We hope in Canada that the seemingly inflexible position taken by the Soviet union will be recognized as deserving of a change in attitude in order to enable that country to play the role which, as an important power in the world, it must be expected to play. It will be a matter of the greatest regret if this problem is not resolved, and the Canadian government, while it shares the same interpretation as the United States and as the government of Britain, with regard to the default consequences under article 19, hopes that the discussions at the United Nations will enable a compromise to ensue. Nothing would be more disastrous for the world than if the United Nations were to flounder or become ineffective-yes, if it were to disappear-because of the refusal of a group of countries to accept the responsibility which, in the judgment of the international court of justice, is applicable to all countries.
Mr. Chairman, those are some of the considerations that I am sure all members of the house have before them as they begin a discussion of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I believe that an opportunity could be afforded during the discussion of these estimates to cover other subjects, or to seek further clarifications of the items I have mentioned in my opening statement to this committee this afternoon.
Canada is one of the middle powers of the world. By that of course, I do not mean that we are unaligned or neutral, because we are not neutral and we are aligned. We are aligned with the nations of the west with which we have bound ourselves together in a common defensive alliance, not for the purpose of waging aggressive war but for the purpose of being strong enough to resist aggression. By the very acceptance of the organization itself we have undertaken to do what experience has shown the organization can and has been able to do; that is, maintain the peace in this very troubled time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question. In order to resist
Supply-External Affairs aggression would the minister advise other countries to adopt Canada's attitude of acquiring nuclear arms, against whose proliferation the minister offered some objection?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows the very fault of his question, and I am sure he does not really expect me to accept it as seriously as his manner suggests. Canada is a country that is opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Canada is a country that has a nuclear capacity, but throughout its whole nuclear history Canada has used this capacity for peaceful purposes and urges other nations to follow suit. All that Canada has done as a member of NATO, in reaching an agreement with the government of the United States with regard to the storage of nuclear weapons in Canada for Canadian forces and for American forces, is to live up to a commitment solemnly entered into by a government of which my hon. friend was a member.
I say to my hon. friend in the kindest but in the firmest way that I am sure that with the experience he has had in government he will recognize how important it is for Canada, in its relations with United States, to be able to share its defences not only with the United States, but with Europe, thereby establishing for Canada and for the other members the beginning of an Atlantic partnership that can be so important for those countries, and also for the peace of the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: While the minister is in the full flush of oratory perhaps he would answer another question, but first may I say I have never raised any objection to assisting our allies in any way whatsoever. Is his statement not tinged with hypocrisy when he proclaims to the world that proliferation of nuclear weapons is a bad thing while at the same time Canada is setting an example by using atomic weapons? Would it not be better to leave out the first part of the statement, this advice to other nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Apparently my hon. friend and I have different interests in this matter. I would hope that he would share my concern as external affairs minister for situations in the world that threaten its peace.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to help you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to be influenced by, I regret to say the shoddy

Supply-External Affairs and rather parochial questions which my hon. friend has put. I think these matters are too important to be used for the purpose of satisfying one's political hobby no matter how inefficient and amateurish one may be in the discharge of that hobby.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am thinking of the good name of Canada and her prestige abroad.


An hon. Member:: Since when?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Always; and I have shown it by my actions, too.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, we were all very interested to hear the statement by the minister. He made certain remarks of particular note, however, which I think may require a little further clarification. First of all, I think we all share the minister's very justifiable apprehension concerning the future of the United Nations itself in the light of the non-payment to date by the Soviet union and her satellites and France of lawful United Nations dues.
This brings to mind a very interesting conversation I had with the late secretary general about a week before he was killed. On that occasion he said to me "You know, the league of nations was a success". When he noticed some surprise on my face he went on to say "After all, it was a success because it was the first organization of its kind in the world. It failed for reasons we all know, and the United Nations as we know it will probably fail in due course. Then a third organization will be set up, and then a fourth." He said "After all, one has to look at these matters over the long range".
If what the minister fears takes place the present form of the United Nations may terminate, but certainly a third form would arise out of the ashes like the phoenix. I think this is something we can expect to fake place, because after all organizations of the type of the United Nations, even in the form as it exists at present, have become a necessity of the world and I think most countries realize this.
I was very interested to hear the minister's observations about nuclear weapons, and my reaction was much the same as that of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. If I heard the minister correctly, and I am sure he will advise me if I did not, he said that Canada first committed herself to the acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1948. This is certainly an interesting revelation, because from what we have heard from members on that side of the house we were led to believe that 

this commitment was not made until more recent years. This is certainly most interesting information.
Regardless of what the minister may say at the present time about Canada not really being a member of the nuclear club, it is not always what is true but what appears to be true that matters. Certainly many of our colleagues in the United Nations and elsewhere have said to me very bluntly: It is all right for you people to talk and support the Irish resolution, the Swedish resolution and others, but after all you really are a member of the nuclear club. We know there is some technical business about who presses the button at the last moment, but you really are a member. Whether we like it or not, this is the general feeling abroad.
Another of the minister's observations concerned the great interest that Canada has in the foreign policy of France. I agree that this is certainly a matter of the greatest interest to Canada, particularly inasmuch as of recent date there has been at least the appearance in this country of a rather undue interest on the part of France in our domestic affairs. I remember that on one occasion I brought this to the attention of the Prime Minister who promised to look into the matter, but so far we have not had any reply from him.
I would refer to the event a few weeks ago in the city of Three Rivers when, as I recall, the rapporteur of the foreign affairs committee of the French national assembly advised members of the St. Jean Baptiste society that independence for Quebec and separation from the rest of Canada would be a very good thing. We had another incident at the time Air Canada was contemplating the purchase of aircraft. Apparently several types were being considered and certain suggestions were made in the press that the ambassador of France was taking a rather active part in the matter by encouraging some students in Montreal to try to put pressure on the government to purchase the Caravelle aircraft. Again, we have also seen the story, reported in the French press, about the possibility of setting up a high powered radio station on the island of Miquelon in order to promote French cultural activities in Canada.
These reports may or may not be entirely accurate, but certainly they give the appearance of a very close interest by the present government of France in the internal affairs of this country. If these matters have not already been carefully looked into I should hope they would be, because interference of this kind is not necessarily entirely welcome.

Returning to the United Nations, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the minister, something I think we should all do.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Don't do that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: My colleague from Winnipeg South Centre says "Don't do that".


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Be very careful of the Scotch character of my hon. friend.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I think that at least on this one occasion we can offer the minister sincere congratulations on the holding in Ottawa of the recent conference on peace keeping operations. This was a matter which had been discussed between ourselves and our friends at the United Nations for a number of years, and I am delighted the minister was able to bring these conversations to a successful culmination. From conversations I had with a number of the delegates I knew, through my previous association with them, I learned the conference was a success and I think the minister, the government and the country generally are to be congratulated on producing a "first in history", if one wishes to put it that way, and on having advanced significantly the progress of international peace keeping.
This is something which received acclaim in the world press, and I think that was good because latterly in the world press Canada's image has been rather like that of the Cheshire cat in "Alice in Wonderland", gradually beginning to fade until nothing was left but the grin. One has only to look at the last few months Sunday editions of the New York Times and London Times to note how little Canadian activity has been reported. There are two possible explanations for this, one that the government is not doing very much or, second, if it is, it is keeping things under wraps and not communicating them to the press abroad-something which is not helpful to our image abroad.
Members of the Liberal party used to blame the previous government for presenting a poor image abroad, but recently instead of a poor image we have not had any image at all. I am glad to see that the peace keeping conference has helped restore our image somewhat. Perhaps the grin on the cat will start to develop into a head again.
I am glad to note the minister dealt extensively with NATO, but there are a number of questions he did not answer and which are in the minds of most people. There have been disturbing reports recently about Turkey,
Supply-External Affairs which is the eastern anchor of NATO, contemplating leaving the alliance because of certain trouble she is experiencing. These reports appeared in both the Canadian and foreign press and I would ask the minister to give us some information on the matter. Is there any substance to these rumours in the press, or have Turkey's problems been dealt with?
On the question of the M.L.F. a very interesting bit' of news has just come over the wires which I am sure the minister has received, to the effect that the conference of NATO parliamentarians is apparently giving moderate approval to the principle of M.L.F., something which may be hopeful. The news report reads as follows:
Legislators from 15 North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries voiced belief today that a multilateral nuclear force could "make a substantial and lasting contribution to western unity and purpose".
This would seem to be an adjunct to what the minister told us this afternoon, that some arrangement along this line would seem to be meeting with some measure of success, particularly in view of the approach being taken to this problem by the new government in the United Kingdom, which I understand has a plan up its sleeve that it is communicating to its allies. I wonder if the minister is in a position to give us some details of the proposed United Kingdom plan? It may be that they are as yet confidential, but as I understand it one of the details in the plan is that Britain would not have a nuclear deterrent of her own and would throw in her lot with NATO, provided she had some sort of veto over the use of nuclear weapons. Could the minister elaborate on this?
Dealing with the organization of American states, I am going to leave most of my observations on it to one of my colleagues who will be speaking a little later in the debate. However, there are one or two things I would like to ascertain.
When the minister's estimates first came before us last May 22 he told us at that time that Canada was going to send an observer to the organization of American states and he certainly intimated, as will be seen on reading page 3497 of Hansard for that date, that he was giving serious consideration to joining that organization. According to news reports the minister said the same thing in Banff a few weeks ago, and during the meetings of the committee on external affairs-

Supply-External Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend read what I said at Banff? I did not say that at Banff.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not have the newspaper clipping in front of me, but certainly that impression was created. I said the reports in the press created the impression that Canada might be going to join that organization, and the minister also gave that impression to the committee on external affairs during the meetings of that body.
Whether or not we should join the organization is a matter of debate in itself. I for one would have very grave doubts about the wisdom of joining it, and I think most of the reasons are fairly obvious. As I say, this matter is going to be dealt with fully by one of my colleagues, but may I point out one of the arguments advanced in favour of joining the organization is that geographically we are in the same unit. That may have been true in 1492 but the jet age has made things rather different, so that geographically our interests today are much closer to western Europe, Japan and the Soviet union than they are to Latin America, and certainly our present associations with Latin American countries are very satisfactory.
During the regime of the former government diplomatic missions were set up in all the Latin American countries. Last year we had a trade with Latin America amounting to $650 million, but we are not caught in the rather awkward position of being a member of the organization of American states. If we were a member, I ask what would be our relations with Cuba, and what about our trade with the People's Republic of China? Then there is the more obvious argument, that if we were a member of the organization we would be expected to pull United States chestnuts out of the Latin American fire, and vice-versa, and so far as I can see all we would get would be burned fingers. As someone said about Ireland and the commonwealth, it is a question of how to be a member without joining.
Then there is the question of the commonwealth. Everyone is in favour of the commonwealth, and recently the government made some observations on it, but it seems to be all talk and not too much action. The setting up of a commonwealth secretariat, probably in London, seems to be making progress. I think it is a good idea as a sort of post office for exchanging ideas. At present we have certain scholarship and student exchanges among commonwealth countries, and I suggest we should give consideration to


an exchange of teachers and university professors between Canada and other parts of the commonwealtth. In that way we might learn a little more about the real thinking in other parts of the commonwealth.


Mr. Baldwin:: Exchange ministers.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That might be a good idea too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We could get two for one.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Then there is another suggestion which has been made at different times. It might have had application in the case of Cyprus, but it might be reasonably useful in certain parts of Africa in the future. I refer to the possibility of building up a commonwealth peace force to deal with problems of peace keeping in countries associated with the commonwealth. We can all think of examples of situations which might arise in Africa in the near future.
These are matters of a positive kind. But disturbing things have been happening in the commonwealth of late. First, there is the declaration of Ghana and Tanzania made in the course of the recent conference in Cairo. There have been several reports in the press but the one to which I call attention particularly appeared in the Globe and Mail of October 14:
Indonesia and its supporters urged the Chinese view of the world struggle, that the first problem is the destruction of capitalism by force.
President Sukarno was supported by representatives of Tanzania. Ghana-
Then the report goes on to mention a number of other countries. This, I fear, is a dangerous point of view to be taken by some members of the commonwealth. I hope the minister and his colleagues will do everything possible to persuade Ghana and Tanzania that this is hardly the type of approach to be taken by members of a commonwealth supposed to have the same principles and the same ideals.
We can perhaps understand why Tanzania, in particular, should have taken this attitude. It is my understanding that some time ago the government of that country through its Prime Minister Mr. Nyerere made a request to the Canadian government that military instructors should be provided for its armed forces. It is again my understanding that Canada refused to supply a military contingent to train the army of our newest commonwealth brother. It seems to me there is a considerable lack of co-ordination between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his colleague the Minister of National Defence. After all, defence is really-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I do not wish the hon. member's words to get to Tanganyika and have the effect which they will have unless challenged. A military survey mission has been in Tanganyika. It has returned to Ottawa; it has made its report and the government is now considering the assistance which is to be given to Tanganyika.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am glad to hear that. It is most encouraging, but the minister will acknowledge I did say it was my understanding that some months ago we agreed to train some officers of the army there, but we were unable to go further than that. As a result, Mr. Nyerere had to turn to red China to get military instructors and we all know that when red China sends military instructors they do not go entirely for the purpose of giving instruction in military affairs. A dangerous situation could develop in east Africa as a result of this. As somebody put it, "there is another country gone down the red drain" and I would hate to think that our government was in any way responsible. I am sure the minister made a request to his colleague the Minister of National Defence. Perhaps, in all fairness, the necessary armed forces were not available. But surely there should be co-ordination between the two departments. After all, a defence department is only there to carry out, in certain ways, the foreign policy of this country. If our foreign policy is to assist other nations of the commonwealth to develop their peace keeping machinery, and so on, while the "hardware" technically comes under the Minister of National Defence it would seem unwise to me that the minister of defence should so alter and reduce our armed forces that they should not be available when the Secretary of State for External Affairs requires a small part of them for a specific purpose. The result, in this case, is that a country like Tanzania has to turn to red China for assistance. I suggest this might well be kept in mind for future reference. It seems to have gone down the drain now. I am glad that the mission has been sent, and that it has made its report, but I suggest it is a litle late in the day, because red China has volunteered to send military assistance to that country.
The next place of interest in the commonwealth to which I intend to refer is Malaysia. As far as I understand it, we are attempting to send aid to Malaysia in its struggle against the unprovoked aggression of Indonesia. At the same time we are still providing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers free to assist President
Supply-External Affairs Sukarno. Let me make one thing clear. My colleagues and I in no way disapprove of training Indonesian students in Canada. This is a long range program and its objectives are in the future; these students will be trained long after Dr. Sukarno is dead and gone and his policies, we hope, with him. Indeed, there would be no objection to training more of these students. But giving wheat and flour to Dr. Sukarno to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars is a different matter. It is true that the aid provided is in the form of food only, but if Dr. Sukarno would spend more time looking after the economy of his country and less in directing unprovoked attacks against his neighbours he would not have his present food problem. Moreover, these gifts enable him to save large sums in foreign exchange which he is then able to use to carry out attacks against his neighbours. In short, the present policy seems to me to be two faced; it does not make sense. No matter how thin you slice it, it is still boloney.
There is another matter I wish to draw to the minister's attention and it follows from Canada's membership of the commission in Viet Nam and Indochina. I refer to the atrocities being committed by both the North Viet Nam and the South Viet Nam forces. I realize that Canada possibly does not have much influence in this part of the world but it is a fact that we are a member of the control commission in that area and if we can use our good offices to prevent these atrocities taking place, so much the better. I know the faculty and students of Queen's University has been making commendable efforts in this regard. It would cost us nothing to try. We might not be particularly successful, but certainly there is no harm in trying.
Then there is the question of the People's Republic of China. It is common gossip in the corridors around here that the government intends to recognize the People's Republic very soon. It has not been denied, neither has it been confirmed. If this rumour is true, I wonder whether the minister could tell us if the government still holds to its former view, namely that recognition would be subject to a rider that Taiwan be permitted to maintain its independence or to carry out a plebiscite as to its future.
Finally, I should like to turn to the affairs of the United Nations. As I mentioned earlier, all of us are greatly concerned about the financial impasse which has arisen within that body. Whether or not the United Nations terminates its operations or carries them out in a greatly weakened manner is largely out

Supply-External Affairs of our hands, although I understand that the Canadian ambassador and the delegation presently in New York have been doing their best to make a compromise arrangement possible.
In regard to the United Nations, Mr. Chairman, and in the hope that it does continue- I believe all of us certainly hope that it does -there are one or two suggestions I would like to make to the minister. One is this. There has been a very successful operation of the United States of America in keeping a permanent representative at the United Nations, one who is basically non-political and also non-civil service. I refer to, latterly of course, Mr. Adlai Stevenson, and prior to that Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge; and there was formerly a senator from Vermont whose name escapes me for the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Austin.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, Senator Warren Austin. These people did a very fine job. Now I see that the United Kingdom is making the same kind of approach in appointing Sir Hugh Foot, who has a great reputation at the United Nations and elsewhere, to a similar type of position. I would suggest that in view of our very great activity at the United Nations over the years Canada might consider the appointment of a similar kind of person who is not of a political nature or necessarily a member of the Department of External Affairs, but some distinguished Canadian. This would not preclude anybody from being appointed who may have had a political association or been in the Department of External Affairs; but I think if there were appointed somebody of the calibre of the men I have mentioned it would be very helpful to us, because they would be there for some time and would give our representation and work at the United Nations some continuity. I do not wish to deprecate by any means the very fine work done by our previous ambassadors to the United Nations.
When the general assembly of the United Nations meets next month I would hope Canada would have more projects to launch than she did last year. To be fair, last year the present government had not been long in office and it had many things on its mind; for example, those 60 days of action which they had to carry out at home. Therefore perhaps foreign affairs were a little neglected. But the minister has now been in office for some time, has been working very hard, and I would hope there would be a number of good, Canadian projects launched at the

United Nations this year. For example, there was a project put through unanimously, eventually, at the United Nations several years ago with regard to the collection of radioactive fallout data from around the world. This data was to be collected, analysed and collated by the United Nations organization, and Canada at that time agreed to analyse the data collected by countries that did not have the facilities with which to analyse it. Burma, Ghana, Pakistan, I believe, and others, agreed to send these samples to Canada for analysis. I do not know whether this has been done or whether there have been sufficient facilities provided to undertake this work. Perhaps the minister could tell us about this. This type of thing is of particular importance now that the People's Republic of China have exploded a nuclear weapon and the fallout is coming down all over the world, even in this country. I believe this is something we should certainly continue to push at the United Nations.


The Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired; unless he has the consent of the committee to continue beyond his time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the members of the committee, and I will terminate my remarks in about three minutes. The second matter I would like to raise in this regard is the question of the pay of Canadian troops in Cyprus. This matter has been brought before the house on other occasions by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who asked questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Unfortunately the hon. member cannot be here; as hon. members know, he is co-chairman of the defence committee, which is meeting at the moment. He points out that Canadian troops in Cyprus are being paid at a rate which is so much lower than the other members of the United Nations force, which are being paid United Nations rates of pay. We are helping to contribute men to this force and to the pay of the armed forces of other countries serving in the United Nations force, but they are apparently receiving several times the rate of pay that our men are receiving. This is causing a considerable problem. I wish the minister would elucidate this or tell us that some adjustments will be made to the pay of our armed forces in that island. This situation seems very unfair, to say the least.

I would like to leave the subject of foreign aid to one of my colleagues who will make some remarks in this connection later in the day. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I make one suggestion to the minister and I do hope he will take it seriously, because great confusion must exist in this respect in countries which are close friends of Canada and want to help us. I refer to the great confusion of mind that must take place with senior officials and ministers of foreign governments when they wish to bestow honours on Canadians. I was wondering whether the minister would send a directive to our embassies abroad so they could tell foreign governments which are friendly to this country which Canadians would be eligible to receive decorations from abroad and which would not. For instance, I would refer to the fact that the premier of the province of Quebec recently received the Grand Cross of the Order of the Phoenix, or some such decoration, from His Majesty the King of Greece. This is quite acceptable and I am not suggesting that Hon. Mr. Lesage should not be so honoured; as a matter of fact, I favour it. But it seems strange to me that a Canadian who is a British subject and has been given an award by Her Majesty the Queen is not allowed to accept it without giving up his Canadian citizenship. The government's policy seems to be that there is one rule for the elite, namely the Liberals, and another for everybody else. I wish some clarification could be made in this regard, not only at home but abroad, so that when friendly foreign governments wish to bestow honours on Canadians they will know who can accept them and who cannot. They would know they can bestow them on certain Canadians, members of the government party or their friends, and not others. I hope the minister will make this clear to our friends abroad.


Gerald William Baldwin: They need them more than we do.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I would like the remarks that I wish to make for the New Democratic party in this debate to be made in the spirit of a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the special committee on defence in July of 1963. He said then that the foreign and defence policies of Canada were inseparable. He also went on to say that in the nuclear age all states must have but a single objective in their foreign and defence policies, namely the preservation of peace. I want to test the international policies of this country on the basis
Supply-External Affairs of whether we are making or are not making a maximum contribution to the preservation of peace. As the late President Kennedy put it, peace is the rational end of rational men.
I must say that I found a huge and glaring gap in the remarks made to us this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. After referring, almost in passing, to the explosion of a nuclear bomb by the forces of the Chinese people's republic, he then said absolutely nothing at all about a subject-at least, I did not hear him say anything-which surely is one of immense importance to the future preservation of peace. I refer to the ending of the diplomatic and international isolation of the People's Republic of China. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will not think I am being unkind when I say that Canadian policy has indeed been consistent in this field-it has been consistent in its ambiguity and procrastination. The minister himself has made many enlightened statements in regard to this matter. He has pointed out how futile was the attempt to isolate the Soviet republics in the period before the last war. He has pointed out that discussion of disarmament is rendered futile by the absence of a government which represents one quarter of the population of the world.
The Prime Minister himself has said that the continued diplomatic isolation of communist countries is not the policy of Canada. Yet despite this we find in the words of the minister no statement whatever in regard to this matter. As the assembly of the United Nations is about to meet and the relations of the rest of the world with the People's Republic of China are bound to be in issue, I think this house is entitled to hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs what is the view of Canada in this regard. Nearly a year ago, on November 28, 1963, he said this- I am not sure whether it was in parliament but I know he will remember the occasion:
We must carefully consider whether the degree of isolation which now surrounds communist China is healthy, whether it promotes international peace or tends to intensify the threat to it.
That was said a year ago. I know there are matters of timing involved in actions in this regard, but I suggest it is a tragedy that the western world has waited and now says to China: "We will admit you to the society of nations, now that you have exploded a nuclear device". It seems to me that to say that China can come into the club, now that they have developed this what I would call phony prestige involved in detonating a nuclear device, is very regrettable. Surely in-

Supply-External Affairs
ternational affairs are not to be based on saying that we will treat one quarter of the human race as a pariah until they are able to show us that they can threaten us with destruction in the same way as we have threatened them. I suggest it is a matter of deep regret that Canada has not before this shown the wisdom to go perhaps a little ahead of some of her allies and neighbours.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, what the government is afraid of in its hesitation in this matter. Is it afraid of the Canadian people? Canadian public opinion, according to all the polls I have seen, has increasingly supported this idea. When the party of which I am proud to say I am a member was in favour of the recognition of the People's Republic of China a good many years ago we were sometimes denounced by people who did not understand the basis of our action. Now this view has grown and grown. Recognition of the obvious sanity of it has grown and grown, so we cannot be afraid of public opinion in Canada.
Are we afraid of the views of the United States of America? I know there are strong feelings in the United States on this subject. I realize that during election campaigns is not a good time to state our view on this matter clearly and unequivocally. But I believe that it would be an act of friendship to the United States for Canada to make it absolutely clear that this policy of attempting to exclude from the United Nations the People's Republic of China is dangerous to the interests of the United States, and is indeed based upon a total misapprehension of conditions in the world.
The people of China refer to people in the United States or to the United States government as though they were scarcely human; and vice-versa. This of course is a delusion. The people of China have experienced a revolution, and like others who have experienced revolution in the course of their history they are sometimes violent in their language, and very defensive because of their fear of counter revolution. Yet the actions of the western world have exacerbated and exaggerated hostility which in the case of the People's Republic of China, I would remind the committee, is extremely natural. After all, if we were part of a country that had suffered from the humiliation of centuries of western aggression and imperialism I think we would be a little sensitive and a little difficult to get along with, too. Yes, we must surely end this era of isolation if we are to have peace throughout the world.


The explosion of this bomb only points once more to the fact that the survival of the human race depends on getting rid of the sort of attitude of mind which says that we do not recognize the government of one quarter of the human race; that we exclude these people from the category of human beings because we do not like the type of government they have. Of course we are not fond of the type of government they have. After all, it has happened before during the course of history that great nations have had governments which were aggressive. But in the course of time these revolutionary impulses died down. Surely our policy should be directed to softening the effects of this revolutionary attitude and not directed toward continued isolation.
Mr. Fred Nossal, who I know has had some experience himself in China, wrote an excellent article in the Globe and Mail magazine for November 7, during the course of which he said this:
But to keep them-
He is referring to the People's Republic of China.
-isolated from global discussions, to treat them as international lepers, would only make the Chinese more determined than ever to go their own way.
I think that is a very wise statement.
I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be able to tell us, perhaps during the course of this debate, that at long last the period of equivocation is over and that as far as Canada is concerned we are not a satellite which cannot speak our own mind; that we will speak our own mind; and that our mind is that this great country, albeit a country the government of which we do not approve, must be drawn into the society of nations without further delay.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oxford referred to another matter which is connected with what I have already said about our relations with the People's Republic of China. He referred to the fact that some students from Queen's University had brought to his attention a resolution they had passed concerning the situation in Viet Nam. I have no doubt that they also called it to the attention of the minister. In this resolution they called to our attention certain pictures of tortures which were taking place in Viet Nam, reminding us in a vivid way of the suffering and the hell to which that country has been subjected by the continuation of war. In their resolution they asked Canada to call upon the human rights commission of the United

Nations organization to investigate the atrocities committed on both sides. Then they went on to say that Canada, as a member of the general assembly, should-
-urge that the United Nations, in its role as the leader in the struggle for world peace, take measures to initiate a peace settlement which effectively guarantees the right of self-determination for the peoples of Viet Nam.
I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that it is easy to pass resolutions which say there should be a peace settlement which effectively guarantees the right of self-determination; that would clearly be the objective of all of us. I fully realize that in this regard passing resolutions and announcing desirable objectives is a relatively easy exercise. It is very much harder to find out how to achieve these desirable objectives which are stated in the resolution.
In view of the fact that Canada is a member of the international control commission, as the hon. member for Oxford reminded us, and because Canada has assumed this degree of responsibility, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he participates in the debate later, whether he will say what Canada is doing to end this tragic war, which as far as I can see is getting worse all the time. France, which after all was a great imperial nation, found it impossible to maintain a position in Viet Nam. Is the United States going to achieve something there, or is the only answer really to work out, as part of the recognition of the People's Republic of China, an agreement to neutralize this particular area? I do not always agree with the views of Mr. de Gaulle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I am following his constructive speech with very great interest. Do I understand he is now suggesting that we work out an agreement with the Chinese people's republic for the neutralization of Indochina as a condition preceding the recognition of that regime, or its admission into the United Nations?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think that the neutralization of Indochina obviously concerns more countries than just two. I think the 18 nations now represented at Geneva would be parties to such an agreement; but I say a preliminary to the working out of some such neutralization arrangement may very well be the drawing of the Chinese people's republic into the United Nations, where there is a forum in which these matters could properly be discussed, with a view to developing a final arrangement. I would not suggest for a mo-
Supply-External Affairs ment that we make that a condition of recognition, but I do say that it would possibly be an advantage, or be a by-product of extraordinary value if it could be brought about in that way.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to what I might call a crisis in NATO, and I should like to say a few words in that regard. It is my personal view, and I think I speak if not for all, then for most of my party in saying this, that western unity in NATO still remains not only desirable, but a necessary basis for moving on to what I think is vitally important, and that is the extension of the detente in Europe. The massive confrontation of nuclear power in Europe, and particularly confrontation of tactical nuclear weapons in the front lines of Europe, constitutes a danger not only to Europe but to the whole world. I suggest, in other words, that the strategy of NATO has been basically unsatisfactory and should be changed.
I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to expand on some remarks he made in an address to the Atlantic treaty association at Ottawa on September 15, 1964, and in which he said the following:
As far as the alliance itself is concerned, there is still a long way to go toward completion of the review of NATO defence policy which ministers required at the Ottawa meeting in May 1963. While I would not wish to overstress the problems of the alliance in that regard I cannot escape the feeling that the long term effects of not achieving some agreement in the fields of strategy, military integration, nuclear control, command structure and cost sharing are bound to detract from our effectiveness as an alliance in using the forces we have at our disposal. I believe that the time has come to face these problems and honestly to deal with them with the requisite boldness and imagination. In particular I believe that they point to the need for some re-thinking first with regard to a greater sharing in the military direction of the alliance, and second, in regard to the relationship between the civilian and military arms of the alliance.
I should like the minister to give a little more clarification of the situation in this regard. First, is it a fact as he suggests that the review of NATO strategy and NATO defence policy has still a long way to go before completion? If so, what view is the Canadian government taking on the issue of NATO strategy which is proposes to urge within NATO?
The minister referred to the support of the multilateral force. I understood this government to make it very clear in the past that it did not support Canada's participation in the multilateral force. We have not been told the reasons for that view, and I should like the minister to do so. I understood him to say

Supply-External Affairs that those who did not like a multilateral force should suggest some other clearcut alternative. Would the minister make it absolutely clear again, if he speaks about this matter, that Canada is not supporting the multilateral force? I urge him to do so because the subject needs clarification, and because I think Canada's full weight should go in a different direction.
The multilateral force is a device intended no doubt by the government of the United States to deal with the problem involved in a possible extension to West Germany of an independent strategic nuclear force. After all, if Britain and France have good reasons for wanting an independent nuclear force, so may Germany.
The multilateral force, as I understand it, is a device proposed to prevent the nuclear rearmament of Germany. In my view, as far as I have been able to understand, the multilateral force has no military value, and its political value is more than dubious. In fact my own view is that the participation of West Germany in the mutilateral force is likely only to increase the urgency and desire for independent control. The purposes of allied control of the strategy of NATO are not served adequately by this multilateral force.
Will the minister inform us whether he intends to put the full force of the policy of the Canadian government behind the effort which I understand is to be developed by the new prime minister and government of Great Britain, to see whether it is possible to work out within NATO, not only a more rational strategy which would not primarily depend on tactical nuclear weapons, but in addition a form of consultation which would make it clear that the whole alliance is deeply concerned with a strategy which is to determine the fate of Europe? It would be interesting to hear the minister clarify where Canada is going to stand on these particular points in the councils of NATO.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I made it very clear that Canada has no intention at the present time of joining the multilateral nuclear force.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister go one step further, and I do not ask him to do so now, and tell us the reason behind that attitude? We need some public enlightenment on matters of this sort, because they are being discussed and are very complex, and relate to the whole field of NATO strategy. Would the minister tell us what he thinks is the alternative? He has said that it is not good enough for us just to say we do not like


the multilateral force. May I ask the minister to inform us of at least the lines along which he is thinking about the problems of NATO, and how he believes the problems involved in the controlling of nuclear forces can be solved if the multilateral force is to be rejected by the alliance?
Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with one other matter, the matter of peace keeping forces, and I want to take the opportunity we now have of discussing international affairs to say once again that in our view one of the greatest contributions Canada could make, probably the greatest, is in the field of contributions made to peace keeping forces through the United Nations. I would be less than fair if I did not congratulate the minister and the government upon the part Canada has played through them in the past, particularly in Cyprus, under considerable difficulties. I want to say further that in that particular field of peace keeping I hope this tremendously worth-while development in international affairs will not be dissipated by the financial difficulties discussed at the United Nations. It seems to me the minister himself said on one occasion that, while no one can be certain of these things, if it had not been for the intervention of peace keeping forces in Cyprus we would very likely have had a war between two allies in NATO, which might well have escalated into a major conflict. If this is so, and I believe the minister is right in saying it is so, then it seems to me important that the public in Canada and the public throughout the world should recognize that the very minute contributions, financially speaking, that we and other nations have made to peace keeping forces have in fact been a major element in preserving the peace of the world and that any further contribution we may be called upon to make in this field is not only the right thing to do but the essential, the wise, the intelligent thing to do on the basis of self-interest as well as idealism and consideration for the future.
In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I have been a little disappointed and surprised-I would ask the minister to deal with this point at some time or other-to see that the move, as I see it, that the Soviet union made toward recognition of the importance of peace keeping forces under the United Nations in the statement made on July 10, 1964, has not been more fully explored. The minister is very familiar with that statement. In that statement the Soviet government maintained its insistence that peace keeping forces under the United Nations should be under the control

of the security council, but at the same time they recognized that if such forces were under the control of the security council the Soviet union would be under obligation to support them and, for the first time so far as I know, they recognized that these forces would have to be contributed by the nations that were not permanent members of the security council, in other words the smaller nations. As I understood it, they were ready to recognize the value, for the first time so far as I know, of peace keeping forces financed by the United Nations and composed of units made available by other than the great powers. It seems to me this is a recognition, of the value of peace keeping forces. It is quite inconsistent with the view often taken by the U.S.S.R. in the past which insisted that under article 7 of the charter such forces must be those of the great nations. The new Soviet attitude, has not to my knowledge been adequately explored.
The minister referred to nuclear strategy and got into some sort of debate and questioning with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. In respect of that matter I want to say to the minister that it may well be that he can justify what he said, namely that this government adopted that nuclear strategy in order to fulfil commitments made by an earlier government. But I remind the minister that a review of that was promised, that a suggestion of renegotiation was made-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Promised.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A promise of renegotiation was made, my hon. friend reminds me-and that instead of that we merely have a continuation of this sterile, dangerous reliance upon a strategy based upon tactical nuclear weapons. This is not a defence debate and I do not propose to enlarge upon my reasons for saying that, but I should like some clarity, if that is possible, from the minister with regard to whether within the councils of NATO this government proposes to seek not to add more to the tactical nuclear strategy but to withdraw from central Europe this massive confrontation of tactical nuclear power which I suggest the best opinion, in Europe as well as on the North American continent, recognizes to be a positive danger to peace rather than the reverse.
In the long run we will only solve these problems through detente, through disarmament, but we have to ask ourselves these questions. Are the policies propounded and put forward by this country frank and clear enough and are they fully designed to ease
Supply-External Affairs the dangers to world peace in the present situation? I will be happy if the minister will elaborate on some of the things he has already said, and satisfy the house that in these fields Canada is really doing all it can and not just floating along with the tide.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, we appreciated the information contained in the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs a few minutes ago when he spoke about the problems that had developed within the NATO alliance and the efforts that were being made to resolve those problems. So far as this party is concerned, we express the hope that these efforts and deliberations will in fact result in success, at least to the point where they keep NATO in the strong position it has been for the very vital purposes to which other hon. members have referred this afternoon.
While we appreciated the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we were somewhat disappointed at the lack of information concerning the matter of recognition of red China and also with regard to the financial difficulties that have arisen in the United Nations recently. I think we in the house have a right to know what the attitude of the Canadian government is going to be respecting the matter of recognition of red China by this country, and its admission to the United Nations, particularly because of certain statements that have been made recently by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself. He has made public pronouncements on more than one occasion over the past few months to the effect that we could no longer tolerate, although that is perhaps too strong a word, the exclusion of the People's Republic of China from the councils of the world. I do not have the press reports or the exact date here but early in October the Prime Minister indicated in a speech that it was his feeling it was desirable at this time that some way should be devised of having direct negotiations with this very large country.
On a number of occasions during the question period members of the house, including myself, have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs what the Canadian government proposes to do about giving effect to these opinions that have been expressed. Each time he has referred us to his famous speech of May 22 last. He has stated that the opinions he expressed at that time were complete and that if hon. members would read that speech the answers to their ques-

Supply-External Affairs tions would be apparent. I have that speech before me, Mr. Chairman, and I read it carefully again today. In the first place, I should like to suggest to the minister that this speech is now somewhat outdated. In fact, I think I could go so far as to say it is badly outdated because there have been some very profound changes in the international political situation since May 22.
We have, for example, the change of leadership in Russia. If you look at the speech made by the minister on May 22 you will find that he referred more than once to the relationship that was developing between Russia and China and expressed the opinion that this might lead to some development that might be desirable in so far as the western world was concerned. I do not want to be unfair to him. He did not suggest that the differences between these two great nations were necessarily good for the possibility of peace in the world, but it seems to me that much of what he said on the question of the admission of red China to the United Nations was predicated on developments coming out of this relationship.
Now we have a new leadership team in Russia, but I do not suppose its attitude has crystallized to the point where we can draw conclusions on whether or not the present relations between China and Russia will continue. Another point is that there has been a change of government in Britain. That may not significantly change any of these things, but there have also been important developments inside China itself, in particular the explosion of a nuclear device. We cannot completely discount that matter when thinking about the recognition of China in the councils of the world.
During the period prior to the United States election we did not press the minister too hard during question period because we realized it would be awkward for him to make positive statements at that time on what Canada intended to do to give effect to these matters. But now that election is over, and the fact remains that we have these sentiments being expressed by the two people most qualified to speak on behalf of Canada with respect to external affairs and international relations. Whether these were trial balloons or not, we have now reached the stage when we ought to have further explanation on what the government intends to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me to ask a question? He referred to the statement I made on May 22, and I believe a careful analysis of that state-


ment will reveal it has current application. I would be very interested to know what he thinks about the suggestion made in that speech on protecting the interests of Formosa and the steps suggested towards that end.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It might be well if I quoted from that speech. As recorded at page 3479 of Hansard for May 22, the minister said:
Realizing the dangers inherent in Chinese isolation, Canada has, like a number of other western nations, encouraged increased contacts in the commercial and cultural fields with China; and I think this policy has been wise and has met with success.
Further on he said:
Canada has opposed resolutions calling for the expulsion of nationalist Chinese representatives and their replacement by representatives from Peking.
He also said:
Canadian representatives at the United Nations have made clear the Canadian desire for an equitable solution which would deal adequately with the Formosa problem and at the same time bring mainland China into the main stream of international affairs.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: But it goes on to talk about taking steps to protect that position.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I believe the minister wants me to quote this paragraph:
Recent developments have revived interest in what could be described as a one China, one Formosa solution. To achieve such a solution would require above all the co-operation of the parties immediately concerned; but a practical and equitable solution along these lines has not so far proved acceptable either to Peking or to Taipei.
This still does not answer the question of whether the government is now prepared to take positive action, either by initiating or supporting action initiated by another member country, designed to seat red China in the United Nations. From the speech which the minister made on May 22 it is perfectly clear Canada has expressed a desire for closer contact with communist China. I am not at all arguing that point, but I am saying there must have been some follow up action anticipated by the government because of the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister during the latter part of September and in October.
A number of times I asked the minister whether any members of the United Nations had indicated they wanted the admission of red China included in the agenda for the meeting of the general assembly. So far the minister has not answered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, there is a proposed resolution by Cambodia.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I thank the minister and perhaps later he can tell us whether Canada intends to support that resolution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would simply
like to say that the Canadian government is engaged in careful consideration of this problem in consultation with other countries. When the Canadian position on this matter has been finalized the house will be advised.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But the general assembly will be meeting on December 1 and it is now
November 19.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This question may go on for months.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The minister says it may go on for months, but I imagine it might be one of the first items dealt with by the assembly. I presume the seating arrangements would be high on the agenda. Anyway we have now received more information than we had a few days ago, and I hope the minister will keep the house informed on Canada's position.
Dealing with the financial crisis in the United Nations, article 19 of the charter provides that member nations shall lose their votes if they fall more than two years in arrears in paying their assessments. A number of nations are about to fall into this category and we only hope a direct confrontation on this question can be avoided if the results of such a confrontation were the withdrawal of some of the larger nations from the organization.
I also note that the United States has so far delayed its commitment to the United Nations voluntary assistance programs. In withholding its pledge it appears that the United States may be engaged in a bit of arm twisting with respect to the votes of Afro-Asian nations, which are the ones who benefit most under these programs.
We certainly hope the United States is not engaged in brinkmanship in this respect- trying to persuade the Afro-Asian nations to support its motion under article 19 of the United Nations charter when this question comes before the world organization. The reason I call this "brinkmanship" is because the Secretary of State for External Affairs has expressed some optimism in the last few days that the United States will finally make its usual pledge with respect to the 40 per cent of the total of these assistance programs. If the United States is holding back, engaging in arm twisting to get the Afro-Asian nations to support it in the action it intends to take under article 19, I must say that
Supply-External Affairs we in this party do not approve an attitude of that kind. We feel the United Nations is far too important as a forum for negotiating the important problems which arise around the world from time to time to be placed in jeopardy because of this kind of pressure.
I recognize this does not provide an answer to the question as to what must be done to encourage those nations which are delinquent in meeting their assessments to come forward and pay them. I realize this is an extremely difficult problem. But we would not like to see the whole organization placed in jeopardy because some nations have not paid their assessments and because, in an attempt to see that they live up to their obligations under the charter, the United States is threatening to withhold its voluntary contributions to the technical assistance program.
I wish in conclusion to draw attention to one other matter, the progress of the peace keeping operation in Cyprus. It appears that the Cyprus situation has settled down and become relatively quiet in the past two weeks. I believe Canadians can take pride in the fact that this peace keeping operation has enjoyed its present degree of success in keeping a dangerous situation from spreading and becoming far more serious. I think the minister should be congratulated on the initiative and on the decisive action he took earlier this year in getting this peace keeping force on to the island in time. I am confident it was largely as a result of the initiative taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that this force was in position in time to avert a situation which might have developed to a point at which it would have been difficult for all concerned to turn back.
To sum up, I should be obliged if the minister would give us an outline of what is happening at the United Nations with regard to the serious position which has arisen because of the failure on the part of some countries to pay regular assessments, together with the indication by the United States that it may withhold its voluntary pledge to the assistance program. Perhaps too the hon. gentleman could tell us what positive action the government intends to take with respect to red China.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, my remarks, this afternoon, will be very brief. Today, on the orders of the day I put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs Martin) with a view to finding out why the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) has been away since-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I answer the question immediately? He has gone to represent the Canadian government in Ceylon.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: We know he has gone to Ceylon; as a matter of fact, we knew this before he left. On the other hand, we would like to know-we have noted that he has been away from the house for over a month -if this mission has lasted for a month for, as representative of a department, a one month trip would imply that the mission is very important.
I feel that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should give us additional information concerning the mission to Ceylon of the Minister without Portfolio. We were given a lot of explanations a few weeks ago with regard to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) who is now in Africa. At that time, we were told that the mission of the Minister without Portfolio was the same. We also learned that the Minister without Portfolio was to spend a few days, if not a few weeks, in Africa. Now, we would like to know the nature of the mission which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has entrusted to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville.
We are right in asking questions, for we know the Department of External Affairs is paying the Minister without Portfolio's travelling expenses. We do not know whether it also pays those of his wife-because we know that she is accompanying him-and we would like to have more details on the trip of this minister who has been conspicuous by his absence for over a month. If he has a mission to accomplish in Ceylon, I think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should provide us with more details. We would like to know what is the exact nature of his mission, when he is expected back and what success he has had with the authorities of Ceylon or of the other countries-


Mr. Chretien:: Certainly more than you have here.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to you that if the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) has anything to say, he could at least be brave enough to stand on his two feet and to express his opinion in the house.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Very well.
In answer to the hon. member, I should say that when I speak, I say sensible things and, unlike the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), do not make any insinuations.


Mr. Gelber:: Canada must pursue a ceaseless search for peace. As a member of the United Nations and a partner of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a member of the commonwealth our commitments and wide associations give us a unique opportunity to exercise a force for well-being.
Through the commonwealth we are in company with nations old in the arts of statecraft, and with newly emerging nations in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. This provides special scope and affords us an intimate relationship with peoples seeking to establish their roots in freedom. It also affords us a particular tie with one of the powers which has given leadership in the emergence of western civilization. The strength of Britain is our interest. The progress of the developing countries is our concern, and we are pleased to participate through the Colombo plan and through other agencies in their development.
In the United Nations we seek the widest rule of law, and respect for international authority. Canada's role has been out of proportion to our numbers and to our power, but through the wise counsel which we can offer a place among the leaders has not been denied us. The problems of the United Nations stem in part from its deep commitment to situations where it might have been more effective by playing a lesser role. By plunging into the Congo much of the substance of the United Nations has been committed to a situation where UN leadership was not certain of the road along which it was travelling. It is a paradox that United Nations forces which were sent to the Congo upon the urgent request of the government of Leopoldville to stem the tide of Tshombe rule in Katanga have now been withdrawn, while Tshombe himself has been invited back by these very same rulers to take control of the government of Leopoldville. One of the problems of the League of Nations was that it was seized with problems much beyond its capabilities. Instead of allowing it to grow and develop, all the legacy of the Versailles treaty was placed on the doorstep of the league. Now we note that the United Nations finds that the deep commitment in the Congo exhausted much of its resources, in order to save the Congo from Tshombe

and secession. We now see that the former secessionists are in control of the central government of the Congo and the mercenaries who were the core of Tshombe's army are fighting to establish the authority of Leopoldville. A wiser and less precipitous course in the Congo might have saved the United Nations from its present impasse.
In the Middle East the wise counsel of our present Prime Minister, who as secretary of state for external affairs urged the United Nations to use the impasse of 1956 between Israel and Egypt as an opportunity for establishing a peaceable relationship between these two countries, was not accepted and upon the insistence of the then United States secretary of state, Mr. Dulles, and with the blessing of the then secretary general of the United Nations, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, there was a return to the status quo ante. Had the wise counsel of our present Prime Minister been followed, the war situation could have been turned into a basis for an enduring peace. Canada will certainly continue to use its best influence to bring about a resolution of the unhappy state of affairs in the Middle East between Israel and her neighbours.
We now find a situation in the United Nations where it is facing bankruptcy and where one of the major powers refuses to participate in the peace keeping undertakings which have been ordered under the uniting for peace resolutions of the general assembly. To lose Russia would be a serious blow and our best efforts must be used to help resolve this very critical situation. The United Nations itself has been radically transformed with the addition of many members from the developing countries. It is becoming a wider forum, and we all hope that it will be a responsible one. The future of world peace is so intimately associated with international co-operation, which the United Nations symbolizes, that we cannot allow it to go by default.
NATO is also faced with a crisis. Formed to underpin the security of western Europe in the face of burgeoning Russian power, NATO in its early years gave confidence to nations of western Europe to defend themselves in association with North Atlantic countries. Canada has given commitments much beyond any in peacetime and the United States and Britain have also given automatic guarantees which are historic and unique. This is a situation on which to build, and the present re-examination of the NATO relationship must be used, not to dismantle
Supply-External Affairs the machinery which has made such an important contribution to world peace, but to direct NATO activities in new directions which can meet more fully the situation where western Europe with new confidence and a welcome prosperity can play a fuller role in the fulfilment of NATO's objectives.
The statements of the new government in the United Kingdom are welcome since they recognize that the problem of nuclear initiative within NATO cannot be spread among a triumvirate of powers. The dispersal of control of nuclear weapons would set up new dangers. Canada is content to allow this initiative to remain in the hands of the greatest strategic power in the west. The demand for independent nuclear deterrents in the hands of British and French forces means that each/ would have a trigger on American nuclear power. Canada, which is committed to go to war in defence of its partners should they be attacked, can only look with trepidation upon the development of these independent initiatives. The statement of the British prime minister that his country is prepared to waive this position will certainly be welcome in Canada. The proposal to expand the number of countries with nuclear weapons by organizing multilateral nuclear forces is also viewed with some trepidation here. The further dispersal of nuclear weapons is a matter of great concern.
We must continue our unremitting efforts for disarmament. I am not one of those who feel that an agreement for disarmament would bring about a cataclysmic readjustment of our economic affairs. There is much for us to do, and the predictions which were made in 1945, 1946 and 1947 about the critical economic result of the end of the war certainly were not borne out. Even if we had to pay a large economic price it would certainly be worth the security and well-being resulting from a program of agreed disarmament. We will probably only go forward slowly, but we must be patient, we must be persistent, and we must be wise.
The United Nations itself cannot continue to deny membership to mainland China. Seven hundred million people must have a voice through their government, even though it may not be a democratic government, in the councils of the United Nations. We must bend our best efforts to gain the adherence of mainland China to international agreements, particularly in areas of disarmament. We must also offer economic association to mainland China so that it can become integrated in the world community. Certainly the claims of China

Supply-External Affairs irredenta on an offshore island are not sufficient for denying a place in the councils of the United Nations to 700 million people.
Canada is also taking a greater interest in the problems of Latin America, which it might well do. We must be prepared to pay a very considerable price for our participation in the affairs of Latin America, and until we fully take stock of the demands that shall be made upon us we should develop our relations on a day to day basis. I support wholeheartedly the granting of long term credits to countries in Latin America. It seems to me that economic and cultural associations are going to be most fruitful and we will probably think very hard before we enter into political arrangements involving the area of Latin America.
The expanded programs of technical and other assistance to developing countries which have been announced by the government are certainly most welcome. The disparities between the developed and less developed world are startling and critical. Despite the efforts which have been made, the gap is not narrowing; it is growing-and because of the state of our economy we can afford to participate more fully in these programs. Personally, I support all the multilateral programs of the United Nations and am pleased to see that we have increased our contribution to UNICEF by $200,000. However, the most fruitful and most likely area where we will participate to a larger extent in aid to developing countries is through bilateral arrangements. The economic development of Canada is a factor which must be related to our contribution in this particular field and it is through bilateral programs that we can ensure that the rate of growth in Canada is enhanced by our participation in the economic growth of the developing countries.
I would also like to say a word about our foreign service. The good name of Canada abroad owes a great deal to men of character, skill and modesty who have laboured for many years in understanding the problems of countries to which they have been posted in representing Canada. It seems to me that the position of this important service should be enhanced and we should take a closer look at the very serious personal problems involved for men and women who take these postings abroad. This service is an important aspect of Canadian policy and it has many unique problems which are not the same as problems facing people in other areas of government. A man who is performing in Canada is certainly not faced with the hard-
[Mr. Gelber.l

ships and the vicissitudes which are often the daily count for those who are representing Canada abroad. We tend to think of the Canadian diplomatic service in terms of the type of career which was open in the 19th century and in the early years of the 20th century. Polite routines are not the essence of the work of Canadian diplomats abroad. They have to familiarize themselves with modes of life often far disant from those of western society. They are the listening posts of Canadian intelligence abroad. For this sensibility and these trials we must make more adequate provision. It is Canada's basic interest to live in a world of peace and a world friendly to our aspirations. In this we must invest our best endeavours.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, knowing how considerate he is, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will waste no time in answering the few questions I wish to put to him.
We have learned that the assignment of a certain mission to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) was not authorized by an order in council. There are certain things I should like to know with regard to that assignment. For instance, I would-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: May I ask the hon. member a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I am not through yet.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I merely wish to know whether the hon. member would care to wait until the end of the general discussion before asking his questions.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to please the minister but I must advise him, with regret, that I cannot postpone my questions, as I shall have to leave.
I know, for instance, the assignment of the mission on which the hon. member for Red Deer was sent is based on good will, co-operation, understanding, and a desire to promote common interests.
I think this is probably the result of the minister's joviality. Up to this point, I feel he deserves some congratulations and a certain measure of admiration from the house.
There are questions which the Secretary of State for External Affairs still has not answered.
He told us when the matter was raised in the house that the appointment of the hon. member for Red Deer was based on the 15 years of experience he had on the dark continent.

On the other hand, we also know, as was recalled by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) a few moments ago, that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) has also been selected by the government to accomplish a mission in Africa.
I would like to know from the minister what specific mission has been assigned to the hon. member for Red Deer and what specific mission has been assigned to the Minister without Portfolio.
Within the diplomatic corps are there no efficient officials who could have fulfilled the duties which were assigned to the hon. member for Red Deer?
Was a meeting held between our two temporary diplomats, if I may call them that, the hon. member for Red Deer and the Minister without Portfolio? Did they consult each other? Did they meet in order to synchronize their efforts so the delicate and difficult problems and duties assigned to each would be fulfilled according to the instructions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and also in the best interests of all concerned?
I was on the platform in 1960, at Papineau-ville, when Hon. Lionel Chevrier told us about the detrimental effects of nuclear weapons. You should have heard him then telling us about the dreadful effects of the dropping of a nuclear bomb on our population. And that was to blame the government of the day for having accepted, he said, nuclear weapons.
As no action has been taken since to get rid of nuclear weapons, on the contrary-yet those who sit on the other side of the house campaigned against nuclear weapons, but at one time they rose in this chamber and said they were in favour of them-I ask the minister what progress has been made in the negotiations to free Canada from its nuclear commitments to NATO and NORAD?
Those are the questions that come to my mind.
However, if I am here when other matters are discussed, I will again prevail upon the kindness of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, in following the minister and the hon. members for Oxford, Greenwood, Medicine Hat and St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, there are a few things several hon. members have asked about during the debate on which we need some clarification.
Supply-External Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would it be possible to deal with them on the details? I would be very glad to deal with them then.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I would just like to asks a few questions and I will be interested in the minister's replies. I sometimes think that the language he uses is veiled in allegory, because it is very difficult to find out at times where the minister stands on some important matters-for example, the diplomatic recognition of China, whether Canada should be a member of the O.A.S. and our stand on negotiating out of nuclear weapons today.
I have great respect for the minister, and I think many other hon. members have the same feelings as I toward him. We all enjoy putting questions to him and we also enjoy the answers. Sometimes they are very difficult to understand and we do not always understand what he means.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Sometimes he does not, himself.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right. Perhaps the minister is a little like Robert Browning, who wrote a poem and when he was asked about it several months later he said that when he wrote it he understood it, but that when he looked at it later, only God understood it.
The question I would pose immediately to the minister is the one I posed the other day. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Medicine Hat say something about this, and I was also particularly interested in the excellent address of the hon. member for Greenwood concerning whether we should recognize China. As reported at page 10154 of Hansard I asked this question, and I will also read the answer.
Before I read it, however, let me say this. When the minister sat on this side of the house he had some very clearcut answers to this problem. He was then in opposition looking to greener pastures, to the time when he would become minister. He felt at that time that Canada, in plain, simple language, should diplomatically recognize China. He also said without any reservation or equivocation whatever that we should become a member of the O.A.S. I am sure he was in full accord with the leader of his party at the time, now Prime Minister, that if Canada accepted nuclear weapons it would negotiate out of them when the Liberals took office.
It was with that thought in mind, and particularly in view of the new developments in China, that I posed this question, hoping that the estimates of the department would come before the house.

Supply-External Affairs
I should like to say at the outset that I am happy the house has agreed to limit the time of discussion on estimates. I hope we can come to this kind of an agreement often. Someone charged me the other day with having made a backroom deal with a certain minister in the Liberal party. If I had any deal at all with the minister, it was not a backroom deal but a frontroom deal. In any event we did get the job done. By limiting the time for debate on estimates we know where we are and we can thrash out our problems within that period of time.


An hon. Member:: It was a Pickersgill-Woolliams amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I heard someone say that it was a Pickersgill-Wool-liams amendment. Whatever it was, it was a good thing, because we completed our consideration of redistribution.
On November 17 I directed a question on orders of the day to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That question in part, as it appears in Hansard at page 10154, is as follows:
In view of the coming apparent change of attitude of the United States toward China, particularly with reference to recognition of China, does the minister not think now is the time for Canada to take a lead by diplomatically recognizing China and thus put his words into action?
The minister answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the validity of the premise-
The hon. member for Oxford, who has had a considerable amount of experience in external affairs, said that it seemed to be common knowledge to anyone who reads the Sunday New York Times, and other newspapers, that there is going to be a change in the attitude of the United States in its policy toward China. The minister obtains his information from the officials of his department, which I think is one of the best departments of our government and always does an excellent job for the country, whether the Conservatives or Liberals are in power, because we all agree about fundamental problems, and seem to disagree only when there is a crisis. This is also because we must have continuity in our international policies.
The minister stated in answer to my question:
Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of the validity of the premise involved in my hon. friend's question-
I really do not think that was what the minister meant. He then said:
-therefore I could not usefully answer the remaining part of the question.
Most members I suppose would let it go at that, but I am not one to let these things die, and I asked this supplementary question:
Is the government prepared to recognize China?
I put my question in plain ordinary terms, and the minister stated:
As I said last week, Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this matter rather fully on May 22, 1964.
I then asked another supplementary question which involved the point which I believe was developed by the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Medicine Hat, this afternoon. For once the opposition seems to be in agreement. This is the question I then asked:
A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since May, 1964, have the circumstances changed?
I would not think that the minister wanted to leave the impression in this house that the circumstances had not changed since May 22, 1964, the date of his great speech. My question then was:
In view of the fact that China now has some knowledge and information about nuclear weapons, has the attitude of the minister or the government changed or remained static since May, 1964?
We knew that China had experimented with some sort of an atomic bomb, although we do not know just what kind. The government of Canada may know, but that may be a secret of the cabinet.
I asked the minister:
Has the attitude of the minister or the government changed or remained static since May, 1964?
He then answered in this way:
Mr. Speaker, these additional factors, to which my hon. friend directs our attention, naturally are playing a part in studies that are current.
He did not answer my question. He did not say whether the government of Canada was going to recognize China, or whether the government of Canada was working in conjunction with the government of the United States, our friends and allies with which we work on the American continent, toward negotiating discussions on this problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend will recognize that this is an important matter. I have already informed the hon. member for Medicine Hat that this matter is now being discussed with a number of countries.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is one reason why this problem should be aired this afternoon. We

have now smoked out the minister. The minister did not give us that kind of a clearcut answer on November 17, and that is not long ago.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I did not do so because the next day we had very important consultations, which are now continuing, with certain countries.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I must have been looking in a crystal ball in order to realize that the minister was going to hold a very important conference the day after November 17, but in any event on that day he had not changed his attitude as he expressed it on May 22, 1964.
With the greatest respect for the minister, who is one of the most senior and respected members of this house, I say that while we enjoy the comedy of his answers at times, I do wish in the future that he would give more clearcut answers to our questions. I think many members of this chamber and members of the press gallery are beginning to realize that the minister's answers are wrapped in such allegory that we do not know what he means. He speaks in a different language, and it is very difficult for us, with some limitation, to understand his answers.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Would the hon. member permit me to remind him of the observation of a great British foreign minister who said that, when answering difficult questions on foreign policy, it is desirable to make sure that the opposition is well informed to the point where there will be no danger as a result.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that interjection because we now know exactly what is the policy of the minister when he is answering questions in the House of Commons. It does give us some comfort to know that he follows a deliberately planned move in answering our questions.
In relation to the point developed by the hon. member for Greenwood this afternoon, and also developed by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, I should like to quote a portion of a recent article which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, now called the Post, which puts the situation into proper perspective and in better language than I could use. It relates to the China policy of the United States. This article confirms the belief that Canada's policy in respect of communist China is tied to the United States China policy. I do not know whether the minister criticized us in this regard when we were in power, but this article certainly does put the situation 20220-650J
Supply-External Affairs in its proper perspective. Several weeks ago I made a statement similar to that contained in this article, although I did not make it in words as well chosen as those used here. The editor of this article states:
It would be matter enough for concern if 700 million people were being systematically taught to hate America-that and no more. Now, however, the paranoiac leaders of communist China have an atomic bomb, crude though it may be. It may take them five years, or even 10, to develop a workable weapons system to deliver the bomb. But we can take little solace from this fact. The Chinese bomb may not have altered the world's balance of terror for the moment; nevertheless, nothing in world affairs will ever again be quite the same.
It is for that reason I asked the questions, to which I have referred, on November 17, 1964. The minister in answering left the impression that world affairs had not altered since he made his speech on May 22. Whether or not he meant to leave that impression, that is the impression that was left.
The editor of this article then continues as follows:
The fateful clock which appears on the cover of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists-the hands showing five minutes to midnight-is now ticking inexorably closer to possible world disaster.
This period of grace, whether five or 10 years, must not be wasted. The U.S. can no longer postpone the scrapping of that patchwork crazy quilt-full of internal contradictions-which is misnamed a "China policy." We must replace it with a coherent policy worked out by the coolest and ablest brains at our command. We can no longer afford to drift, for time is running out. Unless communist China can be brought within the framework of a dependable system of international guarantees-of arms control, nuclear test bans, inspection, and so on-the world may face a new kind of aggressive Hitlerism, its madness reinforced a million times by nuclear power.
In other words, we have no conversation with them, no intercourse with them at ali in reference to these matters. They go on in their own way. We have divided the world into two separate parts. So I think it is time to take a new look at this situation. I trust that the minister with his skill will in his negotiations and discussions, whether with NATO or the United States, ably bring this question before these conferences, particularly before the United States, and try to get these views across.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad my hon. friend has mentioned the United States. I assure him that is being done. The consultations we are now conducting are with a number of countries, including the United States.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Again I thank the minister, but if he had given that answer on November

Supply-External Affairs 17, 1964, I would have been happy and the opposition would have been happy and we would have known exactly where the minister stood. The minister has referred to conferences. He must have known where he stood. A man of his experience just did not wander into a conference. The conference must have been arranged. A date must have been set for the conference to carry on these discussions. He had to be briefed and he must have been briefed at the time he answered the question on November 17, 1964, at approximately three o'clock in the afternoon. He is not going to lead us to believe for one moment that after three o'clock on November 17 he briefed himself for a full discussion of the matter on November 18 and was able to change what he said on November 17 to what he has told us today, and that all that happened on November 18.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are being hard on me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not believe for one moment that the minister wants me to accept that version and I tell the minister right now I will not accept it, and I know he never really intended me to because his manner of answering questions sometimes leaves us wondering what he really means. In fact, as he himself has said, when he reads his own answers he is not able to understand them.
Having referred to the editorial, I would say there are certain things that probably should be done. Maybe these are the things the minister discussed. Maybe these are the things that the minister should have said in his statement today were being considered in reference to China. But let me finish this quotation:
It is possible, of course, and devoutly to be hoped, that the achievement of even a crude atomic weapon will bring to communist China-as it has already brought to the United States and the Soviet union-a sobering sense of responsibility.
I pause there. I was very interested in the view of the hon. member for Greenwood that it is rather shocking that we should have waited until they got such a weapon before considering negotiating with them, I agree with him in that regard. It seems to me that we have been a little naive and certainly immature. That country has now moved into the upper class, the aristocratic class, so far as knowledge of nuclear weapons and the ability to use them is concerned.
It is paradoxical but true that communist China, without atomic weapons, could take greater risks of major war than either the United States or the Soviets-knowing that both these powers were

restrained by this very sense of nuclear responsibility. China now loses this curious immunity, for her sense of dwindling time will make both the United States and the Soviets more inclined to risk a showdown with China now.
What is the editor saying? I think it can be summed up in this way. We have to change our attitude with reference to Chiang Kai-shek's government. We cannot believe they are still the government of China when none of them has visited the mainland for 15 years. We cannot believe this is the government that we must deal with at the present time. If you have 700 million people living as one nation and with internal and external sovereignty, surely we must give them proper avenues of trade and diplomatic recognition. That is the second point.
Let us not fool ourselves. We have recognized China. Whether they have had a communist government or whatever government they have had, we have recognized China for a long time as a great and powerful nation, but we must recognize them as taking their place alongside the other large nations of the world so they can be brought into the avenues of trade with other nations, and so that they can be brought into these conferences which the minister dealt with this afternoon.


Miss Jewell:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


Pauline Jewett: I was wondering whether that was his view in the year 1960, because I remember reading a contribution he made by way of interjection in a debate of that year, I believe, which suggested he was much opposed to recognition of communist China.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will answer that question when I am through my remarks. I have been reading Hansard lately and I find that at times when I speak I get carried down the road by people asking me questions. I get off the subject and the chairman has to bring me to order. Therefore I should like to complete my remarks as I prepared them in my office, rather than speaking off the cuff and be taken down the avenue. I say this nicely to the hon. lady because I respect her.


Pauline Jewett: Why don't you answer?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will at the end of my remarks, and if I do not you remind me.


Pauline Jewett: Yes or no.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Don't go down that garden path.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to read now from the editorial the four points the editor makes with regard to policy:
It must decide, once and for all, that Chiang Kai-shek's government cannot continue to claim to be the government of mainland China, which none of his officials has even seen for 15 years. Instead of maintaining this legal myth-rather like the Count of Paris' claim to being the King of France-we should concentrate on protecting the freedom and self-determination of Chiang's stronghold, Formosa. That land must not under any circumstances be handed over to red China.
That is point one. Point two:
It must abandon the folly of trying to keep China's 700 million people perpetually isolated from the normal avenues of trade and diplomatic interchange.
I might pause there. I think the former Conservative government can take some credit for opening up the avenues of trade with China. That policy has been carried on by the present government and it should be extended and expanded.
The more we can engage China in long range international obligations, the less likely it would be to run amok.
Point three:
It should make an imaginative effort to lift the existing disputes between China and the United States onto a higher and different level, which would acknowledge China's right to be regarded, and treated, as the great nation it has always been. While fearing its development of nuclear rockets, we must remember that China invented rockets in the first place-and paper and printing as well, for the Chinese proudly remember that they were highly cultured when the west was barbarian. We might consider such imaginative gestures, for example, as inviting China to join with the other great powers in the exploration of outer space. We must try, in every honourable way, to break through Mao's hatred, to reach the Wong Tsens and the younger leaders of the China yet to be.
Point four:
At the same time we must be prepared for a showdown if the Chinese leaders show increasing signs of preparing for war, and inciting their peoples to readiness for war-if, in short, they clearly move in the direction of neo-Hitlerism. We must not repeat the Anglo-French failure to stop Hitler when there was yet time. We must be prepared, regardless of possible Soviet intervention or United Nations condemnation, to knock out China's nuclear capability by pinpoint-bombing its reactors and arsenals before its power becomes indestructible. Terrible as this alternative is, we must not exclude it from our planning, or fail to warn the Chinese that we do soberly include it. To do otherwise would place America's own survival in jeopardy.
These are the four points and I want to summarize them. First of all, we cannot say that the government of Formosa is today the
Supply-External Affairs government of mainland China because, as the editor has pointed out and as other members have pointed out in this debate, it has not been on the mainland for 15 years. We cannot continue, as I said before, to ignore 700 million people either in the avenues of trade or in the diplomatic field. We must recognize China as a great nation, try to work out international economic and other problems with China and bring her into the community of nations. Above all, we must never let ourselves not be prepared-I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the hon. member could finish and we might pass this item.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No. I have a few more remarks to make. I am not going to be long.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You could do it now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, just before the supper hour I had been dealing with the question of Canadian diplomatic recognition of red China. Some questions were posed by the minister and during the supper recess I had a chance to go through my file. I see now that he probably was presenting this matter to us in chronological order.
I am not saying the problem is an easy one. It is one we have to work out with our friends and allies, but I have made myself quite clear on the four points to which I think serious consideration should be given. In fact that is why I objected, and I did it with respect, to the kind of answer I got when I asked the question on orders of the day about the position of the government.
An article in the Toronto Globe and Mail of September 7 by Emerson Chapin of the New York Times service, filed from Tokyo, stated:
Paul Martin, Canada's secretary for external affairs, said on Saturday that the Canadian government did not believe in insolating China and was increasing-
-this may be a new word-
-its non-diplomatic relations with Peking "on a modest and reciprocal basis."

Supply-External Affairs
I am sure that is not what the minister had in mind in answer to questions posed by us just before the supper hour.
An article in the Montreal Gazette of September 16, under the headline "Canada Holds Discussions on UN Seat for Red China," written by Arthur Blakely, stated:
Mr. Martin said that he was not "implying" that early action would be taken-this in again refusing to give opposition leader Diefenbaker a categorical assurance that such a policy would be put to debate in the commons before being implemented.
The questions were inspired-
Of course this may be where the minister gets some of his inspiration.
-by a speech which Prime Minister Pearson made to the Atlantic treaty association (Monday) in which he said, in part, "If we expose them (the red Chinese) more to the views of the rest of the world, we might some day expect a more realistic policy from them. The present isolation of China encourages recurring crises."
If the minister really feels that, and I am sure he does, then this is the point I want to drive home, that if we cannot reach a solution, through negotiations and working the problem out with the United States, then maybe what was reported on September 25 will be the action that the government will take.
As I said before the supper hour, when the minister sat over here on the opposition side without having the responsibility of his present portfolio, which is one of the most important, the one closest to the Prime Minister, he stated, I believe categorically, that we should recognize China so that we could widen the avenues of trade with her, negotiate with her diplomatically and thus bring her into the community of nations to discuss those problems common to all the nations of the world.
An article in the Toronto Daily Star of September 25 said:
Despite frequent Canadian denials, the United States firmly believes Canada will recognize red China after the U.S. elections in November.
This belief is held at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
I would say that if we cannot work this out with the United States then the question remains, what is Canada's policy in this regard? I am not going to repeat the four points I made before supper hour, as I must pass on to something else, but I emphasize that I believe those points deserve serious consideration by the government. Conditions are not now the same as they were in 1961, 1962, and 1963, and the minister has changed his position at great speed. Between Novem-


ber 18 and November 19 he changed his known position. His reason was that he held a conference on the 19th, and therefore his answer on the 18th would not be the same as it was on the 19th or the 20th.
I now wish to deal with another subject, the organization of American states. It was my privilege to attend the civil rights conference held in Mexico City in 1959-60 and at that time met and talked to the representatives of various Latin American countries. It was about that time that the late President Kennedy, speaking in this House of Commons, pressed for Canada to become a member of O.A.S. At that time the minister sat on this side of the chamber, and he said the Conservative government of the day should see to it that Canada became a member of the O.A.S. in the interests of the security of this part of the hemisphere and so that we might all work together. However since he has assumed the responsibility of the external affairs portfolio no such action has been taken.
We are now a long way from the cry we heard during election time when he said it was a time to excite the daring and test the strong. The Liberals are very daring and strong when in opposition, but they seem to become a little more moderate when they get into positions of responsibility.
Though the criticism the minister offered at that time may have been strictly for political expediency, the fact remains that he made a statement at Banff-I have not got the press clipping with me-in which he categorically said we should be a member of the O.A.S.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I did not say
that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the general feeling.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I said that Canada's ultimate destiny was a closer association with Latin America.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Ultimate destiny is not a destiny of 60 days, 120 days or 180 days. This ultimate destiny might be in 1984, but by that time the O.A.S. may have taken on a broader scope, or our destiny may lie with the whole world, not just with a geographical group. Had we been members of O.A.S. we might have been prevented from opening up avenues of trade with China and Cuba, and I do not see how we can recognize China and still follow the United States and the objectives of the O.A.S. I would like the

minister to explain this, because I am quite convinced that if that had happened we could not have opened up our trade with Cuba, and I point out that there has been no change with respect to our trade with Cuba since this government took office.
Further, there has been no change with respect to our trade in grain with communist countries. It was interesting to hear the hon. member for Medicine Hat press the government this afternoon to tell the committee where it stands on this question of recognition. Here, too, there have been some changes. It has not been a case of osmosis altogether, but changes have taken place. I should like to draw attention to what was said in the course of a speech made by the leader of the Social Credit group in this house on November 23, 1962, as reported in Hansard at page 1951. That hon. member, who is now out of the country on a special mission for the government-I shall say nothing about this now, though I may have some comments to make with regard to it later-was asked by the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to make the position of his group clear as far as trade in grain with red China and the other communist countries was concerned. Mr. Chairman, I have continually heard the leader of that party deny he was ever against selling grain to Russia. Well, it took me a lot of research, but I finally came up with this exchange which took place back in November, 1962:


Mr. Laing:: Would the hon. member make an unequivocal statement that the group he heads does not favour the sale of foodstuffs to red China and other communist countries?


Mr. Thompson:: The question the hon. member has asked must seemingly give some concern as far as the answer is concerned.
Of course it would, because 95 per cent of the hon. member's riding benefited from the sales of wheat to China and Russia and it would cause a great deal of concern if the leader of the Social Credit party was against these sales.


Lucien Lamoureux: Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member to point out that his time has expired. If there were unanimous consent-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have just a few more words to say.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Supply-External Affairs


Paul Joseph James Martin: Maybe the hon. gentleman intends to take only a minute or two.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, the minister certainly shows us the kind of courtesy we respect on this side of the house. I shall not get into an argument with members on the back benches behind him because their actions speak for themselves.
I should like to read the reply given by the hon. member for Red Deer.
As long as there are hungry people on the free side of this struggle that I am talking about, who need our wheat and cannot get it, we are against the sale of wheat to communist China or any other such country.
In brief, I do not see how they can come along now and say they are in favour of recognizing China, or in favour of any of these ideas. I say this because they were opposed to opening up the avenues of trade. If we do not open up the avenues of trade with countries such as Russia and China, how can we work out these solutions which will lead to peace and security in the world?
I had a few other words to say with reference to another matter, but I intend to resume my seat now, because I appreciate the courtesy extended to me. The hon. gentleman is one of the most courteous ministers on the front bench and, as I say I appreciate courtesy when it is shown.


Mr. Pritlie:: About 15 years ago I spent about two years in a brief, unsuccessful career in the department. During that time I learned to sympathize with a particular group-the people in the department called F.S.O.-ls. This is the bottom person on the diplomatic totem pole-foreign service officer, grade one.
When I think back to those years and think what a struggle it was-we were paid $2,500 a year at that time-I was a veteran, married, with a child, and I was paying $95 a month rent in Ottawa, and found it difficult to get by. It was a thoroughly miserable time, from a financial point of view. So I have had a continuing interest in salaries paid to staff members of the department, and I am wondering now whether the government is offering enough to get the right sort of person for this job, and a broad enough choice, and in the second place whether or not those chosen are having too much of a financial struggle when they take up their duties and begin to learn the difficult job of serving the country in the department.
I wonder, too, whether the salaries are sufficient to attract the numbers and types of

Supply-External Affairs candidate needed. Competition for university graduates these days is keen. I have obtained from the department the present pay rate. A person entering the department as a foreign service officer in the first grade, if he has his B.A. degree and just graduated from university is paid $4,860. There are various intermediate grades up to a maximum of $6,060 for a person with a Ph.D. degree. I was checking these rates against the salaries offered in the province of Ontario to members of the teaching profession. I took up the Globe and Mail today and noted figures such as the following: The Windsor board of education is starting teachers in grade IV at $6,100. These are not perhaps people with Ph.Ds, but the board probably requires a masters degree for this category. Lakeshore school district offers $6,200 and, again, I assume this calls for a masters degree. Those with an ordinary pass B.A. start at $4,700-$4,900 a year. I suggest there is a great deal of competition from secondary schools in the various provinces for the kind of staff the Department of External Affairs wishes to attract. I cannot imagine there would be many candidates with a Ph.D. degree applying to come into the department on the ground level.
It must also be borne in mind that there is a great expansion taking place presently in the universities and colleges in this nation. I do not have figures as to the numbers of applicants, but I suggest that this situation be looked into. Perhaps the department is aware of this. But it is not sufficient for the department alone to be concerned; the civil service commission and treasury board need to be concerned about it as well. The salaries offered to junior officers in the department do seem to be low by comparison with those offered by other institutions with which the department is competing. Perhaps the minister could say something about this subject later.
There is one policy matter I should like to discuss. I do not intend to range over the whole field of external affairs or to talk about communist China, the organization of American states and so on, as others have done. Nevertheless I have a particular interest I should like to bring forward. It has to do with a matter which will be before the forthcoming general assembly of the United Nations, and concerns the almost annual resolution on population control. I attended the United Nations meetings as a parliamentary observer in 1962 and attached myself to the second committee, following the proceedings of that committee with a great deal of

interest. I was present when Sweden, Denmark and representatives of ten other countries presented a resolution on this matter. I followed it right through and should like to make some comments on the subject this evening.
The key point in the resolution presented in 1962 by those 12 countries was this- and I intend to read the appropriate paragraph from the United Nations document. This is what paragraph 6 calls upon the general assembly to do:
Endorses the view of the population commission that the United Nations should encourage and assist the governments, especially of the less developed countries, in obtaining basic data and carrying out essential studies of the demographic aspects, as well as other aspects, of their economic and social development problems, and that the United Nations give technical assistance, as requested by governments, for national projects and programs dealing with the problems of population:
This is the resolution which was carried in the second committee, with Canada abstaining. It did not carry in the plenary session of the general assembly because some countries used a procedural motion to have it declared an important subject which would require a two thirds majority, and it did not obtain that majority. The assembly did pass a watered down resolution, the effect of which was to continue the studies for a further two years, after which another report would be made. So presumably the subject matter will be under consideration at this session of the general assembly.
I shall not take up much time trying to prove there is a population problem in the world; the evidence is overwhelming. One has only to look at the demographic year books of the United Nations, the reports of the food and agriculture organization and the reports of Mr. Eugene Black when he was president of the world bank. The case is very well and clearly documented there. I would just point out one or two facts to illustrate the particular problem. It is generally estimated that the world population will double by the year 2000. The latest reports of the F.A.O. show that food production for the last year in which they were reporting did not increase as much as world population. This of course is on a global scale. In particular places there were marked increases in food production, but in those areas which suffer most there was not an increase. Since world war II the production of food in Latin America has gone up 70 per cent, but the production of people has gone up 76 per cent. The point is that there is no real economic growth per person in many of these countries.

I do not need to emphasize this too much because apparently the minister is well aware of the problem. I must confess that I had not realized this until I read two of his recent speeches. I wish to quote briefly from both of them. The first is a speech he made in Banff on August 24, 1964, to the second annual Banff conference on world development. The reproduction of the minister's speech is entitled "Latin America: Challenge and Response", and he had this to say:
In rough terms the population of Latin America is now over 200 million, rather more than that of the United States and Canada together. However, the demographic projections of United Nations experts indicate a very different situation by the end of the century. Latin America may then contain up to 600 million people, while North America will have not much more than 300 million. This fantastic population increase-the highest rate of any region in the world-cannot fail to add to the relative international importance of Latin. America. There is reason to believe, however, that it will at the same time increase its serious economic and social problems. Very great economic growth will undoubtedly result but, when considered in relation to population, the material benefits may well fall short of popular expectations.
Again, in a speech the minister delivered in Cleveland on September 26 last, entitled "The Challenge of Underdevelopment", he had this to say in a section headed "Population Outruns Development":
Of course, the problem presented by the underdeveloped world is not a simple one and it is not capable of any single or simple solution. A few facts and figures will, I think, help to illustrate its scope. In the decade from 1950 to 1960, the countries of the underdeveloped world were able to increase their production of goods and services from $110 billion to just under $170 billion. This means that, at the beginning of the decade as at the end of it, these countries accounted for only three tenths of all the goods and services produced in the free world as a whole. Over the same period the total population of these countries increased from 1,000 million to 1,300 million people. That is a rate almost twice as high as that experienced in the advanced countries of the free world. When the growth of production is discounted by the growth of population, we find that the less developed countries were able to increase their average per capita income over the decade by no more than $23, from $105 in 1950 to $130 in 1960. In other words per capita income in these countries rose by a mere $2.50 a year.
So the problem is apparently understood by the minister and his advisers in the Department of External Affairs. In his speech in Cleveland the minister outlined seven points by which Canada could give aid to Latin America and other developing countries. They are all perfectly good points, but he failed altogether to mention that they might be given some help on this question 20220-651
Supply-External Affairs of population control, which is certainly an important point. No more than the minister do I want to oversimplify the problem of population and resources and the relationship between the two, and how you make any real advance in the standard of living in these countries. Population control is only one of the approaches that must be taken. The production of food in these countries by all means is very, very important and there are agencies working at this. Better trading relationships, better distribution of goods are other parts of the problem as well. But I think you have to attack the problem on all fronts and I am suggesting that one particular aspect of this is being ignored.
Not all countries are ignoring it. One of the most significant things which emerged from the debate at the United Nations in 1962 was the fact that at that time the United States government changed its position. Prior to that time they had been taking the same position as Canada; that is, they abstained from votes on these matters. However, in 1962 they changed and I would suggest that they did so with the obvious approval of the late President Kennedy. The importance that the United States government attached to this was underscored by the fact that their statement to the committee was read by Mr. Richard N. Gardner, deputy assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs. This is from a statement delivered by Mr. Gardner at the United Nations on December 10, 1962. I want to read one paragraph of his statement because I think it is the correct approach and is the one the Canadian government should follow:
While the United States will not suggest to any other government what its attitudes or policies should be as they relate to population or the adoption of specific measures in its implementation, the United States believes that obstacles should not be placed in the way of other governments which, in the light of their own economic needs and cultural and religious values, seek solutions to their population problems. While we will not advocate any specific policy regarding population growth to another country, we can help other countries, upon request, to find potential sources of information and assistance on ways and means of dealing with population problems.
The government of the United Kingdom have also announced that they are willing to take the same position. The Earl of Aberdeen, who was then minister of state for foreign affairs, made such an announcement last spring in the House of Lords. However, the United States government has gone quite a bit further than that. A year ago there was an amendment to their foreign aid act, called the Fulbright amendment, which

Supply-External Affairs authorized the United States government to enter into negotiations with any country that wanted advice on population matters. Last April I attended a conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico, dealing with the population problems of the western hemisphere. This conference was sponsored by a private organization, the international planned parenthood federation, and I was a delegate from the Canadian society. However, I found out later that part of the costs of this conference were paid by the state department, and at that conference a representative of the state department, from the agency for international aid, appeared and further elaborated on the change which had taken place in United States policy. The person who did that was Mr. William D. Rodgers, deputy United States co-ordinator, alliance for progress agency for international development, department of state. He had this to say:
As you know, the United Nations passed without a dissenting vote a population resolution proposed by the African and Asian nations in December, 1963. A few months later the U.S. congress adopted the Fulbright amendment to the foreign assistance act. This amendment enable A.I.D. to fulfil requests from Latin American nations for assistance with respect to demographic aspects of development. This we are ready to do. Our efforts will be concentrated in the Helds of information, training and research. We intend to co-operate closely with all responsible segments of society, church, private and public organizations; and will constantly reflect the fact that such matters are in the last analysis the choice and initiative of each individual family.
I should mention in passing, Mr. Chairman, that although I attended as a delegate of a private organization in Canada, at this conference there were representatives from every country in North and South America. Some of them represented private organizations but many of the countries sent official government delegations. Among the countries which sent official government delegations were these ones from Latin America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. I mention that particularly because they are countries with predominantly Roman Catholic populations and it is an indication that they have been concerned about this problem that they were willing to send official government delegates to this conference. The United States delegate at the conference announced that his government is assigning an officer in each United States mission in Latin America to act as a liaison with the local authorities on population matters.
[Mr. Prittie.l
I do not quite understand why the Canadian delegation under this government at the United Nations, and also the delegations of previous governments, have taken the stand which they have taken. If this stand is based upon fear of offending the sensibilities of Roman Catholics in Canada or is based upon the fear of some reaction at the polls if they do take action, then if that is the case I suggest that our stand was based upon myths which should no longer exist.
I am convinced from what I have read, from my discussions with people and from the type of response on this subject which members of parliament have received concerning a bill which I introduced, that this massive opposition by Roman Catholics in Canada to any discussion of population planning does not exist. In fact, as we know there has been a great deal of discussion on this matter recently by the church and by some of the leading prelates of the church. Therefore, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the minister and his colleagues that this particular policy be re-examined with a view to the Canadian delegation at the United Nations this year taking a different stand from that which it has taken in the past.


Mr. Watson (Chafeauguay-Hunlingdon-La-prairie):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a very few minutes of the committee's time to bring the attention of the minister to one area of our external relations where I think Canada could shine forth but is not doing so. I submit that Canada should immediately launch a peace corps type operation. The United States has a successful program in effect. This year there will be over 10,000 people in the field as a result of the United States peace corps program. Britain, France and Germany are all considering launching similar type programs and within a year or two each will have two or three thousand men and women in the field.
I submit that Canadian representatives would have a twofold advantage over any representatives from these older colonial countries. We can supply technicians to teach and to work in two of the world's major languages. In addition we are in the enviable position of not having enemies abroad either old or new, so we cannot be tarred by any stretch of the imagination as being colonialists.
Our French language students have a particularly important role to play in Africa where I think the French and the Belgians are suspect as colonialists. We have embassy

level relations with only two of the new French speaking nations in Africa, so I would submit that this type of student or youth aid program would allow Canada to play a very efficient and effective role in French speaking Africa.
Combined with a peace corps type operation, Mr. Chairman, must be the setting up of adequate training facilities here in Canada. I hope that this government will immediately consider the encouragement of university training facilities which would serve a threefold purpose: to train personnel who could be used domestically for some of our ARDA programs in depressed areas; to provide personnel who could be used for these self-help programs we have instituted for Indian reserves; and to provide personnel who could also be sent abroad.
I would strongly urge the minister to ask his department to give immediate consideration to such a peace corps type program for Canada. This would mean perhaps substantial government support for the very successful private program initiated by the Canadian university service overseas organization, which this year has over 200 students, young people and older people abroad serving in the name of Canada. This organization is a privately sponsored organization which receives its contributions from the public, but has been helped this year by government aid in transporting abroad in R.C.A.F. transports certain of their personnel. It has also benefited from the advice of the external affairs department. Whether the government would support such a well proven, successful private program or would decide that the establishment of a parallel, fully government sponsored aid program is better is a matter for departmental decision; but I am convinced that something should be done immediately either to aid substantially the university program or to set up a parallel government program.
The inauguration by the Canadian government of a massive peace corps type operation would mean more value dollar for dollar than any other form of aid. But, much more important, I submit it would be the right kind of therapy for a youth in this country, which, in its introversion and preoccupation with Canada's internal problems, is losing sight of the role Canada should be playing in the world. By looking beyond our frontiers, by making use of the evident advantages of possessing two of the world's greatest languages and cultures and by making available to the world the experience of corn-20220-651J
Supply-External Affairs promise which is ours, almost uniquely in a century still plagued by ancient antagonisms, I submit our youth can silence the doubters and cement our own unity more effectively in this way than by any other method.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to spend a few moments discussing Canada's foreign aid policy. Most of these comments seem to offer widespread criticism. It is easy to find many illustrations of this criticism. I refer only to one, an article in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on August 21 of last year, which discussed the whole question of Canada's foreign aid policy and seemed to conclude that we gave too little. And that is my own conclusion.
It has been suggested that a favourable level of giving for a country as prosperous as Canada would be about 1 per cent of our gross national product. I am not sure whether this has been arrived at by a "guess and by golly" procedure or by careful analysis. It does seem, however, that this would not be an exorbitant amount particularly since some countries, especially the United States and Britain, already measure up to this percentage. Canada is well below it.
Perhaps the first question we should ask ourselves is, why do we give to foreign aid at all? Very superficially we might answer, because it is expected of us. Or perhaps because it really does not hurt us very much, if at all. But I think these would be superficial answers and to be expected only of the cynical. In my view, we give mainly because we really do care about mankind generally, and about our brothers in the have-not nations. We would like to do our part to raise their standards of living and to see that they have the material things of life which we enjoy.
I am sure we all know that a great deal of material aid will be required. We know that it is a task which cannot be done in a minute but one that takes many years. We also know that we are doing quite a bit along that line; but as I said earlier, I do not think we are doing enough. I am quite sure the people of this country are prepared to give, and spend the time to give assistance to these people, to help solve their problems.
There are many ways in which we may help, and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond referred to the speech the minister made in which he set out some ways. However, there are some ways I should like to mention. First of all I believe that we have many commodities, some of which might


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to take too much of the minister's time. I have known him ever since I entered parliament. I have watched him operate as a politician when he was in the opposition and I appreciated his ability when one of our ministers at that time was a little vague in his answers. I recall the tantrums he would work himself into in those days in trying to get an answer. Those were the days when he was looking forward to leading the great Liberal party.
But now the shoe is on the other foot. My good friend is on the other side of the house and I am over here. Now I am trying to get some information from him. He is still looking forward to leading that great party, although he has difficulty with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of National Defence and possibly the hon. member for Lot-biniere.
The minister was a little vague when I asked him a question regarding the trip to Africa of the member of the Liberal government without portfolio from Red Deer, and wanted to know why they sent Bongo Bob to the Congo. I wanted to find out from the minister how the expenses of the member for Red Deer were going to be paid and whether

Supply-External Affairs he had been appointed by order in council. At that time there were 14 ministers in the house.


Mr. Byrne:: What about P.F.A.A.?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: There we have that great mind from Kootenay East again, that great voice of the mountains. If I could only buy that man for what he is worth and sell him for what he thinks he is worth I would quit politics tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: For what he thinks he is worth.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Thinks he is worth, yes. When I was interrupted I had been referring to whether there had been an order in council sending the hon. member for Red Deer to Africa.


An hon. Member:: Did you get your hay cheque?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You had better go up to mount Moses and make your speech, because you have never made any contribution in this house and I do not think you ever will. We realized there should have been an order in council. There were 14 ministers in the house at the time but none of them knew anything about the matter. I asked why the hon. member had been sent to Africa. I suggested that possibly it was a political plum for supporting the Liberal party and was assured it was not.
After half an hour of conference and discussion the minister finally admitted that they had sent him to Africa, but he was still vague about why they had sent him. Then he slept on the matter all night, came back next day and said that they had sent him to Africa to rescue some missionaries.


An hon. Member:: A mercy flight.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: It is a funny thing that they should hit upon this means of doing so. When I look across at the backbenches of the Liberal party I see some very intelligent men there-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is wrong with your eyesight?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: -excluding the hon. member for Kootenay East. As I look up in the gallery I see some very intelligent men from the external affairs department sitting there. Why did the government have to dig down into the Social Credit party to find someone to send to Africa?


An hon. Member:: A long way down.


An hon. Member:: The bottom of the barrel.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Here is an extract from the Ottawa Citizen of November 12 last in which the hon. member for Red Deer is quoted as follows:
I want to find out how Canada's aid program is being administered and find out what other schemes might be financed efficiently by my government.
I more or less expected that he might run as a Liberal in the next election but I did not know that he already had joined that party. They sent him to Africa, they tell us, to save these missionaries. Here is an article in the Ottawa Citizen of November 6 last:
The mother of a Saint John missionary said today she had misgivings about Social Credit leader Robert Thompson's efforts in Africa to gain the release of 26 Canadians held by Congolese rebels. Rev. and Mrs. David Grant left Saint John July 5 for their jungle mission post and are among about 800 hostages. Mrs. D. A. Grant said she is afraid diplomatic pressure by the Canadian government might antagonize the rebels and bring tragic consequences.
That is just about what has happened. The hon. member for Red Deer is in Halifax tonight and in a radio report he said he could not help these people, that he could not get within 30 miles of them. He was sent to Africa by the government. It is quite interesting when you look at what has happened. At first nobody in the government knew that the hon. member had been sent to Africa. It was a big surprise when I asked the question in the house. Fourteen ministers did not know and my dear friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, looked shocked and a little bewildered. This just happened overnight. So he rushed out and saw Mr. Spaak, the Belgian foreign minister. The minister had sent a Department of Transport plane to New York to bring Mr. Spaak to Ottawa. Then he said that Mr. Thompson was sent urgently to Africa to save some missionaries.
Time magazine has an article headed "The Junket that Wasn't," which reads:
It certainly looked like a junket. Thompson's travels, scheduled three months ago but postponed because there was no summer parliamentary recess, included no government assignments that career foreign service officers on the spot could not handle better: he planned to quiz African leaders on such questions as seating red China in the UN; he wanted to assess Canadian aid to African development programs. And so forth. His odyssey was so ''important''-Martin to the contrary-that Thompson was not even briefed before departure by Ottawa's external aid office.


Mr. Rheaume:: They did not know why he was sent until next day.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: They still don't know why he was sent. Further on the article says:
Thompson, in common with every other western emissary, came away with little more from Ken-yatta than a promise to issue a bland appeal to the rebels "to do nothing that would be inhuman towards civilians in their custody".
But the first part of the article is the most interesting bit and gives the real reason why the hon. member for Red Deer went to Africa:
Inside his starkly modern palace overlooking Addis Ababa, the Lion of Judah greeted the member for Red Deer like one of the family. Then Haile Selassie escorted guest of honour Robert Thompson to a glittering state banquet attended by just about everybody who is anybody in Addis. That, as it happens, includes just about the whole original graduating class ('46) of the secondary school-Ethiopia's first-that the present day leader of the Social Credit party helped to establish during his 15 years as the emperor's top education adviser.
Now we are getting down to the facts of why he went to Africa. It was to attend a reunion. When we get reports like this we can only ask who is right?
The Toronto Daily Star of November 14 carried the following story:
Robert Thompson, leader of the Canadian Social Credit party, said last night that he has information three Belgians have been executed by Congolese rebels in Stanleyville and three more are under sentence of death.
But in Brussels, a Belgian official said Thompson's statement "contradicts" information received there.
I ask that the minister be good enough to get up and admit this is a worked up scheme, and admit this junket was planned three months ago. It was definitely a political plum in return for the hon. member's support. Will the minister say when the hon. member was briefed by his department? Will he tell us how much he is going to be paid and how he is going to be paid? Will he tell us why the hon. member was chosen and why all the great names in the back benches of the Liberal party were ignored?
If the minister will tell me why the officers in the external affairs department, who could have carried out this mission successfully, were ignored, then I shall not delay passage of his estimates any further. I believe this is a junket to be paid by the Canadian taxpayers. It is a trip that was planned some three months ago.


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Chairman, I am prompted to enter this debate, not so much by what was contained in the minister's statement but by what I feel was a rather obvious omission, an omis-
Supply-External Affairs sion to which emphasis was given by some of the things contained in the statement.
I had hoped that at this stage, particularly in view of the fact that earlier this year the minister visited Japan and after his visit made a comment on Pacific affairs, he would in his preliminary statement have given a clearly defined, comprehensive, well articulated statement on Canadian policy for the Pacific. I feel it is not just this minister who has omitted such a statement on occasions like this. Successive Canadian governments throughout history have never really bothered themselves to devote their full attention to Canada's Pacific role or to the question of whether in fact Canada has a Pacific role at all.
So much of our policy is built on an old tradition. Our orientation is toward Europe and toward the United States. Our perspectives tend to be the old perspectives and we do not have a fresh, new, Canadian perspective on the world as it is occupied by Canada. I have often wished that when we enter these debates on external affairs there could be a map of the world on the desk of every member, or else a very large map of the world hanging in a prominent place in the chamber, but not on the familiar Mercator's projection with which we have grown up and with which we are all familiar-that visual image of the world tends to shape so many of our ideas about the world. Rather it should have a projected centre, not on the prime meridian but on the 105th meridian west, that would show North and South America at the central point of focus, with the shores of Africa and Europe to the east and the shores of Asia, Australia and all the island countries in the South Pacific to our west, so that we would stop thinking in that European term of Asia as the Far East, but rather of Europe as our eastern area of interest and Asia as our western area of interest. For that is the Canadian perspective, or what ought to be the Canadian perspective.
We are a nation that looks out on two shores, to the east over the Atlantic and to west over the Pacific, but so much of our external affairs policy is influenced by the old perspective, the European perspective, rather than what ought to be the Canadian perspective, looking outward from both the east and west of the North American continent, and also looking south, which we must do as part of the necessity of our existence. And perhaps we do it to too great an extent.
In his statement today the minister emphasized our commitment to the trans-Atlan-

Supply-External Affairs tic community and the importance of it. That I do not deny. It is an enormously important part of our whole policy for our existence that we live in harmony and trade on as equitable terms as possible with all in the Atlantic community, but we have not yet articulated for ourselves any kind of over-all concept of Pacific policy.
However, we are being dragged into it. We are coming into it through the avenues of trade. It is almost as though the old traditional rule were applying in this situation, that the diplomat were being preceded by the merchant, because in the post-war years and since, as we have developed our trade with Japan, and more recently in wheat with China, we have begun to think in more positive terms about a Canadian role in the Pacific. This has come about as a consequence, first of trade. The nuclear explosion by China, to which reference has been made, has undoubtedly accelerated our interest; but trade actually gave it its first impetus. The first real turning of our attention to the west followed our interest in the sale of Canadian goods.
But this is not enough. It is only part of what should be done if Canada is to enunciate a clear, definite and well developed policy for this country in the Pacific. We have to be aware that two thirds of the world's people live in the Pacific region of the world. Whatever affects them politically or economically is increasingly going to affect us. What they do has a bearing on what happens to us. Even if we were to try to do so we could not live in isolation; we could not escape involvement in the Pacific. It would be most unfortunate if our involvement took the form of policy developed on a hit or miss, day to day basis to meet circumstances as they arose. The development of a continuing policy for this region is not simply the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Many of his colleagues in the cabinet have an interest in the evolution of such a policy. But the minister and his department can give the leadership required, provide guide lines, provide the basic plan upon which Canadian policy can be developed.
If we are to have a well integrated policy for the Pacific it will have to take into account trade and commerce in addition to the usual diplomatic relationships. It will have to take account of defence policy and the policies of our allies and friends in the commonwealth who are already deeply committed in this region. It will require the
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) .1

integration of foreign aid and technical assistance programs. We have a substantial interest in the north Pacific fisheries. Our immigration programs are bound to be affected. We shall need to develop an interchange of people through tourist travel. We shall require an accelerated rate of development of our west coast ports as well as of our interior lines of communication with those ports. It will involve the development of a national highways policy, all brought into some relation with the development of a Pacific policy.
There is one question which has been discussed along the west coast for many years but which has received still greater attention in the past few months. People are asking whether we should not now be actively negotiating for a corridor through the Alaska Panhandle to provide access to tidewater for the great, developing northwest regions of British Columbia and the Yukon. Furthermore, as there is a continued development of the resources in the north of the prairie provinces, and since much of this production will be turned into the Asian and Pacific markets we shall need to be more and more concerned about communications on the west coast- the most rapid and economic means of getting these products to the Pacific region. All this calls for an integrated and articulate policy of development which will be understood and supported by the Canadian people. I hope that the minister, in the course of this debate or in the course of a future debate on foreign affairs will tell us what thinking has been done on this subject within the Department of External Affairs or in any of the other departments of government.
I noticed that at the time of the meeting in Japan the hon. gentleman did refer to a Can-ada-U.S.-Japan triangle. It was a step further than we had gone in the past but I am asking the hon. gentleman to go further still. After all, a triangle is not the most satisfactory basis for a relationship-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Pacific
triangle.


Stuart A. Fleming: Well, I think it is a step forward though I believe it still falls short of what we really need as a Pacific nation. Although the coastline of British Columbia measured in a straight line from the 49th parallel to the Alaska Panhandle is only about 500 miles, the length of the coast line itself, with all its many indentations, amounts to something like 15,000 miles. These fiords reach deep into the re-

source region of the interior, giving access to all the possibilities for development in British Columbia. But we must not limit ourselves to these possibilities alone. There are other provinces in western Canada, each one of which is benefiting to a notable extent from trade with Japan at the present time.
No Canadian who travels over our main line railways or over the trans-Canada highway these days can fail to be impressed by the large number of trains moving to the west coast carrying coal, great loads of sulphur from the petrochemical industry of Alberta, copper from the interior of British Columbia, newsprint, lumber and other products of the western region of Canada which are pouring into the Orient, particularly into Japan. This is apart altogether from the movement of wheat and other grain.
The noise in this chamber at the present time suggests to me that eastern members may find this to be a boring subject of no consequence to them. I would point out to them that there is another movement west, and no one who drives along our highways can fail to be aware of it. I refer to immense trainloads of farm equipment moving from the industrial regions of eastern Canada to the western provinces-trainloads of equipment which would not be needed and which could not be paid for were it not for this earlier movement to the Orient of grain and the other products to which I have referred.
This is one aspect of our relations with the Pacific-the trade aspect, perhaps a selfish one. But on this basis, following the path of the merchants, we could develop a diplomatic program reaching out beyond the Pacific region itself to southeast Asia and to India. There is tremendous interest in this region but I am afraid there is now only a tentative sense of Canadian identification with it.
There is one other subject to which I should like to refer, and it is a related one, that of foreign aid. The minister will recall the success of the program undertaken by the Canadian government in 1959-60 in connection with the international refugee year by means of which 300 families of tubercular refugees were brought from Europe, treated for their disability, found work and rehabilitated with the result that they are now integrated into the Canadian life and economy. They found useful employment, and not only did we provide them with new opportunities but they provided us with new skills, talents and people with tremendous enthusiasm because of the kindness and humanity Canada had shown them.
Supply-External Affairs
Of course we have no such program now. There is not, perhaps, the same requirement for such a program. The hard-core tubercular cases no longer occupy European camps; certainly not to the extent that they once did. But could we not perhaps draw on our experience of that particular program, benefit from the success of it and give the lead in a fresh approach to the same kind of program? Could we not, using the experience of that program, try another experiment? In our foreign aid and technical aid programs we go out to the underdeveloped countries throughout the world and endeavour to assist them. We make them gifts of food and provide assistance in training, the building of physical plant, and so on. We endeavour to lift their economy so they can provide for their own people. But we know that in regard to many of the overpopulated countries of the world, whatever the rest of the world can do involves a long and slow process; and some of these countries will never be able from their own resources to provide for their own people because there are simply too many people for them to sustain, even with the most advanced development of their economy.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, can we not, in an experimental way in the beginning, draw on our experience in the tubercular refugee program and reach out in the world and accept into this country, say 100 families annually from overpopulated countries, families which know illness, poverty and hunger-[DOT] all the disabilities that poverty stricken economies have imposed upon them; families for whom in their present circumstances there is no hope and can no longer be any hope. I suggest that we bring these families to Canada. Let us treat those that are ill, educate, train and rehabilitate them and establish them here as Canadians. I realize that we have still to provide for many among our own people; but despite that we are still one of the great and rich nations of the world. However, much we may still have to advance in our own economy, we are so far advanced as compared with the rest of mankind that we cannot stand selfishly by and assume that we have all these benefits by divine right, or that we can retain them without accepting a greater degree of responsibility for the unfortunate people of the world than we now accept.
I think we should persuade the Canadian people that we can today, at least in the beginning on an experimental basis, take and completely provide for at least 100 families annually. While it is not much, while it is only a token, it would at least provide some

Supply-External Affairs hope for those 100 families, some reason to live, some prospect for a decent future for themselves and the young people among them. I believe that is not too much for Canada to do. If it worked well I would hope we could expand the program and I would hope that the Canadian people as a whole would support the government in such an endeavour. I believe this program would be worth trying. I do not say that we should go too far too fast, but I do think that on an experimental basis and on the basis of the success of the tubercular refugee program we should now try this further step along that line.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, most of what I had to say to the committee has already been dealt with by hon. members, particularly in relation to the situation of this country vis-a-vis the countries of South America, Central America and Mexico. However, I think I can add a few words which can constitute a postscript to what has been said. It is not without significance that in today's Globe and Mail there was an interesting news item dealing with the intentions of the government with regard to the inter-American development bank. Also not without significance, I think, is the fact that in tonight's Ottawa Citizen there is a news item dealing with a report made by a colleague of the minister, Senator Connolly, who has just returned from South America and has had some very pertinent observations to make in connection with what he discovered there-observations that I am sure will not be lost to the minister.
Most important, however, I want to put before the committee the text of a news item which appears in the Christian Science Monitor of Wednesday, November 18. This news item is headed "Lima Parley to Map Continental Body". I would ask permission, Mr. Chairman, just to read a few extracts from this article:
Legislators from at least 15 Latin-American countries will meet here from December 6 to 11 to discuss establishment of a continental assembly on the lines of the European parliament in Brussels. ..
High on the agenda will be study of the economic and political integration of Latin America and the establishment of a Latin American parliament, similar to the European parliament.
This first meeting of the legislators will attempt to fix the seat, powers, and constitution of the parliament as approved by referendum of the attending countries...
Among the terms of reference of the meeting are:
The recognition of democratic representation and social justice as norms of true continental cooperation:
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) .1

A desire to strengthen world peace and progress without hostility or prejudice toward any country or group of countries;
The strengthening of hemispheric unity by means of efficient co-operation leading to the emergence of the Latin-American countries as an integrated and independent froce in the solution of world problems.
It is interesting to note that this meeting will be attended by representatives of the organization of American states, which has been mentioned during the course of this debate, the inter-American development bank, the Latin American economic commission, the inter-American economic and social council, the Latin America free trade association, the inter-American regional labour organization, the Central America economic union, the Latin America university union, and the American inter-parliamentarian regional group.
Up until recently I think we have been proceeding with regard to this problem as if time did not matter, believing, with Mr. Micawber, that something was going to turn up. But I think this article indicates that this is no longer the case. Time is of the essence; and I do not think time is on our side, and we will have to act. I realize that successive governments have found it difficult to deal with this matter. Discussions have centered recently around joining the O.A.S. I know there are problems inherent in that and I am not going into them; the minister recognizes them, as do his officials. The alliance for progress is another means of doing something which is going to be of help and benefit to the countries of South America. This is a program initiated by the United States. But having in mind the countries of the southern part of this hemisphere have now gathered together, are apparently determined to do what they can to help themselves, and have come up with programs and suggestions of the kind which I read out, indicates that we cannot delay much longer a decision as to the course we must pursue. It is a case of enlightened self interest. The economic trade, imports and exports of the South American continent, are in the order of $18 billion to $19 billion, of which our share, if we deduct the actual imports into this country of Venezuelan oil, is not a very substantial amount.
Over and above that is the extent to which we as a country, by some means not yet clear to us or made clear by the government, can do our share to help these countries to help themselves. I do not know whether the minister or the officials of the department will be represented at this gathering, acting as

observers. I do not know whether we will participate in any of the organizations. It might be that we will become involved in the American inter-parliamentarian regional group. I know we are not members of the O.A.S., although the article in the Globe and Mail today indicated that we might be coming close to some sort of associate membership.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We belong to about five related organizations.


Gerald William Baldwin: Perhaps the minister can indicate later on whether there will be some representation directly or indirectly at this particular conference. Possibly he will consider sending greetings and best wishes from this parliament, which I think would be useful. It is for us to do more than simply attempt through private means to expand our trade; it is up to us as a government and as a people to indicate our interest, care and concern.
It is no good being critical unless one also makes suggestions, so I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that while it is for the government and the minister to come to a decision and make these representations, these representations when implemented will involve parliament and the people of Canada. This is a problem about which not enough is yet known in the country. I suggest to the minister that he give consideration during the next session to having this matter referred, by means of a specific term of reference, to the very able and active external affairs committee; that a debate might be initiated, the impact of which would be heard and felt throughout the country so that people would then be better prepared, through knowledge and understanding, to participate in the decisions which will have to be made, and will give their support. Because without the support of the people it is obvious that not too much can be done. I throw that out as a suggestion for the minister to consider in regard to the problem, which has been pretty well ventilated.
There is one other issue with which I should like to deal, Mr. Chairman. It touches the whole future of the Department of External Affairs and its course of conduct in connection with transacting the business of that department. I think my hon. friend from Battle River-Camrose referred to the good old days when the minister was in politics on this side of the house. Since then for a good part of the time he has been riding very high on cloud nine, looking down on the struggles, the thoughts, and the toil and sweat of us ordinary politicians over here. But despite that he must be aware of the fact there is
Supply-External Affairs a very considerable debate raging in this nation on matters involving federal-provincial areas of responsibility and powers, and I am sure he must be quite interested in this problem.
This, then, brings me to a question which I posed to him which was based on a speech-
I	tried to introduce this question in the house the other day but without much success- which was made at Victoria to the Kiwanis club by Mr. Lucien Saulnier, the chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, who I understand is a very responsible individual. This speech was not made in the province of Quebec but in the province of British Columbia. With much of what was said I am in thorough agreement; it was a good and an excellent speech. But toward the close of his speech Mr. Saulnier indicated what in his opinion, in this very delicate and sensitive area of federal-provincial responsibilities, should be matters which might well go to the provincial government. Included in these items was-and I am using his own words here-power to participate in drawing up external trade policies.
I suggest that there is no doubt that the minister has consulted, and will in future consult, as will other responsible ministers, the provinces when negotiating with other countries in matters specifically affecting one or more of the provinces. We had a fair example of that during the negotiations on the Columbia river treaty; I am sure he had many hours of negotiations with Mr. Bennett and his officials. However, this was not really a constitutional responsibility.
What alarms me, and what I wish to question the minister on, is this. As minister who, under the Department of External Affairs Act, is given statutory responsibility to conduct the transactions which this country must enter into with other countries, a responsibility which is augmented by constitutional practice, under circumstances where the constitution of the country provides that he must when entering into trade or other external negotiations consult with provincial governments, does he feel that he can adequately deal with the external affairs of this country? We have heard talk from time to time in connection with the nuclear arms policy, of various alliances where there are one or two or three or four fingers on the trigger. What about a situation where, in negotiating for a treaty or in writing a treaty, we find there are
II	hands on the pen which signs the treaty? I think, having put this matter succinctly to the minister, that I should like to hear his view

Supply-External Affairs at some time before this debate is concluded as to whether he feels that a constitutional amendment of this kind is one which would permit him to undertake and to carry out his responsibilities as one charged with conducting the external affairs of this country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged to take part in this debate for a few minutes because of the remarks the minister made about me this afternoon. I want also to correct an impression which may be getting abroad, contributed to by some of my colleagues who are looking at the minister as if he had adopted an avuncular attitude now to the House of Commons and to life in general. I have known him of old and I do not see this kindly, paternal attitude of the minister. I think he must be very careful or very soon he will be called "Uncle Paul" and "the old gentleman". I would prefer to see a firmer hand on our foreign affairs than is now being shown by the minister of external affairs.
I am worried about the impression he is going to create among his distinguished colleagues in other foreign countries when he uses in this house such undiplomatic language as he used this afternoon when I put before him a serious question on the policy of this country. He talked about this being a shoddy and a parochial question. He imputed a motive to me by saying I was pursuing the question as a political hobby and indicated that I was inefficient and amateurish in the performance of my duty. That is undiplomatic language in any country. I thought I would admonish the minister tonight so that he will be a little more careful in the future.
Let me just say a few words about the situation in the Congo, and the Canadians who are there. There has been a bit of buffoonery with regard to the unexpected and generally unauthorized visit of the hon. member for Red Deer to the Congo as a government representative. Now that he has returned perhaps the minister will take the matter firmly in hand to see whether it can be straightened out. The people of concern are the Canadians there, and if they were relatives of any one of us we would be deeply disturbed about their fate.
What I should like to know, quite seriously, is what the minister is doing about appointing an official and competent representative of Canada to solve this situation. I think two things are essential. The first is an attempt, as has been made, to get in touch with the rebels who are endangering the lives of our

Canadians there. The second thing is for someone of competence and knowledge to make contact with the government of the Congo, and be on hand if possible when the relieving force now approaching Stanleyville is successful. The minister has not told us about that. Has he any information as to whether Stanleyville is under attack at the present time, whether these hostages have ben released or, if they need assistance, what assistance will be given by the Canadian government?
This is a serious matter, but all we have witnessed is the fiasco of sending, without public notice until we discovered it, the hon. member for Red Deer to conduct negotiations. What is going on now with regard to the Canadians who are endangered in the Congo? I should like to see a serious approach to these matters adopted by the minister.
The other thing I want to refer to is related to the question I posed to the minister this afternoon, and it irritated him a bit. He showed that irascible side of his nature of which I have been aware for 14 years. His mask fell off and the real member appeared, rather than the glorified minister who moves with the slow steady steps of a mandarin of the old school.
I should like to know about the commitment that this government has made to negotiate out of the nuclear weapons field. There is a tinge of hypocrisy to these bland statements which are made to other countries of the world, such as: Do not accept nuclear arms because it is a bad thing to do; do not do as we do, do as we say. Canada has nuclear weapons, but of course we do not produce them; therefore we are not a member of the nuclear club. This seems to me to be very close to hypocrisy.
I should like to refer again to the famous speech made by the minister on May 22. I have read it again, for the third time, but I hope I will not have to refer to it again. The minister places reliance on his speech of May 22, and when questions are asked of him he invariably suggests that we can find all the answers in that speech. The repetitious answer that one finds in that speech is: We are watching the situation closely. I have watched the situation very closely and I have again read this speech. I find that the minister has not answered the very important questions about Canada's position in relation to other nations of the world.
On May 22 the minister talked about the importance of disarmament and how someone should make a start in that direction, even if

it is only a unilateral start. At the same time he has not taken any action with regard to Canada's arms and the promise that was made to the Canadian people by the Liberal party in 1963.
What about Canada's prestige abroad? That is something which disturbed the minister several years ago. It is disturbing me very seriously at this time, because what confidence are our allies going to have in us, and what confidence will the United States have in us. The minister and his supporters, particularly the Minister of National Defence, told the Canadian people that immediately they were put in office they would have nuclear missiles for the weapons systems in Canada. Almost two years have elapsed and there are no nuclear weapons for the Voodoo aircraft. The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Canadian people was this defence issue, when we were all told stories about how we were to be protected. We have the Bomarcs armed and ready to fire, and the Voodoos will come in and strike down the attacking aircraft so that Montreal and Toronto, which were unprotected cities, will be protected. Nothing has been done during those two years in this regard.
What about the confidence of the United States in this government which promised it would immediately arm these Voodoo aircraft with nuclear missiles? What about our NATO allies in Europe?
This government has told us that it has made a commitment to provide nuclear weapons for our air division in Europe. The only answer I have been able to obtain from the Minister of National Defence, when I asked him about these nuclear missiles for our air division, is that our air division is operative. What does that mean? It means they can fly, and we have known that for a long time. One quarter of that air division is armed with photographic equipment, and the Minister of National Defence has told me that they are weapons.
What about Canada's prestige with our NATO allies, in view of the fact we are not living up to our promises? That famous speech the minister made on May 22 is going to be recorded as a historic document, as important as the British North America Act. The minister criticized NATO at that time and said we should tell each other what we are doing, and then he used these words:
I am afraid that that is now the situation. If we fail to do so, mistrust sets in and we lose sight of the fundamental reasons which keep us together and we become obsessed by our differences.
Supply-External Affairs
This government must live up to its promises with regard to NATO. Therefore, using the minister's own words, if we do not live up to our promises, mistrust will set in.
I have asked the minister on several occasions about those promises to negotiate us out of our nuclear arms situation. The leader of the New Democratic party has asked him similar questions. His answers to both of us were: "Refer to my earlier answer". And his earlier answer was, "I will take your question as notice". He has had that question now as notice for about three months. I point out some of these things to some of my colleagues in this house who have not seen the real man behind this mask. They think he is a kindly gentleman. I am putting them on their guard for the future.
The third matter with which I wish to deal is also a serious matter. Why did the minister not tell us today about the situation in Malaysia? I was able to drag out of him over a considerable period of time, the fact that a military team from Canada was going to Malaysia to investigate the situation. Why did the minister not give us a report of that investigation tonight? Is that team there or has it returned?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The team has been in Malaysia. When it has returned and made its report my hon. friend will be the first to get it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister says I will be the first to get it. I want hon. members to mark those words.


An hon. Member:: After the newspapers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, after the hon. member for Red Deer has been consulted I might be the first one to get it.
I ask the minister whether this is one of the serious trouble spots of the world, and if it is, why are we not told about it? We know what has happened during this century with these troubles starting up here and there in obscure places in the world, and then flaring up into great conflicts. What is the situation in Malaysia? What troops are operating there? Who is giving aid to Malaysia? What aid, if any, are we going to give? What is the strength of Indonesia?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We know who is giving aid there.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We know who is giving aid there. How great a threat is Indonesia to the peace of the world? We are dependant upon reports in the newspapers. The government

Supply-External Affairs frequently tells me not to rely upon these reports but I think they are a lot better than the information we get from the government. We read in the newspapers about Australia either intending to impose or perhaps already having imposed conscription. Why? Is it because of the threat of Indonesia? The imposition of conscription in a normal period of peace is a very serious matter for any country and Canada is fully aware of the implications of such an action.
What is the situation in Malaysia in respect of Indonesia, and what part are other members of the commonwealth playing with regard to that troubled area? Is this what is bothering Australia? If it is, we should know, and if Australia is in danger surely we should be the first to say, "Count on us to assist", because we have fought with them in other wars.
I draw to the attention of the minister some of the really serious matters which I hope he will deal with frankly and not with those peripatetic platitudes to which he subjects us. They arouse a bit of humour, but foreign affairs are a very serious matter. The whole country can be affected by actions which take place elsewhere in the world and we should be kept informed, because when trouble arises we have to call on the Canadian people to make a response, even call on the Canadian militia, which is now being disregarded by the Minister of National Defence, to make a response.
That is all I want to say at this stage with regard to these important matters. I hope the minister, if and when he answers us, will treat the subject with the seriousness it deserves and make clear to the Canadian people what Canada's policy is with regard to the matters I have touched upon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think it is understood that we might perhaps take a few moments extra to deal with some of the matters raised. I thank my hon. friend who I think was perhaps justifiably vigorous in his denunciation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I accept it in the very kindly spirit which I know motivated his remarks. -He mentioned the situation in Malaysia. It is a serious problem. Malaysia is a commonwealth country. Canada was recently visited by the Tunku, the prime minister of that country. We discussed with him desirable methods of assisting his country in meeting the continuous guerrilla attacks that have been made against Malaysia by Indonesia.
It is not the intention of the government of Canada to send troops for purposes of com-


bat to any part of Asia, except pursuant to obligations under the charter of the United Nations. This policy has been enunciated by the Prime Minister and by me. It was examined in the external affairs committee when all of these estimates were considered. There has been a military mission in Malaysia examining with the government of that country and its military authorities, in conjunction with the forces of Australia, Britain, New Zealand and other countries, what kind of assistance we might be called upon to provide. This is a matter of great concern to us and also of particular concern, of course, to Australia as it is to New Zealand, because of the geographical relationship of those countries to the federation.
It will be recalled that one of the reasons why Australia could not participate in the United Nations peace force in Cyprus was its preoccupations in Asia. My hon. friend may be assured that this matter is being followed through the closest consultation not only with the commonwealth but with other countries as well.
I followed with interest the statement made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revel-stoke and I agree with him that the interests of Canada in the Pacific are growing, and that our interests in that area cannot be allowed to go unregarded. We are a Pacific as well as an Atlantic power. Our interests with the Orient are increasing. We have with Japan the third largest volume of trade that we have with any country in the world. We exchange goods with that country to an amount approaching $500 million. There are many communities of interest between the foreign policies of Japan and Canada. At the third ministerial meeting last September my colleagues and I took advantage of the opportunity to review important economic, trade and foreign policy matters.
Our interests with the Orient, of course, are not confined to Japan but involve commonwealth and other countries in Asia. I fully agree with the hon. member that this is an area to which Canada inescapably in its own interests must pay increasing attention. I thought the hon. gentleman made a thoughtful speech.
There were other problems referred to. My hon. friend referred to our relations with Latin America. The hon. member for Peace River quite properly noted that an area of the world that will have a population at the end of this century of 600 million people is an area that we cannot ignore, particularly when we think of the community of cultural,

religious and other interests that we share with Latin America. It seems inevitable that in this interdependent world we should show increasing interest in that part of the world.
Great emphasis is placed by some on the institutional aspect of inter-American relationships. As I indicated to the hon. member, we now belong to a number of subsidiary bodies of the organization of American states. Each of us has his own view as to the importance of institutionalization in this context. What is important is that we should realize that this is our hemisphere, that there are great interests, great currents involved in the welfare of the free world in the developments that are taking place in that growing and populous area.
We have already given some evidence of our appreciation of the situation in our external aid program. This year, for instance, out of $50 million of soft loans $10 million is being provided through negotiations that are now being carried on with the interAmerican development bank for the first time. This symbolizes our interest.
Some hon. members referred today to the financial situation in the United Nations. I did endeavour in the brief statement I made to outline our concept of the problem. We recognize this as a problem that has to be resolved in the interests of the United Nations itself. The solution of course does not rest with Canada but it does rest with those defaulting countries who are being called upon to bear their share of a financial responsibility that should be collectively accepted as well as imposed.


Frank Howard: I do not want to interrupt the minister, except that I notice the clock and I think we should make some determination of what we are going to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I might ask the chairman not to see the clock, if hon. members so wish, in order that I might finish these responses and give other hon. members whatever opportunity they wish to speak. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I promised the hon. member for Greenwood that I would answer several questions, one with regard to the defence review. The NATO ministers at the Ottawa ministerial meeting in May 1963 directed that there should be further studies of the interrelated questions of strategy, force requirements and the resources necessary to meet those requirements. Since then there
Supply-External Affairs has been slow progress on this defence review, in part because of the differences of view to which I referred this afternoon. However, the review is continuing and we expect we will be informed of what progress is made at the forthcoming meeting.
With regard to civil-military relations, I have emphasized many times that it is essential in the complicated world of 1964 that in this respect Canadian foreign and defence policy should work hand in hand. Indeed cooperation between the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence is close on this subject, as on others.
Within NATO the military and civilian branches have remained quite separate and arrangements for liaison have not worked out as expeditiously and beneficially as desired. For this reason we have been urging NATO members, in examining methods of improving the organization of the alliance, to consider ways of co-ordinating and making more effective the arrangements between the military and civilian arms of the alliance.
We had a full discussion today on the relationship of mainland China to the United Nations, and in the brief interventions I made in answer to some questions, I stated what the position of Canada is at this moment. I can very well understand why, when I referred several times to the statement I made in the house on May 22, I might have given the impression of not wishing to discuss the matters involved in this important issue. But I do suggest to hon. members that in view of the importance of this matter, in view of its significance to this country and to all the nations in the free world, the situation that prevails between one communist camp and another is a question that cannot be treated lightly. It must be viewed by me in the light of my responsibilities as Secretary of State for External Affairs and the advice I receive from those who serve this country in the Department of External Affairs and in our missions abroad, in the light of our relations with other countries, our relations with our closest neighbour, our relations with commonwealth countries, and in the light of our assessment of the situation in Asia.
All these are factors which any government anxious to carry out its responsibilities must observe. In the statement I made on May 22 I called the attention of the house to the views of Canada on this situation. I pointed out that Canada's policy with regard to relations with China had to take account of the integrity of Formosa. This was the

Supply-External Affairs policy of the former administration and it continues to be the policy of the present government of Canada. The secretary of state in the United States, commenting on this matter the other day asked what about the people of Formosa? Are we to leave these people to the wolves? There are some 12 million people on that island. The history of recent times certainly warrants consideration by a country such as Canada as to their welfare and their legitimate position. In the statement I made on May 22 I suggested that the time was probably close at hand when we should give consideration in the United Nations to the steps which could be taken to protect the integrity of that country. This is no academic question; it is a question of importance. We have been canvassing the reaction to what was involved in the statement of policy which I made in the house on May 22.
I fully appreciate the debate which has taken place today on this question. It is important that there should be a realization of how this house feels about a matter which involves the most populous country in the world, mainland China a country whose position now, in the light of the situation which confronts all nations, cannot be ignored. The question of the admission of that country to the United Nations and of the recognition of the regime of that country are matters of the most fundamental importance and, as I indicated today, we have been giving this subject the fullest and the most responsible consideration that we know how to give. We have been discussing the matter with a number of countries. The interest of those countries, their assessment of the consequences, the resulting situation in Asia itself, the consequences within the United Nations-all these questions are inevitably involved in the consideration which I have been giving to this matter, and which I shall continue to give to it.
I am not in a position tonight to go any further than I have gone, and I would not be expected to do so by anyone with a full appreciation of the importance of this matter. I do fully share the view uttered tonight by the secretary general of the United Nations, if not in the same precise context, which prompted him to say that we had to take into account the desirability of furthering the universality of the United Nations. I think I can stand in this house along with any other member and say I have given evidence, by my contribution in the United Nations, of my support for this principle of universality,


since it was through an effort of Canada in 1955 that a number of new nations were brought into the organization. We are examining this problem in the light of what we believe to be the interest of the United Nations, and the interest of world peace. We are taking into account all the relevant considerations particularly in Asia, bearing in mind all that is involved, as well, in our relationships with other countries. No foreign policy could be based on any other assessment. A foreign policy which ignores national interests in their broadest context is not a well based foreign policy. We will have to take a position at the United Nations. We will take a position after the fullest consideration of all that is involved. It will be an unequivocal position, a responsible position, and the result of a thorough examination of all that we believe to be involved.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Chairman, I have just one short remark to make to the minister. I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart for the answer he gave me in his usual manner, because he skirted right around the question and never really answered it. I wonder whether, now that the government had admitted sending the prodigal son home to Haile Selassie at Addis Ababa, where the fatted calf was killed in his honour, the minister would consider sending one of his experienced officials of the Department of External Affairs to the Congo to try and help these hostages in their serious situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, when my hon. friend speaks about returning home, I want to say to him-and I am sure he will agree-that what I have been saying is a matter that affects home as do perhaps few other problems. With regard to the question as to the decision of the government to send the hon. member for Red Deer on this mission, I can only reiterate what I said earlier. We are faced, as other governments are faced, with a serious situation in Stanleyville, where about 800 people are held as hostages. It would not be possible for anyone to say with any measure of certainty what is going to happen there.
Among that number are some 37 or 38 Canadians, some of them missionaries. We have tried to resort to every means within our power to obtain, along with other countries, the release of these hostages. In addition to the hon. member for Red Deer, one of our own officials, Mr. Gauvin, who likewise has had contact with some of the personalities involved in Stanleyville, is there

now and was there with the hon. member for Red Deer, associated with him in an attempt to bring whatever influence they could to bear, through acquaintances in Africa on those authorities in the Congo and in the organization of African states for the release of these hostages. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked a proper question: What is the situation now? The central government forces have made some progress in the Congo in the last few days. They have been gradually surrounding the rebels in the Hante province in the Congo of which Stanleyville is the capital. In some instances the central government forces have come as close as 80 miles to the city. This has been paralleled by a disintegration of authority in the rebel areas. These events suggest that the dangers for the captive civilian population affected are now reaching a very critical point.
In mid October the government of Canada -and we have no representative in Kenya, nor in Stanleyville-appealed on behalf of our people in the Congo to the governments represented on the conciliation commission and the organization of African unity, and notably to its chairman, Mr. Kenyatta, the president of Kenya. This appeal was based on the four conventions signed in Geneva in 1949 with regard to the treatment of civilian populations. I regret that this appeal and the appeal of other governments has not proven to be effective.
As I first informed the house on November 5, the hon. member for Red Deer knows Africa and has spent a lot of time there. In spite of the criticism which has been made of him he has, to paraphrase the statement made by United States authorities, rendered valuable service in circumstances which are causing concern to the government of the United States as well as to Canada. He was asked to make an appeal, with a number of friendly governments and certain African leaders he knows. More specifically, because of the fact that he had acted in a governmental capacity in Ethiopia for over 18 years, serving the emperor; and because the emperor was the first president of the organization for African unity, we asked the hon. member for Red Deer, with whatever authority and support he could receive from the emperor, to deliver a message to Mr. Kenyatta as chairman of the O.A.U. conciliation commission, expressing the concern of the Canadian government for its nationals who are in the Stanleyville area and of whom
Supply-External Affairs we have not had any direct information since midsummer.
Mr. Kenyatta assured the hon. member for Red Deer that in response to the appeal of Canada and other countries he had taken what immediate action he could to request all authorities in the Congo to respect the human rights of civilians and also to facilitate the work of the international committee of the Red Cross. He indicated that the Stanleyville authorities had assured him that the foreign civilians in Stanleyville were not in danger. I hope that continues to be the situation, although the news that we have now is anything but encouraging.
Like Mr. Kenyatta the Emperor of Ethiopia, largely through the efforts of the hon. member for Red Deer, made known his grave concern over the safety of the Canadians and other foreigners in the affected area. The hon. member for Red Deer was in constant touch, in the course of the four or five days during which he travelled back and forth between Addis Ababa and Nairobi, with certain diplomats and officials in both capitals. He consulted with the Ethiopian minister of foreign affairs, with the Kenyan minister of state Mr. Murumbi and also was in touch with the director of the organization most concerned in this matter, Mr. Diallo Telli, the secretary general of the organization of African unity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just finish this statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are very interested in the statement but we are getting a little weary of the big build-up of the hon. member for Red Deer. Keep to the facts of the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I am doing. The point I am making is I want to indicate in fairness to the hon. gentleman that he did undertake to do something which the government of Canada thought was worth doing. He did it well, and I am sure that on analysis of all that is involved here it will be recognized that it was wise to have him go to Africa for this and other purposes. He has discharged his function as well as anyone could in these very difficult circumstances.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why did you not tell us that when we first asked the question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, you did not.

Supply-External Affairs


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: But whether I did or not, as long as I am Secretary of State for External Affairs and faced with such responsibilities, and knowing there was somebody in this house with a long experience in Africa-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: A bunch of boloney.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My hon. friend may say that, but let me tell him that there are 38 Canadians who will be grateful for what he has done and who will say he has helped them.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the situation. When the hon. member comes back here he will likely be able to tell us more of what he has done. But I do want to say from all the messages I have had from our own people, from Mr. Gauvin, and particularly from the American government, no one has worked harder as an individual in this matter than the hon. member for Red Deer. I am extremely grateful to him for what he has done.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I have one short remark to make, Mr. Chairman. No one on this side of the house has condemned the hon. member for Red Deer for his efforts. It is the underhanded way the government went about sending him to Africa that is contemptible. The hon. member is now back in Canada and has reported that these refugees are indeed in danger, and that he was not able to get within 30 miles of them. For heavens sake, will the minister not consider sending one of our officials over there to try to make contact with these people? I repeat, no one condemned the hon. member for Red Deer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Gauvin of our department is there.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Both individuals failed in their efforts, according to the hon. member for Red Deer.


An hon. Member:: Oh, for goodness sake.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You just go and lay an egg. We would like to send you somewhere, but I will not say where.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one short and simple question. Is it not customary to make appeals of a compassionate nature, and investigations such as were undertaken by the hon. member for Red Deer, through our regular diplomatic channels which have been in existence ever since his department was formed? Are there not establishments permanently set up for that purpose?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have no resident mission in Nairobi, the capital where the president of the organization is, nor have we a mission in Stanleyville.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Is it not usual to work through the closest nation with which we have diplomatic relations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right, and we have done that. As a result of consultation we have also used the services of the hon. member for Red Deer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
5. Representation abroad-operational-including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $14,679,000.
Mr. Choquette:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the minister concerning item No. 5.
In February last, all those who benefited from the education the Jesuit fathers dispense were sorry to learn that the latter were ordered out of the country by the government of Haiti and that some of their properties, including the "maison Manrese" and the radio station which they used for their broadcasts had been confiscated.
I would like to direct the following question to the minister. Were negotiations carried on through our ambassador in that country with a view to allowing the Jesuit fathers to recover their property? Furthermore, could the government seize this opportunity to promote the negotiations of an industrialist called Vachon, who is interested in establishing a business in Haiti, and through those negotiations bring about a compensation for the Jesuit fathers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, we are not satisfied with the situation regarding the Jesuit fathers' property in Haiti and we hope that a satisfactory solution can be found. The religious authorities themselves, the church in Haiti and the religious orders involved must, however, find the elements of such a solution before we can find means of implementing it and, in particular, raising the matter with the Haitian government.
I can assure the hon. member that we are following this matter very closely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

35. Economic, technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the estimates, $75,600,000.
Frank Howard: 
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre:
That vote No. 35 under the Department of External Affairs be reduced by the amount of $350,000 being the value of wheat flour to be given to Indonesia under the Colombo plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that no wheat flour has been sent to Indonesia yet. The matter is being reviewed, as I told the house some time ago.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks I just made, which incidentally were made not knowing that the hon. member for Oxford was going to move an amendment of this sort, and having regard to the opposition I expressed to this sort of activity when we are treating our own people in such terrible fashion, I can do nothing else but vote for the amendment to reduce this vote.
Supply-External Affairs


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I can quite understand the reason advanced by the hon. member for Skeena in indicating his intention to vote in favour of the amendment to reduce this item. For myself I feel that despite any feelings we may have about the government of Indonesia we should be very careful about cutting off aid which goes to the people of that country. Therefore I personally propose to vote against the amendment for that reason.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Chairman, my two colleagues here and myself intend to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).
I am of the opinion that Canada must help those countries which are less fortunate than we are.
Personally, I should like to take this opportunity to point out to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that, in my opinion, one of the best ways to help underdeveloped countries through the Colombo plan is still to help the missionaries of various religious denominations, so as to enable them to assist those unfortunate people as much as possible.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the observations made by the hon. member for Greenwood and by the hon. member who has just spoken. I am sure the hon. member for Oxford cannot really have reflected seriously on the implications of what he is suggesting.
I have been asked whether the government intends to terminate shipments of flour to Indonesia under our Colombo plan program. I have said we have not yet shipped flour this year, although we provided assistance to Indonesian students, some 40 of them, a number of whom are now in this country, I would like to place this question in the proper perspective.
Over more than a decade decisions by Canadian governments with respect to the magnitude and type of our assistance to the Colombo program, of which Indonesia is a member, have been largely free of strategic and political considerations. The view now being taken by some hon. members that our aid has a political motivation will, I think, be received with great concern in certain areas.
The fact that over the years our development of assistance has been largely free of fluctuations dictated by short term political consideration accounts to a very large extent

Supply-External Affairs for the fact that Canadian assistance in the developing countries has been especially welcomed and, I believe, effectively used.
It would be interesting to note what other countries are doing. Indonesia is still receiving substantial assistance from the United States, Japan, Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand and the specialized agencies of the United Nations. It should therefore appear evident that it is a collective judgment that this aid under present circumstances should not be terminated.
We were among the first to participate in the Colombo plan. Our proposed total assistance to Indonesia is in the amount of little more than $400,000, of which roughly $350,000 represents wheat flour, in connection with which there has not yet been made a decision to make a shipment of that commodity. Our external aid program this year has been increased from $117 million in 1963-64 to $195 million. It is a program that is designed to bridge the gap between the developed and underdeveloped nations of the world.
I cannot believe that it is the intention of any member, in the face of this background, to put forward such a resolution, particularly when one bears in mind the fact that the hon. gentleman who proposes it was a parliamentary secretary to the secretary of state for external affairs, and served with distinction at the United Nations. I find it very difficult to believe that my hon. friend will not accede now to the suggestion I make to him, as the foreign minister of Canada, that he should withdraw this motion.


Mr. Barnett:: I understand from what the hon. member for Oxford said that he is motivated by his interest and desire to be of help to the people of Malaysia in their present difficult situation vis-a-vis Indonesia. As one who had the opportunity of enjoying fully the warm hospitality of the people of Malaysia as a delegate to the parliamentary association conference held there a year ago, I certainly share his sympathy and desire to be of assistance to the people of Malaysia, but I feel that action or support of the kind he proposes, far from supplying any assistance to our commonwealth friends in Malaysia could well have a completely reverse effect. For this reason I wish to register my feeling that this is an unwise motion which I certainly would not wish to support.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order; we agreed to sit beyond ten o'clock. We thought it would be for about half an hour. We are

not going to sit here and listen to a filibuster by government members. They are always crying out for a vote. Why did they not vote ten minutes ago? What are they afraid of?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I think I should explain that the hon. member for Skeena raised a question in relation to Indian affairs, and the minister was about to explain that his items were coming. That was the reason he rose.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What relation does that have to the motion before the house?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As the member who resumed his seat immediately before the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre rose, I wish to make it clear that I was not indulging in a filibuster of any kind.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nobody accused you of doing so. It is the government side.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If responsibility for sitting for a short time after ten o'clock rests anywhere it rests upon those who introduced this motion and, having introduced it, they should not deny anyone who wishes to do so the opportunity to discuss it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, but not all night. They can do it tomorrow, if they like.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?
Motion (Mr. Nesbitt) negatived: Yeas, 33; nays, 48.


Lucien Lamoureux: I declare the motion lost. Shall the vote carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman, I have a few more words to say on this. I think we should now call it ten o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of sup ply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to announce the order of business for tomorrow. We propose to finish the remaining items of this department first, and then, depending on the time, calling the estimates of the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, followed by those of the Department of National Defence. If by any chance all those items should be finished, we would deal with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
It being forty four minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[The following items were passed this day in committee of supply:]
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS A-Department-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates (part recoverable from those organizations) and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners (international commissions for supervision and control in Indochina), secretaries and staff by the governor in council; official hospitality: relief and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and their dependents and reimbursement of the United Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable); Canadian representation at international conferences; expenses of the third commonwealth education conference; a cultural relations and academic exchange program with the French community, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,826,300.
la. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants as detailed in the estimates, $381,600.
5. Representation abroad-operational-including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $14,679,000.
10. Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land,
Supply-Items Passed
equipment and furnishings, and to the extent that blocked funds are available for these expenditures, to provide for payment from these foreign currencies owned by Canada and provided only for governmental or other limited purposes, $1,801,000.
10a. Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishings, $113,000.
15. Contributions to international multilateral economic and special aid programs as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such amounts as are specified in U.S. dollars notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December 1963, which is, $9,582,000.
15a. Contributions to international multilateral economic and special aid programs as detailed in the estimates, $1,060,000.
15b. Contributions to international multilateral economic and special aid programs as detailed in the estimates, $120,000.
20. Other payments to international organizations and programs, as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1963, which is, $965,500.
20a. Other payments to international organizations and programs as detailed in the estimates, $7,000.
25. Assessments for membership in the international (including commonwealth) organizations that are detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay such assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1963, which is, $9,433,000.
External aid office-
30. Salaries and expenses, $796,600.
30a. Salaries and expenses, $29,100.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 20, 1964
The house met at 11 a.m.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it was a year ago this week end that shots were fired in Dallas that brought shock and disbelief throughout the world. President Kennedy had been slain. Hon. members will not soon forget, I believe, the emotion we all felt when the news was announced in this house, a feeling which was shared by millions everywhere. The funeral in Washington a day or so later was a moving and dramatic demonstration of that feeling.
I attended President Franklin D. Roosevelt's funeral in 1945 and there was a great outpouring of grief then, but it was for a leader who had done his work, who had finished the course. Last November it was sorrow for the loss of one who had just begun; it was the ache of unfulfilment. His life, so short, is already a legend. His death, in the words of James Reston, has become "a symbol of the tragedy and caprice of life. He never reached his meridian. We saw him only as a rising sun".
Members of this house and the people of this country will, I know, approve of a decision of the government to commemorate this sad anniversary and honour John Fitzgerald Kennedy's memory by naming a high Canadian peak in the Saint Elias range in the Yukon, near the Alaska border, Mount Kennedy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe it is appropriate that Canada's memorial to him should be a mountain. A mountain is solid and enduring, and so will be his place in history. Mount Kennedy is a graceful, towering, unencumbered peak. President Kennedy was clean cut, a man of clarity and direct vision. A mountain is a symbol of aspiration and upward reach. John Kennedy greatly aspired and his reach, as the poet tells us it should, exceeded his grasp. Today Canada honours, and we remember, the young president, the uncommon man, in the designation of Mount Kennedy.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I speak today, as I did one year ago, extemporaneously and without knowledge in advance except that a few moments ago the Prime Minister advised me that he intended to make a reference to the tragic passing of President Kennedy. I think the course taken by the government in naming a mountain in his honour will epitomize the words which I used one year ago, words that were used at the time of the death of President Lincoln; "Now he belongs to the ages". Mountains, too, belong to the ages.
The intervening 12 months have cleared away many of the fears that touched the hearts of men at the time of President Kennedy's assassination. We now know that it was not an international plot but the action of a demented individual. We also know that the controversies which would have arisen had the commission not been set up have been allayed by the findings of the commission headed by the chief justice of the supreme court.
One year ago the world was struck with horror and fear. God works in his own way. The president who has succeeded him has carried on the work that was commenced by President Kennedy and has done it in a way that has done honour to him and given to all free mankind the sure hope that the United States will follow the course of freedom.
This is a most unusual occasion, giving parliament the opportunity to pay its tribute to one whose life was short but whose contribution was great.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt whatever that all the people of Canada will approve of the action of the Prime Minister in naming a mountain peak after the late President John F. Kennedy. In the three short years during which he held that high office he won for himself a place in the esteem and affection of the Canadian people. It is amazing that a man who held office for so brief a period of time should have left the imprint of his personality so indelibly stamped upon his day and generation. Not only the people of the

. Monument to late President United States but the peoples of the world were shocked at the sad news of his cruel assassination. I am sure all the Canadian people will warmly welcome the decision of the government to have this permanent memorial to the memory of a great president, one who was a friend of freedom the world over.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is significant that Canada should commemorate the late President of the United States, J. F. Kennedy, by naming a mountain peak after him. I agree that this is something with which I am sure all the Canadian people will be wholeheartedly in sympathy. There is no doubt that this man made a greater impact on the world in a fewer number of years than any other person, at least in our generation. As we observe the first anniversary of his death, which in itself is rather significant as far as the Canadian parliament is concerned, I know that around the world people in similar ways are remembering the sad occasion, which I am sure all of us clearly recall just one year ago in this same chamber.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that we in this party give our support to the action the government has taken in remembering that our great neighbour to the south lost one of its great leaders, who was certainly a man we find very close to our own affections.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, as was recalled by those who spoke before me one year ago on this date as we were sitting in this house, the whole population of Canada and of the world heard the incredible news that the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, had been assassinated.
Since that date his memory lives in all our minds.
The memory of the late President Kennedy, his policies, his prestige, the works he achieved, although he did not remain long at the summit of American politics, still were alive when the last American election was held.
Monuments and commemorative works are being erected almost everywhere in the world in remembrance of this American president in whom the democratic world had placed all its hopes.
In Europe, now, when discussions are getting under way to remove obstacles which prevent free trade between nations, everyone knows that this is another of President Kennedy's undertakings and that the expres-
[Mr. Douglas.!
sion "Kennedy round" has been kept to describe the negotiations.
May his reputation and the things he did to establish a truly economic and political democracy, not only throughout the world, but especially in his own country through his fight to promote the emancipation of Negroes, remain forever alive and incite his successors to follow in his footsteps on the road to peace and true democracy.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning. I would first say how proud and honoured we are in the Yukon that the mountain selected to honour the memory of President Kennedy is situated in our territory. May I ask the minister the location of the particular mountain; I believe he might be aware of it.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am assured that this is a particularly spectacular peak, a very sharp spire indeed, located some five miles south and slightly west of Mount Logan, Canada's highest mountain. It is part of the St. Elias range, which I think in over-all composite height ranks as the greatest single mountain range anywhere in the world. There have been discussions in the Yukon in reference to the establishment of a national park in that area. While there are differences of opinion at this time and some people think it is premature, it would be my thought that when it is established it will be in the St. Elias range region.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether it is a fact that Canada has joined with the United States, the United Kingdom and Belgium in requesting the government of India to do what it can to secure the safety of foreigners held by rebels in the Belgian Congo; and what reaction, if any, has been received by the government in reference to this action. Does the fact that Canada

joined indicate that the fears which are in the hearts of all Canadians regarding the safety of prisoners held by the rebels are justified by the danger in which they find themselves?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, Canada has joined in the appeal to which my right hon. friend has made reference. I believe, this is the second appeal of this kind that has been made, and I understand its terms will be made public today or tomorrow. We are most hopeful, Mr. Speaker, as my right hon. friend has expressed, that this appeal will be successful in saving these hostages from assassination.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has the government received any hopeful indication in this regard? I realize the limitations in speaking at this time, with these people facing the horrible and frightful danger in which they find themselves. Will the Prime Minister also say when the first appeal was made to have India assist?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the first question I know of no grounds which would justify any modification of the very serious assessment of the situation given by my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As far as the second question is concerned, I think the first appeal was made between two and three weeks ago.


John George Diefenbaker: When the right hon. gentleman says that an appeal was made three weeks ago, was that made through India, and was India asked at that time to have its legation or embassy in that country do what it could in this connection? Also, what reports have been received in consequence of that first appeal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The first appeal was not made in conjunction with other governments, some of whom had already made separate appeals. The first appeal was from the Canadian government alone to whatever sources we could reach which would have, as we thought, some influence in saving these hostages. Up to this time there have been no concrete results from that appeal, but it is to be hoped that the appeals that have been made by Canada and other countries separately, the steps that have been taken by Canadian representatives and now this joint appeal will be effective in saving these hostages.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the alarming revelation that only 63 out of 140 drug producers in this country were able to meet the government's minimum manufacturing standards, does the government intend to take any steps to increase the staff of the drug and food administration in order to correct this apparently deplorable situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussion with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and she may wish to answer this question.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been given wide publicity in the last few days, and I should like to say to the chamber that the differences between the regulations which apply to all drugs manufactured in the country and the regulations which are used by the Department of Industry are very minor. It is in relation to minor differences in lay-out of plants, storage of materials and things of that kind that most of the manufacturers have been disqualified in the sense that term was used in the committee. 1 am informed that in so far as safety and quality are concerned there is no difference between the drug manufacturers on one list or the other.	.
I am grateful for the suggestion of my hon. friend to the Prime Minister that it may be that the drug directorate will need additional inspectors. As must be apparent, the drug directorate has not now and is unlikely ever to have sufficient staff to inspect every drug manufacturer every day. Nevertheless, if my hon. friend will check he will note that in the estimates each year there is a modest increase in the number of inspectors applied for to treasury board and which this house sees fit to approve in the estimates. I have no doubt this number will increase, and that from year to year we will need more inspectors to keep up with this increasingly complex industry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if she is satisfied after having looked into the matter that the public are getting the highest possible quality of drugs for which they are paying? May I also ask her at the same time

Inquiries of the Ministry if there is any substance in the suggestion of Dr. Showalter, to the effect that so far as purchases of drugs by the government are concerned, drugs of lower quality are supplied to the government than are sold to the general public?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend will be aware at once that my reaction, and I am sure his as well, to the newspaper alarum was that the public must be protected, and that drugs of good quality must be available to them as well as available for purchase by the government. I am satisfied, after discussing this with Dr. Morrell, the chief of the drug directorate, that the public are getting quality drugs for their money. I have asked Dr. Morrell to go at once to the committee. I am informed that the drug committee will be sitting next week, will be able to receive Dr. Morrell, and that he will be able to go into the whole matter with them.
The present regulations which the directorate uses are those which were adopted just before the election last year. They had been circulated for about two years among the profession and the drug manufacturers, as well as other interested parties. They were very carefully drawn up as minimal standards for drug manufacture. The regulations, which I would suggest my hon. friend look at, and which are put out by the national research council, are extremely detailed. They cover such things as whether or not household pets may be allowed on the premises at any time: what kind of garments are to be worn over or instead of ordinary clothing during the manufacturing process; the supply of toilet tissue, and that sort of detailed directions which I am informed by my director have no direct bearing on the quality of the drugs manufactured.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the deliberate dumping of wheat by the United States in contravention of their solemn international obligations under GATT, under the committee of the exporting nations and under private and public commitments to the quarterly meetings, what action has the minister taken in this regard?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a very general statement. I wish he could be a little more particular before I answer. Is he referring to a reduction the United States has made in the price of Durum wheat?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am referring to an announcement which was made yesterday that the United States were subsidizing the sale of Durum wheat by 38 cents a bushel, which is in contravention of its international obligations.


Mitchell William Sharp: Now that the hon. gentleman has clarified this point I want to tell him and hon. members that we are very concerned about this development, and we have made our concern known. The wheat board recognizes, of course, that there is a heavy surplus of Durum wheat in the world. When the United States administration increased its subsidy, as the hon. gentleman has said, thereby reducing its selling price by from 16 to 20 cents a bushel, the Canadian wheat board had to follow suit. This is a disturbing development because it represents the use of United States treasury funds. The reduction in price does not come out of the farmer there as it does in Canada. It causes us great concern, therefore, and we have made these views known through the wheat board.
I shall certainly make our concern known directly to the administration of the United States. It is in our interest, as it is in the interest of the United States, that there should be as much stability as possible in the prices of our main agriculture staples. This point of view is known in the United States, and it will continue to be urged upon them.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask a supplementary question, which will be very clear and obvious. The minister said "I shall make our views known to the United States." Do I understand from this that the United States government, either through the quarterly meetings or by information provided to the minister or the Canadian wheat board, did not inform the minister of this impending action?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would not have expected that I would know of this personally in advance, but the wheat board was aware of the action taken by the United States, and it caused them grave disturbance.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My question was very clear. I asked the minister a simple question, namely

did the United States government, in any form or through any agency, inform the Minister of Trade and Commerce about this change, in view of the fact that their action is in contravention, as I said in my earlier question, of their solemn international obligations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I hesitate to get into a debate with the hon. member about the nature of the obligations which have been undertaken.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member has been making statements, Mr. Speaker. His statements are to the effect that the United States has broken some solemn international obligations. I would hesitate to give a view on that without looking into the nature of those obligations myself. This is a grave charge the hon. member has made against the United States administration, and I should like to be sure whether it is justified.


An hon. Member:: What about answering the question?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is what I am endeavouring to do, if the hon. member would listen. I assure the house that it is the desire that there should be the greatest possible stability in agricultural prices. I share the hon. member's dislike of government funds being used to subsidize the export of agricultural products.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are making a speech.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am of the opinion that the price reduction made in the case of Durum wheat is excessive. But this is a commercial decision made by the United States in what it considers to be its own interests, and we must compete with them. We have made to the United States administration and shall continue to make known our desire for the greatest possible stability.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Answer the question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think it is very clear now that the answer to my question is no.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My next question is a related one. Has the government of France had any contact at all with the government of Canada with regard to their decision, and the decision of the European common market countries announced yesterday that they will subsidize wheat sales to China not only in contravention of the GATT arrangement but in direct contravention of the international wheat agreement?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Can the minister inform the house at what time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize the importance of this question, but it does seem to me the minister has attempted to answer as far as he can be expected to answer without notice. Surely we do not want to enter upon a debate at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether these recent happenings with regard to the United States reduction in the price of Durum wheat will have any effect on the discussions concerning the international wheat agreement which began last Wednesday, and whether the minister anticipates there is likely to be an extension of the agreement, which expires next July?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure all these developments in the wheat situation will have an effect on the discussions which are proceeding at the international wheat council. However, all members of the council have recommended to their governments an extension of the international wheat agreement in its present form. The only difference of view is on whether the extension should be for one year or for two years.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister prompted by statements made by some of his colleagues in the government. In view of the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act which make mandatory a redistribution after each census, and in view of the public necessity to have the next parliament represent at least the Canada of 1961 rather than the Canada of 1951, can the right hon. gentleman assure the Canadian public that barring defeat in the house on a matter of confidence there will be no general election until this vital matter of redistribution has been completed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know whether the hon. member is really serious in asking this question, but it is not up to the Chair to wonder.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure that in view of the statements of various ministers the Prime

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister would be most glad to answer that question.


Reid Scott: I give notice that I intend to raise this question during the adjournment period.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as house leader. My question is based upon the fact that last evening the house sat beyond the normal time of adjournment, and the fact that because of the decision of the house in respect of estimates we might do something similar in the future, in the coming week. Therefore I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would look into the effect this would have upon the staff of the House of Commons, and see that because of the overtime no undue work load falls upon their shoulders and that they are adequately compensated therefor.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a question for the Minister of Justice. It arises out of a question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Ville-neuve, and the answer thereto. The question was No. 1,975, relating to deaths of serving members of the R.C.M.P. between October 1, 1954 and September 30, 1964. In his answer the hon. gentleman said that of 123 deceased serving members, 61 had died of natural causes, 41 by accidental death and 2 by misadventure; 5 were murdered and 14 had committed suicide.
When I first read the answer I wondered whether that last figure was a misprint. If it is not, perhaps the minister would explain why there is such a high rate of suicide in the R.C.M.P.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisfer of Justice):: This matter will be completely explained when my estimates are considered on Monday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Because of the noise made by certain members of the Liberal party I
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
was unable to hear the answer. I wonder if we could have a little order. This is a serious matter. I respect the R.C.M.P., even if members opposite do not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The answer was that the estimates of the minister concerned will be up for consideration on Monday, at which time he will deal with the matter fully.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: What possible supplementary question could there be with regard to this? If the hon. member wishes to ask an original question, let him go ahead.



DISCIPLINARY MEASURES RESPECTING APPLICATION OF FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Would Your Honour hear my question? Will the minister inform the house whether he has yet made a decision in connection with the two Montreal police officers about whose case I have spoken?


Guy Favreau: I thank the hon. member for co-operating in the preparation of the agenda for the presentation of my estimates on Monday.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the harm being done to Galt and other communities in Waterloo South because an adjoining city has been named as a designated area, is the minister considering making a change as requested by the city of Galt and other municipalities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe that in the circumstances this question should be allowed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Let me on behalf of all my hon. friends here welcome the new member. It is with some satisfaction that I note his first question is directed to me. Had he received the benefit of the earlier counsels of the house he would have learned what I will now repeat, namely that a review is in progress as to the current eligibility under the criteria in connection with designated areas, and it is our hope that this review will be completed and the results announced within a short time.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A
supplementary question. Did not the members of the New Democratic party support the government in bringing about the present situation with regard to designated areas?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Because a large sum of money is involved there is some urgency attached to it. Has the government undertaken to sell to the city of Longueuil the Jacques Cartier barracks reserve property for $870,000, or has an undertaking been given to sell the property to a private individual without tenders being called?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a very good example of a question for the order paper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is it the policy of his department and the government to sell property worth more than $800,000 without tender? Is it the policy of the government to dispose of property in that way?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised the matter of the sale of certain property to the town of Longueuil, and I am sure he would not expect me to carry all the details in my head. I will be very glad to take notice of this question and make a reply early next week, if that is satisfactory.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate the minister's courtesy, but my question was this. Is it the policy of the department to dispose of government property and sell it without tenders, particularly when it is worth over $800,000? Is this the policy? That is the question.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the hon. member would agree that in the sale of a property of this nature which is no longer required by the federal government, some appreciation should be given to the fact that it was the city of Longueuil that wished negotiations; and inasmuch as they have a plan for the property that is not unrelated
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Expo '67 development, we were of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to negotiate a sale with them rather than to sell it to a private developer. I will be very happy to make a full statement on the matter. Completely adequate protection was ensured by us in respect of valuations, and it is our opinion that we received a very satisfactory price for the property.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. I would have gone along with the minister if that had been the situation; but was this property sold to Mr. Jean Paul Auclair, and not to the town or village?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that earlier this morning I suggested that this question should be put on the order paper, for the particular reasons that now appear quite evident.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
20 November 1964
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 20th November, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OF PRISONER On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Some time ago I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning a French Canadian prisoner at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary who had been sentenced to a long term for his part in the riots of two years ago, and who was not allowed to communicate with certain people. The Prime Minister promised to transfer my question to his colleague the Minister of Justice who now has an answer ready for me, I understand, and I should like to hear it.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Gaston Nicholas was serving a sentence of six years for manslaughter at the time of

Inquiries of the Ministry the riot in 1962. He was identified as the ringleader of the riot and sentenced by a criminal court of the province of Quebec to 14 years' imprisonment for destroying government property. Nicholas appealed his sentence, but his appeal was rejected in February, 1964.
Nicholas was in segregation, not in solitary confinement, awaiting trial since 1962. He refused to go out of segregation, and sent a letter to the authorities to the effect that he be kept in segregation. This was obviously for his own protection. The warden did stop the delivery of certain letters written by Nicholas, but only because they were dealing with matters prohibited at the institution. Nicholas wrote to the commissioner last July for a transfer to another institution. He is now at Kingston penitentiary.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that Gaston Nicholas received the maximum sentence under the Criminal Code for the destruction of government property, namely 14 years, compared with the sentences imposed on other participants in that riot who engaged in much more strenuous activity than Mr. Nicholas, does the government have his sentence under review with a view to either pardoning him or providing him with parole?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it would of course be wrong for me to comment upon the particular assessment made by the court at the time sentence was pronounced. As far as the matter of parole and review is concerned, this of course is not under the authority of the minister or the Department of Justice. Under the Parole Act it is under the exclusive-and the word "exclusive" is in the act -jurisdiction of the national parole board. However, I will be pleased to inquire and report to the house, if my hon. friend thinks this would be appropriate.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am no authority on the matter of penitentiaries, but one thing does bother me as a Canadian. These prisoners are not allowed to send some letters, under certain rules of the penitentiary. I hope the minister will consider sending me personally some sort of list of the rules and regulations as to the tyne of letters that prisoners are not allowed to send. I think it is in the interests of the protection of human liberty in these penitentiaries that some of us know what these regulations are; because the thing that disturbs me is that a prisoner cannot write to the head of the penitentiary or to

members of his family in certain circumstances. I would like to know what these regulations are.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, that would be a good subject for discussion on Monday. I shall inquire in the meantime, and will be pleased to report then.



DENISE THERRIEN-REQUEST BY QUEBEC FOR FEDERAL POLICE ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he tell the house if he has received from the attorney general of the province of Quebec, a request for assistance from the federal police in conducting an inquiry into the kidnapping of Denise Therrien?


Guy Favreau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I will direct to the Prime Minister because its substance covers more than one department. Will the Prime Minister ascertain from the Canadian National Railways, which are supported annually by millions of dollars supplied by taxation, their justification for joining with C.P.R. telecommunications in sponsoring the production of the "Telepoll" program on C.T.V., which is emphasizing partisan, political broadcasts slanted in favour of the Liberal party.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, notice of which I gave him several days ago. I would like to ask the minister whether his attention has been drawn to cases in Winnipeg whereby ten year old children desiring to play hockey are forced to sign contracts which tie up their entire hockey careers for life. If so, is the

minister considering taking action to break up this type of monopoly and combine affecting the lives of young people?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. On their face, the facts he describes appear to involve a situation not covered by the Combines Investigation Act. I shall, however, refer the matter to the director of investigation and research in order that he may consider whether the act has any application in this situation.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I wonder whether I could direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the canceiling of the import quotas on turkeys and the resultant drop in prices; in view of the refusal of this government to do anything about falling cattle prices, and now that there has been a reduction in the price of wheat, are we to assume that the depressing of agricultural prices is a deliberate policy on the part of this government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should make no such assumption, because it is not based on fact.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO GUARANTEED PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the revelations which have been made today by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when can we expect the long delayed and well promised legislation in regard to a guaranteed price for wheat?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a question of broad policy which could not very well be answered on the orders of the day.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Supply-External Affairs DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
35. Economic, technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the estimates, $75,600,000.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, last evening we had some discussion on this item; an amendment was moved and a vote taken. In view of some of the remarks made by the minister on that occasion I should like to make some further representations to the minister in this regard.
The minister indicated to us last evening that an item of $350,000-odd was contained in vote 35 to provide aid to Indonesia in the form of wheat flour, which had not yet been shipped to Indonesia and was in fact a matter still under consideration by the government. I am very glad indeed to hear that but I do think that some further clarification of this matter should be forthcoming at this time, just to prevent any misunderstandings.
First of all, I think it would be quite safe to say that no member of this house bears any malice or has anything against any of the Indonesian people. Those people have had a long struggle for their independence and are doing the best they can to develop their country. No one has anything against the Indonesian people; I think that is quite clear. As I have pointed out in this house on various occasions, there is no objection from this party regarding scholarships for Indonesian students in Canada. What is objected to is the gift of wheat flour which would be turned over to the government of President Sukarno, for what purposes we do not know. It may be the intention of the external aid office to see that the Indonesian people get it, but we certainly have no assurance that it is the people of Indonesia and not the army who are going to get this wheat flour.
A number of persons may well ask-I have been asked this question myself-how does the shipment of wheat flour to Indonesia help President Sukarno in his unprovoked aggressions against Malaysia. I think the answer is quite simple. Arms cost money, in the first place. In the second place, arms to fight wars are not produced to any extent in Indonesia. Third, to buy arms abroad you have to have foreign exchange, and most of these countries in southeast Asia are rather limited in that regard. Since Indonesia undoubtedly has a limited amount of foreign exchange available, it must conserve its use very carefully.
It is undoubtedly necessary that a certain amount of wheat flour be used in Indonesia by the Indonesian government, and if it is not given to the government they will have to buy it. If they have to buy it that reduces

Supply-External Affairs the amount of foreign exchange they can spend abroad on arms to carry on their war against Malaysia. The more wheat flour or wheat or anything else in the nature of food we give to President Sukarno, the more foreign exchange is released to purchase arms for him to carry on his aggression against Malaysia. As I have already indicated, we have not had the slightest indication that the wheat flour ever gets to the Indonesian people, who may well need it. We suspect it probably goes to the Indonesian army, which is engaged in aggression.
As I have mentioned on other occasions, if there is a food shortage in Indonesia that is the fault of the government of the country. There is no country in the world which has more arable and fertile land per head of population than Indonesia. It is merely because the economy has been mismanaged that there is a food shortage, coupled with their aggressive actions against their neighbours, first of all against Netherlands New Guinea, now against Malaysia, and possibly in the future against the Phillipines or Australia. At least the Australians think there is some sort of danger to them, and are having conscription.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And they are giving assistance to Indonesia.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister says they are giving assistance to Indonesia. I do not know anything about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I am telling you.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister says he is telling me. That is fine. He may have information about this, so perhaps he could tell us what form this aid is taking, how much it is and if they are still giving it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, they still are.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister says they still are. I cannot explain the actions of the Australian government, but to my mind the matter is very simple. If you release foreign exchange to the Indonesian government so they can purchase arms from abroad, it is most certainly helping their aggression against Malaysia.
I would again appeal to the minister to do one of two or three things. First of all, the minister should try to get assurances from Dr. Sukarno that he will desist in his aggression against Malaysia, and in that case by all means let this wheat flour go there. If that kind of assurance cannot be obtained,


then I would suggest to the minister that this gift of wheat flour might well be transferred to the people of Malaysia, who are the subject of Dr. Sukarno's aggressions. Failing that, if the minister is dead set on giving some sort of aid to Indonesia and to Dr. Sukarno, let us say that we will not give him materials, whether they be food or anything else, which will enable him to save on foreign exchange to buy arms, but that we will expand our student training program and train more Indonesian students.
That is a long range project, and when Dr. Sukarno has passed to the great beyond and his policies with him, we hope, then the students who received training in this country or elsewhere will really be able to do some work toward developing their country in a peaceful way. If the minister would transfer these funds to the training of Indonesian students I do not think we would have any objections. I would be glad to see it, because it creates good will for the future. But to turn over holus-bolus a large shipment of wheat flour which could probably be used by the Indonesian army, and would also enable the Indonesian government to save on foreign exchange with which it could buy more arms to carry out its aggressions, is something which I think is intolerable. I fail to understand how anybody in this house could support such a move against one of our friendly brother nations in the commonwealth.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I was greatly impressed by the high moralistic tone of the hon. member for Oxford in advancing his thesis, which appeared to be that we should use the wealth of this country to enforce on other nations a certain course of action, or force them to refrain from certain courses of action and adopt policies which suit our way of life more than theirs.
The hon. member for Oxford is not carrying his position to its logical conclusion. If, as he says, this is a logical course for the Canadian government to follow, and that it must withhold foodstuffs from countries with whose governments we disagree or of whose actions we disapprove, where is he going to draw the line? Why does he not suggest a more positive line? Why does the member for Oxford not advocate that we take more definitive steps to place embargoes and blockade everything that Indonesia is doing? Why do we not carry out this policy throughout the world, if that is to be the policy of the Canadian government?

For instance, I think there are many members of this house who deplore some of the activities of the governments of Spain and Portugal. Would the hon. member suggest that we sever all diplomatic and trade relations with those governments because we do not like what they are doing? Come to think of it, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that the government which the hon. member supported was the first one to negotiate the sale of wheat to communist China, which of course has been guilty also of aggression against India. The hon. member for Oxford took great pride in that step by his government, and I certainly do not remember him raising objections against these actions of the government he supported, which I thought were very commendable. I am now depressed by the supporters of that government, and particularly with their foreign affairs spokesman, who apparently disagrees with that view.
I feel that is a very serious attitude for any member of the Canadian parliament to take.


Mr. Moreau:: Including the member for Skeena?


Colin Cameron: Yes, including the hon. member for Skeena, if you wish. I did not hear him last night, but possibly he has his own views and he spoke for himself. I am now speaking for myself.
I think this is a very serious attitude to take. We who live in an affluent society should be very careful just how moralistic we are going to be. We must be very careful as to whether we consider, because we are wealthy, we have a right to impose regulations on the rest of the world. There are what I call deplorable examples of aggression in the world, but I am firmly of the belief, and I may be naive, that even to risk withholding from starving or hungry human beings food which would relieve their misery cannot but ultimately have a bad end. If we wish to be moralistic let us be moralistic on that point, that we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some comments about the general purpose of this vote for the provision of technical assistance and aid to various parts of the world. I took the opportunity this year in Copenhagen of pointing out that the capacity of countries such as Canada to help underdeveloped areas is to some extent conditioned by the capacities of those countries to receive aid. In the first
Supply-External Affairs place they have to be literate populations because an illiterate population cannot operate a modern economy or a modern society. More than that, they must have developed in their midst all those skills which go to making a modern economy. We must do something more than just send goods to those countries.
At this point I should like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we should not pride ourselves too much on helping the Indonesian or other peoples when we sell them wheat. We should remember that we are also helping the prairie wheat farmers, which I think is perhaps one of the considerations the Canadian government has in mind and which it should have in mind. I do not quarrel with that at all, but let us not adopt too virtuous a position. We must provide these developing areas with the means and ability to help themselves during their organization. That is much more difficult and costly than simply providing material things. I hope that we shall not observe the hon. member for Oxford rising in his place objecting to the provision of teachers for Indonesia.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I suggested we should train some.


Colin Cameron: You were merely suggesting that we train a few. I am suggesting that we should be providing Indonesia and all these developing countries with as large a number of teachers and technically trained individuals as we can muster. This to my mind is equally as important as, if not more important than, sending actual material, concrete goods to relieve conditions in these countries. I hope the Canadian government will continue to increase, as I heard this morning on the radio they are proposing to do, the contributions we are making under these various plans, and will bear in mind that we have an opportunity here of which I think a great many Canadians are anxious to avail themselves.
During the last week or two I had an opportunity to address three or four groups of university students, and I found that at each campus I visited there was intense interest in the possibility of this sort of imaginative service to humanity, or in this adventure, if you will call it that. This is certainly something to stimulate the minds of young Canadians, and I hope the Canadian government will not be deterred from advancing along this line at a much more rapid rate than it has done in the past. I realize that probably Canada's greatest contribution to these de-
10316	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs veloping countries can be made by helping them to develop the thousand and one skills they require if they are to move into the modern world and into affluent society.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, in all fairness I think one has to make some sort of reply to the remarks that my very good friend, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, has made. I very often agree with his views, but I am afraid I cannot in this particular case. He suggested that my representations to the minister were of a high moralistic character. I assure the hon. member that they were not intended to be such, but were intended to be of a realistic nature rather than somewhere out on cloud nine.
The main objection as I see it to this policy, without repeating what I have already said, is that on the one hand we are supporting Malaysia, so the government informs us, with arms, military advice and other aid to help in its efforts against this completely unprovoked aggression on the part of Indonesia, while on the other hand we are indirectly providing Dr. Sukarno with foreign exchange with which he can buy arms to carry on the war with Malaysia. If anything could be considered as having come from Alice in Wonderland, surely that could.
One other observation I neglected to make in my earlier remarks I should like to make now, and I am delighted that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands reminded me of it. He pointed out that the previous administration initiated the sale of wheat to the People's Republic of China, and that that was the same as making gifts to the government of Dr. Sukarno.
I am astonished by the hon. member, who is the financial critic of his party, when he makes a statement like that. Surely he knows better, because one of the advantages of selling wheat or other foodstuffs to countries such as the People's Republic of China and insisting on payment as we do is that it uses up their pool of foreign exchange and indirectly prevents them from buying abroad more arms, machinery and other materials with which wars can be waged. This is certainly one of the prime reasons for selling wheat to countries with aggressive intentions. It uses up their foreign exchange, which they cannot then use to purchase war materials and the like abroad. I am astonished that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands would not have observed that. However, perhaps on the spur of the moment he overlooked it.
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1

I was very interested in the suggestion made by the previous speaker concerning teachers and students. Only a few moments ago and on many other occasions I have said I have no objection to this at all. I think it would be a good thing if Indonesian students were trained here or if we were to send teachers to Indonesia. This is not contributing directly or indirectly to the Indonesian government's war effort. This would help the long range development program of that country, which certainly needs such help; and if the minister would divert this money to some such program nobody would have any objection.
What is objected to is that this gift of food could be made use of indirectly to purchase war materials to carry on aggression against Malaysia, which is a member of the commonwealth and which we support militarily and economically. That is where the objection lies. Again I mention the fact that if this food should go to Indonesia we have no assurance and no way of knowing that it will ever reach the people it is supposed to reach. In all probability it will be used by the Indonesian army on some of their aggressive tours either now or in the future.
Since the minister told us last night that he has not yet sent this wheat flour to Indonesia, I should hope he would give serious consideration either to sending it to Malaysia, or to diverting the funds to training students or, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands suggested, to sending teachers to Indonesia to help train the people there. But for heaven's sake let us not continue on the one hand to help Dr. Sukarno, albeit indirectly, wage war against Malaysia and on the other hand help Malaysia to protect itself against the aggression by Dr. Sukarno which we are indirectly supporting.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, as the committee knows, I have listened with interest both last night and again today to the argument being advanced by the hon. member for Oxford. Like my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, I find myself rather confused with regard to the logic of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Oxford. If, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands suggested, the hon. member for Oxford had advocated a complete embargo on any kind of relationship, economic or otherwise, with Indonesia, I could understand the logic of his position even though I would not agree with it. But I fail to understand the logic of his argument that on the one hand we should not consider

sending food to feed hungry Indonesians and on the other hand that the minister should carry out an expanded program of assisting Indonesians to gain an education.
Unless the hon. member for Oxford is assuming that all Indonesian students who would come to Canada would engage in abstract studies in the field of philosophy, the classics or something of that kind, I fail completely to follow his logic in suggesting that the training of students would not be assisting Sukarno in his war efforts. To follow through the logic of the member's argument, it does seem to me that if Indonesians come to Canada and acquire training in the fields of engineering, technology or any one of a dozen other fields one could mention, one can logically argue that directly or indirectly this could be a much more valuable contribution to Sukarno's war efforts than the providing of a little wheat to feed hungry Indonesians.
I felt constrained to make these few remarks in addition to those I made last night to emphasize again that I think the member for Oxford in this particular instance, despite his very laudable wish that we should indicate our desire to assist the people of Malaysia in bettering their situation and their way of life, and should take such steps as we can to protect them against incursions from without their country, is taking a completely illogical position in respect of what is proposed under the external aid vote in the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the minister co-operated with us last night in arranging to have his estimates brought forward again today, by his obstruction which he carefully managed at a late hour, so I think it would be discourteous of us to dismiss him from the house after only a few minutes. Obviously he wanted to carry on with the discussion of his estimates.
I think this is a good idea, because he failed to clear up the situation with regard to Indonesia. Last night, in one of his unusually frank moments, he used these words as found on page 10296 of Hansard: "the continuous guerrilla attacks that have been made against Malaysia by Indonesia". So he has publicly acknowledged that press reports are correct and that continuous guerrilla attacks are being made by Indonesia against Malaysia. Then he went on to tell us about other commonwealth countries, Australia, Britain and New Zealand, assisting Malaysia. He told us that Australia could not participate in the Cyprus peace keeping force because of its 20220-6534
Supply-External Affairs preoccupation with the danger in southeast Asia.
Now that we have the facts in front of us, how can we justify giving aid to Indonesia when Indonesia is causing trouble for one of the countries within the commonwealth? I know it is easy to argue that this wheat flour is meant for people who require food. Canada has taken the position over the years that we are prepared to assist needy people around the world, and we do give quite a bit of assistance in the form of food. But it strikes me as very odd indeed that in a situation like this, which may become very critical this year or in the next few months, the minister would come before us and ask us to use our own tax money, for that is what it amounts to, to assist Indonesia in this way.
As the hon. member for Oxford has pointed out, how do we know whether the wheat flour will reach starving people in Indonesia or will be diverted for some other purpose? I cannot go as far as the members of the N.D.P. who have spoken about the inconsistency of not advancing an argument for a complete embargo on trade with Indonesia. Perhaps this would come about if the situation became more dangerous than it is at present. But what a strange situation this is. Here we have the Secretary of State for External Affairs admitting openly that Indonesia is engaged in warfare against Malaysia and asking us to support a military mission from Canada to Malaysia, which may end up in military aid being given to that commonwealth country, while at the same time he comes before the house and says "Let us vote $350,000 for Indonesia." It does not make sense to me. What is the purpose of it? Let the minister tell us how this all came about. Under what circumstances did Indonesia ask for this, and what arguments were put forward? Are conditions in that country such that this type of aid is desperately needed?
Some representations must have been made by Indonesia. When were they made? What discussions were undertaken? Why did we settle on a contribution of wheat flour? For what purpose is it to be used? If the minister is abreast of the developments within his own department he should be able to answer some of these questions. It just does not make sense that on the one hand we should say there is a danger spot in southeast Asia, in a sister commonwealth country which is suffering from unprovoked attacks by Indonesia, and on the other hand say that Canada must give assistance to Indonesia.

Supply-External Affairs
I do not know what purpose is behind this. If we want to win Indonesia to our way of life and get the Indonesians divorced from advocating aggression, then perhaps this is the reason the minister has undertaken to give this aid. But perhaps there would be other and better means of achieving that objective. The question with regard to aid to Indonesia has not been raised on this occasion just out of the blue. The hon. member for Oxford has repeatedly drawn the situation in Indonesia to the attention of the minister and has questioned this type of aid. Unfortunately the minister, following the practice which I feel sure he is going to correct now after our discussions with him last night, brushed aside those questions and treated them very lightly. We are looking for a change of attitude now.
Let us be very definite about this. What is our stand going to be under this Colombo plan? We do not resist any suggestion of giving help where help is desperately needed. Why do we help the enemy of a member of the commonwealth? Perhaps in the future we are going to be called upon to give not only military equipment; we might be asked to provide service people to assist this member of the commonwealth and they would be in grave danger. Somewhere the line has to be drawn. I think the minister could be quite helpful this morning if he would give us the picture with regard to this troubled area in the world.
The population of Indonesia, if the reports I read are correct, is very large, about 40 million. The population of Malaysia is small. You have a giant of a country threatening a small country. We are told that Indonesia is building up great armaments and has a maritime force now which it did not have before. This may well threaten New Zealand and Australia. We had a story in one of the newspapers the other day that Indonesia might be approaching the stage where it could develop nuclear weapons.
Now, when we have a troubled area like this, why we just coast along and say that we must assist Indonesia? Suppose we do not assist Indonesia; suppose we look at the question a little more closely. Are there ways and means by which we could persuade other people in the world to put pressure on Indonesia to desist from her activities against Malaysia? Let the minister go a bit further now and tell us what action he proposes at the United Nations with regard to Indonesia. What discussions were held at meetings with the commonwealth foreign affairs ministers with


regard to Indonesia? He has not disclosed any of these facts in the house. It is not in the speech of May 22, 1964, that famous document to which we were referred last night. Let him bring us up to date with regard to Indonesia and justify, if he can, this vote for which he is asking at the moment.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. Are we going to have a reply from the minister to some of these questions? We have quite a bit of leisure today. The minister arranged this last night. If he wants to sit here this afternoon from 2.30 until six o'clock, we are agreeable. We might even sit later as we did last night for 45 minutes while he obstructed the process of passing his estimates. Let him now, having himself elected to have his estimates discussed today when they could have passed last night, answer some of these questions and clear up the situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is in rare form this morning. I appreciate this friendly attitude; it really helps the dispatch of public business. My hon. friend has forgotten what was said last night with regard to the wheat flour in question. I would refer him to what was said as recorded on page 10302 of Hansard:
We were among the first to participate in the Colombo plan. Our proposed total assistance to Indonesia is in the amount of little more than $400,000, of which roughly $350,000 represents wheat flour, in connection with which there has not yet been made a decision to make a shipment of that commodity.
That is the situation. As I said before, no shipments have been made from the 1964-65 commitment. The decisions with respect to the program for the next year have not been taken. Our judgment will, of course, be influenced by developments in the coming months. We discussed this matter with the Tunku when he was here. There has been no decision taken with regard to the shipment of wheat flour at the moment.
In any event my hon. friend, who of course will know how these matters are dealt with by way of counterpart funds and the like, knows that if a shipment were made the local currency equivalent to the Canadian cost of the flour could be used only for jointly agreed economic development projects that are arrived at by arrangement between the two countries.


John George Diefenbaker: How is that controlled?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is controlled, just as it was in my hon. triend's time, by external aid officers through our embassy in Indonesia. As I said, we have discussed this matter with the Tunku, with our Australian, British and United States friends. The policy of the government has been influenced by those consultations.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We have had some enlightenment in this regard from the minister. Since the government, as the minister has just said, has not made any final decision as to the shipment of this wheat flour, what then is the purpose of putting this item in the present estimates? Why not remove it and at a later date, if the government decides it wants to send this assistance to Indonesia, a supplementary estimate could be introduced. The minister has suggested there is some considerable doubt in the government-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -some doubt-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister says there is no doubt, then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said there was no decision on the shipment of that commodity in the year 1964-65.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I cannot help but wonder why, if that is the case, this item is included in the estimates at this time. Would it not be better to cover it by a supplementary estimate on some future date? This has all the earmarks of a blank cheque-not only with regard to this assistance to Indonesia-since everything under the Colombo plan is lumped into one large sum. Perhaps the minister could tell us whether any of the other Colombo assistance programs have not yet been completely decided on by the government. What are we voting all these sums for, if the government has not yet made up its mind? Are there any other items in this plan with regard to which the government has not reached a decision?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course there are. The hon. member knows that a program of these dimensions is bound to be one which depends, among other things, on bilateral arrangements.


Gordon Minto Churchill: While the minister is thinking over the very sensible suggestion made by my hon. friend from Oxford, namely that this item should be dropped from the present program and then, after consideration, rein-
Supply-External Affairs stated by means of a supplementary estimate should it seem-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That could not be done, because the committee last night decided to the contrary.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am suggesting it might be done next session as a supplementary estimate. The minister, with his long experience in government, will appreciate how that is done.
But I am wondering whether he would enlighten us now on the following point. He told us, as reported at page 10302, that Indonesia was still receiving substantial assistance from the United States, Japan, Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand and the specialized agencies of the United Nations. May we have detailed information with regard to the type of aid which is being given by those countries? I am sure the minister was speaking with authority when he made that statement last night. It was impressive, and it almost persuaded us to permit his estimates to go through.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot give the hon. gentleman all those details now, but I can say that the United States, which is greatly concerned, as are Canada and Britain, about the situation in Asia generally, is giving many millions of dollars in the form of commodities and technical equipment to Indonesia. So are Japan, Australia, France, Germany and New Zealand.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask this question. Are Australia and New Zealand at present giving substantial aid to Indonesia while at the same time making appropriations to protect themselves against that country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say what is the nature of the assistance supplied by Australia and New Zealand, but they are giving assistance.


An hon. Member:: Five dollars worth?


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask for the evidence? We like to accept the minister's statements, but could we have the evidence sometimes? Let him tell us exactly what aid is being given by Australia and New Zealand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have made a statement.


John George Diefenbaker: What was that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have said that Australia and New Zealand are giving assistance to Indonesia, along with the United States, Japan, West Germany and Canada.



Supply-External Affairs


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could the minister direct me to a source which I might consult to find out what aid, specifically, Australia and New Zealand are giving?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I would refer the hon. gentleman to the Australian and New Zealand high commissioners here in Ottawa.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister has told us that one of the reasons his government is giving consideration to supplying this assistance to Indonesia is that a number of other countries, particularly Australia and New Zealand, France, Japan, and so on are also providing aid to that country. If this consideration is relevant in arriving at a decision, as I am sure it would be, then surely the minister has at his disposal information as to the amount of aid which is being given by all those countries-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, I do not.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: -as well as the nature of that aid. Is it technical training, military assistance, food? What is it exactly? I cannot understand anyone making a decision on an important matter such as this without knowing the type of aid and the amount which is coming from each place. I cannot understand the minister, of all people, doing such a thing. Can he give us no indication of the amounts of aid, expressed in dollars, which each of the countries mentioned is giving to Indonesia in the coming year?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I can tell the hon. member, for instance, that New Zealand is giving a total of $98,000, mainly for technical assistance to Indonesia. Australia is giving $648,000, and this is in the capital field. For instance, Australia is providing Indonesia with road building equipment in the amount of $189,000. It is also providing intercommunication equipment for civil aircraft in the amount of $648,000.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is most interesting. The minister has just told us that New Zealand is giving $98,000 for the training of students. That is the kind of suggestion which I and others have been making here, that our assistance to Indonesia should be of a long range nature concerned with training students or preparing teachers for Indonesia. That is what New Zealand is doing.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Would the hon. member object if Canada gave equipment for civil air services? Would he object if we supplied help in making roads? Would he consider this more strategic than giving food?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister will have better information at his disposal than I have in this regard, but it would seem to me there is probably little distinction in Indonesia between what is civil aviation and what is military aviation. Unless I had some information to the contrary I would certainly think this would very likely be the type of aid which would prove most helpful to the aggressive activities of the Indonesian government. Road building equipment would be more open to question, but on reflection it would seem to me that since parts of Malaysia adjoin Indonesia in jungle areas where road building equipment would be very helpful in building invasion routes, such equipment would come into the same category. I certainly would not agree with the minister on that. I would agree, rather, with what the New Zealand government has been doing. I wonder how up to date the hon. gentleman's figures of Australian aid are-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Figures for 196465.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was wondering when the minister received this information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: September 9.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That was before the government of Australia decided on a course of conscription because of the obvious threat to Australia from Indonesia. I suggest to the minister that some of this aid may well be under review at the present time by the Australian government. This is something which neither the minister nor I can really know at this point.
I would again request the minister to give careful consideration to this program and to examine the necessity for helping Dr. Sukarno conserve his foreign exchange for the purpose of buying war materials. Instead, I suggest that a long range program of assistance be adopted and that a student training program be undertaken with these funds. Certainly, as I have said before, we have nothing against the people of Indonesia. I shall be glad to see them develop themselves and get out of their present difficulties.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International joint commission-
40. Salaries and expenses of the commission and Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the commission, $151,500.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: On this vote, which has to do with the international joint commission, I should like to ask the minister whether he

would indicate briefly what activities, if any, or what responsibilities, if any, the international joint commission currently undertakes with respect to the development of the Columbia river basin. The minister will recall that over quite a period of years the international joint commission had a major responsibility and carried out a major activity in connection with the proposed development of this river. I would like to have the position of the international joint commission, in relationship to the Columbia river basin, clarified while we are on this item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, as my hon. friend knows, when the proposal for the joint development of the Columbia was first put forward 20 years ago, in accordance with the procedures laid down for study by the international joint commission the governments of both countries decided, first of all, whether or not a reference should be undertaken by the international joint commission. It was after a decision had been taken that there should be such a reference that the international joint commission made a very detailed engineering examination of the whole project.
As a result of that study, which involved over eight years of serious consideration, a formulation of principles was reached and concurred in by the two components of the commission. These principles in turn were accepted by the government of Canada and the government of the United States as the essentials of any proposed treaty between the United States and Canada. The interest of the I.J.C. now, following the ratification of the treaty, arises only in the event of a dispute which cannot be resolved by the two governments. In the event that a dispute does arise in the interpretation of the treaty, then under article 16, I think it is, of the treaty an adjudication is made by the international joint commission.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That means that in effect the international joint commission has no current responsibility for anything that takes place in this connection?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right; no administrative responsibility.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: And it would require a reference by the governments of Canada and the United States?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. If there is a dispute between the two parties and they cannot agree, then the matter is automat-
Supply-External Affairs ically referred by both governments for adjudication to the I.J.C.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister what progress the commission is making in studies on a pooling of the natural resources of Canada and the United States.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any study being made by the joint commission of the pooling of the resources of the two countries. I am wondering whether my hon. friend is thinking about the assignment that has been given to the chairman of the international joint commission, along with Mr. Livingston Merchant, in connection with another matter altogether.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am thinking about the statement the minister made a little over a year ago, in which he indicated his excitement and enthusiasm for a policy started, I believe, by Mr. Udall that was going to set up sort of the big thing. I believe the minister also indicated in the house and publicly that in this field of resource management the international joint commission would be a good agency to make surveys and studies.
I know the minister likes his speeches put on the record. He likes people to refer to them. He has made a habit of it recently; "My speech of April 19", "My speech of May 26". This was a speech made sometime in October of 1963. Knowing the minister's initiative and dynamic qualities I would assume that since he tossed this suggestion out to the public, something would have resulted, so I think my question is quite natural. Could he just set out what he has done, after making this statement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was right in the first instance, Mr. Chairman. We were referring not to the commission as such but to the fact that the chairman of the Canadian section of the commission and Mr. Livingston Merchant, former United States ambassador to Canada, had been selected by both governments to give consideration to the formulation of principles with regard to that matter.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister indicated at the time that he did not know whether joint studies would be definitely initiated. He certainly did not make it clear that they would be; he indicated there would have to be some consultation between representatives of both governments. That was a year ago. The pace of things in this particular field is moving with some speed. It is not only a question of power; it is a question of water, natural

Supply-External Affairs gas and other energy sources. We have some difficulties at the present time in connection with forest products and this kind of material. It all fits into the big picture.
I just want to express my disappointment that the minister, a year after, in a sense, putting this whole idea on the top level, has not got any more to suggest or offer than this. It indicates to me that maybe he is too much involved in the problems of Laos, Cambodia, the Congo and things like that.


An hon. Member:: And Indonesia.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, and Indonesia; certainly Indonesia. He is not being nearly enough concerned about what seems to me the most important of all the bread and butter issues of external affairs; that is our relationships, diplomatic and economic, with the country that shares this continent with us. I am not going further with this point; I just wanted to remind the minister that if he and I both survive into the next parliament I propose to raise this same question with him, if he should survive his particular position. I hope by then he will have something a little more positive to say about what the government has done in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Whether he survives is very "iffy".


Douglas Mason Fisher: Someone has suggested that is a very "iffy" question. Yes, I imagine it is; although it is only fair to say-this has nothing to do with external affairs-that in so far as the sun porch has its influence on lower Michigan, it is very hard for us to conceive of the minister disappearing from the Windsor scene. I think this is not such a bad point to bring up right now, because I may say to the minister that in all the time he has been involved in these great affairs of the world, dealing with great statesmen like Dean Rusk and Mr. Couve de Mur-ville and all these other people, those of us who follow his intimate and domestic political career know he has never lost a chance to make a phone call to Windsor and get in touch with his many constituents. We know he has one of the largest mails going out of here to Windsor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, could we discuss the item under consideration?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am discussing the item. We come down to the fact that the minister-it is a point I had not thought of until it was raised by a person over here-has time for all these things far distant from Canada and


for all these domestic affairs in Windsor, and I think he might follow up a little more constructively than he appears to have done the great suggestion he put on the record last year. I must find the date of that speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will get the date for you.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We will try to make it as important a term of reference as his speech of May 22.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he has any report to make on the progress of the studies of water pollution as provided in the items under vote 40.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was the last part of the question?


Edward Nasserden: Whether there is any report on the progress of the studies with regard to boundary waters pollution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been a reference made to the commission with regard to pollution in the great lakes. On October 7 the governments of the two countries requested the commission to conduct an investigation of pollution in lake Erie, lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence river, and to make recommendations to the two governments in this problem. This is, of course, a long study.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I would have thought the minister would have spoken at some length on this question of pollution which has been raised by the hon. member for Rosthern. This is a problem of great importance. I have always found the minister able to use a great many words when the occasion demands. To conceal thought he uses words. Indeed, as I listened to him from time to time I am reminded of someone in the United States Senate who described the tongue of a certain senator as being like a race horse; the less load it carries the faster it goes. I could not have thought of a better description of the minister, and when I noted that that expression had been used in the United States Senate I thought it should be appropriated here in the House of Commons.
Surely the minister is in a position to say more than he has said in those few words. This problem is one of the most serious facing our country. It also affects Windsor, to which fleeting reference was made a moment ago by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I should like to have a report from the minister in this connection. Certainly the expenditure

involved is very small. We are able to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars In Indonesia, but when it comes to problems close to home apparently a different viewpoint is held by the government. The total expenditure here as Canada's share of the expenses of the study amounts to $13,000. There is no matter more important, no subject deserving greater consideration.
We all know that by 1980 or 1985 Canada's water supply may be seriously endangered. Indeed, water at that time may have a greater value for our country than the oil resources which are located here. An expenditure of $13,000 is very small for a problem which is of such importance, not only to the great lakes but also to contiguous international streams. Here we are, having been blessed with more water than any other country on earth in proportion to our area, and year by year our water levels are falling, year by year the degree of pollution increases.
So far as waterways within our country are concerned, pollution is a matter for consideration and for co-operation between the federal government and the provinces. However, our international waterways require full and careful examination in relation to the problem of pollution. If we can bring the minister back home for a moment and he can leave that stratospheric atmosphere of international diplomacy and get down to the ground, perhaps he can tell us the situation in this regard and what is being done.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the exclusive domestic interests of the right hon. gentleman, who was a distinguished prime minister and who will, of course, appreciate how unimportant are international problems. But I do agree with him that domestic problems are very important, and it is because we regard pollution in the great lakes and in the Windsor area, which he said means so much to me as it does also to my dear friend the hon. member for Essex South and the hon. member for Essex West-


John George Diefenbaker: And to all hon. members.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -that this government has decided to do something about it.


John George Diefenbaker: Tell us what is going to be done.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: We have asked the I.J.C. to make these studies. My hon. friend will remember that the Ontario government had been pressing the former administration for some time to undertake a study of the
Supply-External Affairs pollution of the great lakes. While a study is not an achievement, a study has at least begun. When the report of that study is ready it will, of course, be given to the house and I hope it will be possible for action to be taken to remove pollution in the great lakes through the joint endeavours of the province of Ontario and the federal government.
My hon. friend from Rosthern asked me about other reports. I forgot to mention that he was likely thinking of the Rainy river project; that report will be available some time in the course of this year. The study at St. Croix is still under way, as is the study of the pollution of a connecting channel between lake Erie and lake St. Clair.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the hon. gentleman for his reference to pollution. As a matter of fact it was the government of which I had the honour to be the head which first provided assistance to end pollution in municipalities, action which was long overdue and which, of course, the hon. gentleman will remember was a matter to which the former government had paid little or no attention. However, this report is rather short and uncertain. What has been the nature of the investigation made so far in this connection by the joint commission? Have they come up with any interim suggestions?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, there have been no interim suggestions.


John George Diefenbaker: When did the joint commission start to sit in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: October 7.


John George Diefenbaker: And there have been no interim recommendations or suggestions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I am sorry.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the hon. gentleman would have asked for them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I had been in the opposition I would.


John George Diefenbaker: It is quite amazing how the minister is always speaking about these wonderful relations between countries, which relations I must say are today in a worse state in regard to Canada's international position and image abroad than they have been for many years. However, this matter is close at home, and naturally I would want to inquire from the minister what are the nature of the investigations being made, how many Canadians are engaged in the scientific or technical aspects of this matter, and-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Thirty eight.

Supply-External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am told that the personnel engaged in these studies is around 38.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to be brushed aside by facetious observations which indicate that the minister does not know anything about this matter. I hope during the recess between now and 2.30 he will come up with something more than he has brought forward so far.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would tell us what terms of reference were given to those who are studying boundary waters pollution.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: To which particular reference is my hon. friend directing my attention? Has he the Rainy river one in mind?


Edward Nasserden: No, I am thinking of the great lakes reference.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I will be very pleased to deal with that one, and perhaps this will give me the opportunity of discussing a matter that is of great concern to border communities, and particularly to areas such as the city of Windsor.
As I said earlier today in answer to a question asked by my hon. friend, the international joint commission is conducting investigations on water pollution under three commission references from the two governments.
On October 7 the commission was requested to study the problem of pollution of lake Erie which borders the southern portion of the county of Essex, the county in which I live. This is the area where the constituencies of Essex South, Essex West and Essex East happen to be. At the same time the commission was asked to investigate pollution of the waters of the Red river at the international boundary, and to make a similar report to the governments with recommendations for any measures which they might regard as appropriate.
Under the third reference, the commission is now preparing a report to the governments concerning pollution of the Rainy river and

lake of the Woods. In addition to these three current investigations, the commission since 1951, as my hon. friend, the minister of national health and welfare knows-and he has had a lot to do with these things-has maintained surveillance of water quality conditions in the connecting channels of the great lakes. I refer to the channels such as the Detroit river, which joins lake Erie and lake St. Clair and which borders the city of Windsor.
The commission has also been authorized by the two governments to maintain supervision over boundary water pollution in the St. Croix river basin in Maine and New Brunswick. If any hon. member would like the particulars of these I will be very happy to deal with them.


Edward Nasserden: Let us have them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the situation covering the Detroit river area, lake Erie and lake St. Clair, it may be recalled that following complaints I made in this house some time I think in 1948 or 1949, steps were taken by both Detroit and the city of Windsor for a submission to the joint commission concerning air pollution in the Detroit-Windsor area, which might be attributed to vessels plying the Detroit river. A recommendation to broaden the reference term to the advisory board, allowing it to make recommendations respecting other major sources of pollution in the area was, however, rejected by the United States. In 1954 a technical advisory board on air pollution was established which conducted atmospheric studies in the area, and reported that the air was being polluted and that the many vessels plying the river were a contributing factor to the situation.
The minister of national health and welfare will recall-


Mr. Monleilh:: Thank you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: that he himself made a report to this house in respect of the interim report of this advisory board.


John George Diefenbaker: That is twice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A smoke abatement program was inaugurated with the voluntary co-operation of vessel owners, operators and their associations.
I did not catch the interjection of my right hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: The interjection was
simply this. That is twice the minister has referred to the hon. member for Perth as

the minister of national health and welfare, and I appreciate it very much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to remind my right hon. friend that the hon. member for Perth was the minister of national health and welfare during the time that my right hon. friend was the head of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: But not today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The technical advisory board also continued studies of possible remedial measures to present to the international joint commission in April, 1957. Certain recommendations which it proposed to incorporate in its final report were presented. Criticisms of its draft proposals were made, and amendments to it were drafted over a period of time. The final report of the technical advisory board was submitted to the international joint commission, as my friend the hon. member for Perth will recall, at this October meeting in 1959. The international joint commission presented its recommendations to the government later, on May 31, 1960.
One of the recommendations provided for the establishment by the joint commission of a board which would continue surveillance on a voluntary basis of air pollution from vessels plying the Detroit river. This has been accepted by both governments, and has received the support of the government of Ontario.
The other recommendations of the international joint commission report, which are now under study, call for the following. First, the adoption of standards for smoke emission, described by the technical advisory board, and incorporated in the commission's final report. The standards are to go into effect as soon as the governments have worked out the legal and administrative details necessary to enforce them. Second, during the interim period the new standards are not to apply to handfired coal-burning vessels. Third, that all costs incurred in converting vessels in order to meet the new standards are to be borne by the owners of the vessels. This marks an example of the progress being made in trying to meet the very serious problem in the area covered by the Detroit river.
As a further follow-up on the recommendations of 1961, the Department of Transport, it will be recalled by the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Three Rivers, who sits with the right hon. gentleman, put through an amendment which enables the
Supply-External Affairs government to regulate air pollution from ships plying Canadian waters within one mile of land. The regulations under this act were gazetted and will be found now in the Canada Gazette as P.C. 1964-324. The regulations apply, first, to smoke emissions by ships while they are in Canadian waters within one mile of land and, as so many of my constituents who live on the banks of lake St. Clair know, this represents a very important step. Second, so far as non-handfired vessels are concerned, the regulations are more stringent than those recommended by the international joint commission in the 1960 report. Third, so far as handfired vessels are concerned, a special exception is made in the case of the Detroit river to bring the regulations in line with the main I.J.C. recommendations. Fourth, penalties are provided in the form of a fine not exceeding $500 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both fine and imprisonment. Fifth, although steamship inspectors under the Canada Shipping Act are provided with powers of inspection it does not follow that special administrative procedures will be set up by the Department of Transport to enforce the regulations, as was explained at the time by the Minister of Transport.
So far as Canada is concerned, Mr. Chairman, the adoption of these regulations puts into practice the recommendation in the report of the joint commission recommending that smoke emission standards should go into effect as soon as the governments have worked out the legal and administrative details necessary to enforce them. In other words, the Canadian government is now in a position to approve the recommendations. Recommendations of the commission are normally approved jointly by both governments. However, on the United States side of the boundary there are no corresponding regulations of general application measuring up to the I.J.C. standards.
The reason for this is largely that the United States federal government has virtually no authority, it is alleged, in the field of air pollution, although this situation was remedied somewhat in 1963 with the passage of public law 88206. This legislation permits federal financial assistance to regional air pollution control agencies and also allows the federal government to take direct action when the health or welfare of the citizens of one state is endangered by air pollution from another state.
There is now proposed a new reference to the I.J.C. for study of air pollution in the

Supply-External Affairs Detroit-Windsor area. In May of 1963, as a result of complaints made by the hon. member for Essex West supported by my colleague, the member for Essex South and myself, the department made representations to the United States department of state through our embassy in Washington requesting prompt relief from air pollution originating on the United States side of the Detroit river in the vicinity of Zug island and Ecorse. So far as can be determined, the Great Lakes Steel Corporation with a plant in Ecorse, which is near Detroit, is primarily responsible for this situation. Smoke from this plant pollutes the atmosphere in the west end of Windsor and in La Salle in Sandwich west. When making representations to the state department I pointed out that preparations for a reference of the matter to the international joint commission were going forward on our side.
These represent important ventures by the international joint commission with regard to what quite properly has been referred to as a serious condition of pollution in the air resulting from several of the causes I have mentioned. This matter of pollution, of course, is not confined to the great lakes, and to the extent that the international joint commission on the Canadian side is able to prosecute studies it will have at least a persuasive effect in both countries. The house may be assured that the commission will undertake its responsibility to see that these matters are properly studied. Remedial action can then be taken by those authorities primarily concerned, when it comes to giving effect to recommendations. The authorities in the case of Canada are the provinces with their responsibility in property and civil rights. But some provinces may take the position that the cost of giving effect to the remedies suggested is one they cannot bear alone and in that event, of course, consideration has to be given as to what action can be taken to bring about the necessary and desired results.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the committee has been treated to a disquisition on a subject that does not come up at all under the particular item we are dealing with and I can only assume that what was said by the hon. gentleman was said in a desire to impress his constituents with the action taken in regard to a problem that is not before us at all. As a matter of fact, as I listened to the hon. gentleman reading his statement and pouring forth that volume of words, I could only conclude that when he really gets under a full head of steam he pours forth over the


air, whether polluted or not, a volume of words in search of an idea.
That was very apparent because what we are dealing with and what he has not dealt with is the question of what is being done about water pollution. Interesting as it is to hear of what has been done in connection with a problem that is not before us, I now return to the subject under consideration, which is Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the international joint commission including studies and surveys of the midwestern watershed, Canada's share of the expenses of the international St. Lawrence river board of control, Canada's share of the expenses of the St. Croix river reference, Canada's share of the expenses of the proposed Alaska-Yukon rivers reference, Canada's share of the expenses of studies of boundary waters pollution and Canada's share of the expenses of the Champlain waterway reference.
The minister, of course, has not dealt with the questions that were raised and I now ask him to return to the subject with some greater regard to what is before the committee than he has shown up to the present moment and to tell the committee what, if anything, has been done by the international joint commission in connection with the subject of water pollution, which we are dealing with at the moment. How many technical advisers are there in the Canadian section? What is the nature of the work they are doing? Interesting as his disquisition on the subject of air pollution may be to himself and to his constituents, and also generally, that is not the subject before us at this time; but I presume he brought it up because he has no information on the questions that have been asked him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am glad my hon. friend is interested in the problems that face the area from which I come. I had been asked a question about pollution-


John George Diefenbaker: About water pollution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and I dealt with air pollution, but since my hon. friend wishes me to go on I am very happy to deal with water pollution.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I approved a note following which the governments of the United States and Canada recognized that the waters of lake Erie, lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence river

were being polluted by sewage and industrial wastes discharged into these various bodies of water. I pointed out that the provisions of article 4 of the boundary waters treaty signed on January 11, 1909, set forth that boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other side. It provides the two governments with a justification for agreeing upon a joint reference pursuant to the provisions of article 9 of the treaty.
The commission was requested to inquire into and report to the two governments upon the following questions: First, are the waters of lake Erie, lake Ontario, and the international section of the St. Lawrence river being polluted on either side of the boundary to an extent which is causing or is likely to cause injury to health or property on either side of the boundary? If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, to what extent, by what cause and in what locality is such pollution taking place If the commission should find pollution of the character just referred to is taking place, what remedial measures would, in its judgment, be most practicable from the economic, sanitary and other points of view, and what would be the probable cost thereof?
Now, the answers to those questions will provide suggested remedies for what is admittedly a serious situation.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the date of that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is dated October 7 of this year.
In the conduct of this investigation and otherwise in the performance of its duties under this reference, the commission can utilize the services of engineers and other specially qualified personnel of the technical agencies of Canada and the United States and will, in so far as possible, make use of the information and technical data heretofore acquired or which may become available during the course of their investigations. I cannot give my hon. friend the exact number of professional and technical people who will be engaged on this particular study. I asked for this information at noon, but as yet it has not yet been finally determined, although the work has begun.
The two governments, I am happy to say, are agreed upon the desirability of extending this reference to other boundary waters in the great lakes basin at the appropriate time. These studies do take a considerable length of time to make, but they will be carried out
Supply-External Affairs in accordance with a schedule that has not yet been announced. The commission is asked to advise the governments when, in its opinion, such action is desirable. When the commission will have made its report the two governments will be in a position to consider what remedial steps can be taken.
My hon. friend asked me about some of the expenses involved in these studies. Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations with regard to the various projects are as follows for 196465: in the case of the mid-western watershed, $7,500; for our share of the expenses of the international St. Lawrence river board of control, $10,000; our share of the expenses of the St. Croix river, $500; for the proposed Alaska-Yukon rivers reference, $5,000; Canada's share of the studies of boundary pollution to which I have been referring, $13,000; for the expenses of the Champlain waterway reference, $2,500, making a total of $38,500. Now, this appropriation provides for the various investigations, studies and surveys undertaken by the commission under the various references and obligations to which reference has been made.


Edward Nasserden: If I understood the minister correctly, he stated that the reports that might be made by the joint commission would be of the type that could not be acted upon by the government of the United States as such. He implied these were matters that would have to be acted upon by the various states concerned. Has the minister, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, held any discussions with the governors or officials of these various states to bring to their attention the problem that does exist and explore the avenues that might be available to meet these problems?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case of the state of Michigan I, myself, did talk, when I was minister of national health and welfare, with the then governor of the state of Michigan.


Edward Nasserden: What year was that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was in 1956; I believe that was when these studies were brought in. As Secretary of State for External Affairs, I have had correspondence with Premier Robarts of the province of Ontario who, as a result of an arrangement that has been made, has been dealing with this matter, through one of his ministers, with the present regime in the state of Michigan. I presume, although I would have to ask about this, that with regard to the situation in Quebec,

Supply-External Affairs there could be action taken by the corresponding governing bodies.


Edward Nasserden: Am I right, then, in assuming the minister, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, has not taken up this matter with the particular states involved?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No; as Secretary of State for External Affairs, I take this up with my opposite number in the government of the United States who, in turn, communicates with the appropriate person in the state body.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, since we are considering the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the deepening of the Richelieu river.
We all remember that, when the previous government was in office, some hon. members of the province of Quebec, particularly the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) who was assigned very important diplomatic duties in Africa -which duties are keeping him away from the house today-as well as the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin), took a very active part in the debates and made every effort to try and convince the government that it was not only urgent but essential to go ahead with the deepening of the Richelieu river, so that an inland water route could be established between the harbour of Montreal and New York city.
However, since the Liberal government took office, we have noticed that those two hon. members have not said one word on this matter. At that time they were clamouring in order to convince the Canadian people that the deepening of the Richelieu river was essential.
I would like the hon. minister to comment on this project. I would like to know where the surveys stand and if the hon. minister is still receiving representations from the two ministers I mentioned more particularly and from those in that electoral district who are interested in that canal project.
Would the hon. minister inform us on the progress of the negotiations, and tell us if the project is practicable, or if this was just a balloon sent up by the people in opposition, when the Conservatives were in power -those who are now in a position to implement this project-so as to play on the emotions of the people?
I would like to know the intentions of the minister on this matter.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member very well knows, many members on all sides of the house became interested in this matter. The Associate Minister of National Defence, in particular, was highly interested.
This is the situation: The investigation is completed, but we have not yet received the report of the commission. As soon as we receive that report, we will be in a position to study the facts; and I am referring not only to the Canadian government, but also to the government of the United States.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for the rather vague information he has just given us, but I would like to know when we can expect to get the commission's report?


Mr. Grafffey:: That is a good question.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: When does the minister expect the commission to report on that matter and how long is it since the technical survey has been completed?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Chairman, I do not know; I am not a member of the commission. It is never easy to ask a judge when he will give his decision. That is a matter which comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the commission, but I will inquire.


Edward Nasserden: The reason I raised this question today is because it is one of the most important problems with which Canada must deal, not only the government but all of us. I well recall the many statements which have been made by the minister on the importance of this problem. Today he has indicated that he was advised by hon. members representing areas in close proximity to the constituency he represents in parliament. I would have thought that one so well versed in this problem and so aware of its detrimental effects would have taken action before 18 months had gone by, since this government came to office. Consider the length of time which has elapsed between the date this government came to power and the date action was taken, that is, on October 7 and 8. It is evident that the government has been most lax in discharging its responsibilities in connection with this increasingly serious problem.
We have been told there has been no intensification of the studies which have taken place with regard to this matter. The minister has shown by his answers today that no

discussions have been held directly with the state governments across the line. I must say I am deeply disappointed at this lack of action. Anyone who takes notice of the activity going on along the St. Lawrence and the great lakes today on our side of the border cannot but realize that more action and more attention is required than the government is giving to this subject. At the present time it is clear that it is likely to become even more extensive and that pollution will be even greater in the years ahead. Now is the time to intensify this work in all phases, not only the necessary studies but the action which has to be taken. I wish to say very sincerely that I am disappointed in the minister because of the lack of attention he has given to this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the hon. member is disappointed and I am sure his disappointment is sincere. But when he understands what the constitutional arrangements are he will I am sure realize he has been ill-informed in the interesting remarks he has just made.
Shortly after the present government came to office it undertook to communicate with Premier Robarts. I regret I do not have any correspondence, but I will be glad to table it next week, with the consent of the province concerned. We communicated with the premier of Ontario several times with regard to this matter. I am not complaining about the co-operation I received from Premier Robarts, because we did receive co-operation. It was necessary to have the co-operation of the government of Ontario. Perhaps the hon. member does not realize that, when the international joint commission undertakes these projects, it does not do the work itself; it has to use the technical services which are available, and in a case like this these are largely the technical services of the province. The water belongs to the province. The assistance of the officials of the province is essential in order to carry out the engineering assessments which have to be made.
So there has been no delay on the part of the federal government and I am not suggesting there was any delay on the part of the province of Ontario. They have a lot of work to do and I am sure Premier Robarts acted as readily as he could in the circumstances.


Edward Nasserden: I hope the minister is not trying to pass the buck to the premier of Ontario or of any other province. This is a matter which requires leadership at the federal level if progress is to be made, and we
Supply-External Affairs expect this kind of leadership from hon. gentlemen opposite-the kind of leadership they said they would give to this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member knows I would not pass the buck.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I rise at this time because I, too, am interested in this serious problem which is before the government and before all of us in this country. I wish to congratulate the right hon. Leader of the Opposition for having brought this subject up for consideration. As set out in this item, Canada's share of the expenses of studies of boundary waters pollution amounted to $13,000 last year, with provision for the same amount this year. This pollution problem has markedly increased during the past year and I submit, in consequence, that the item before us is totally inadequate to enable us to meet it properly and carry out the work required.
Let hon. members consider the damage being done to our tourist industry, as well as the piteous state of the fishing industry not only in lake Ontario but in all the other great lakes as well. I submit this item should be ten times the amount set out here, and I advise the minister that he would be doing his duty to this country if he were to protect himself and his department by setting aside adequate funds to perform this task effectively. In my opinion he should leave 'this item open to make it possible for him to come back to this parliament, in a few months time, and secure approval for the expenditure of more money to be used in the fight against this flagrant pollution of the great lakes.
I would point out that I brought this question of the pollution of lake Ontario to the attention of the government on June 18 this year. Hon. members will find that I spoke then, as reported on page 4443 of Hansard, concerning the pollution of the lake by oil emissions which, we suspect, came from ships-ships from other countries which are now steaming up the new waterway and whose masters seem to think, when they get into lake Ontario, that they are back in the ocean again and can open the seacocks of their vessels and emit oil waste or any other type of excess chemical they do not need aboard. I also put this matter before the government on September 24 last, as reported at pages 8407 and 8408 of Hansard. At that time I placed before the government the plight of the commercial fishermen of lake Ontario. I would like to see some progress made in this connection lay this government that claims

Supply-External Affairs they are so interested in cleaning up the situation that exists.
I would now refer you, Mr. Chairman, to the Kingston Whig-Standard of September 22, 1964, where some words of wisdom are contained in an editorial. This newspaper claims that we are not adequately enforcing the laws that we have in this country with regard to pollution. I would quote just briefly from the editorial:
The real trouble, we suspect, is that the authorities have not yet appreciated that we have a war on our hands and that the time tor polite notes of admonition has long since passed.
I am sure all hon. members in this house will agree with those sentiments. I believe we must intensify the fight against this problem; and we cannot do it with a puny $13,000 which is, we might say, hidden away in the estimates. Had the right hon. Leader of the Opposition not brought this matter to the attention of the house it probably would have slid into oblivion, like a great many other measures of this government. I think we should stop the flow of raw, untreated industrial by-products and effluents into our lakes and streams. The minister has mentioned a question that was posed by, or for the international joint commission, namely, is there pollution coming from one side of the international boundary line that is adversely affecting and damaging the other side. I claim that there is. Pollution is obviously coming from every watershed that drains into lake Ontario; all our small rivers are polluted before they ever reach lake Ontario. This applies in both the United States and Canada.
We should stop effluents, as I say, and industrial pollution reaching our streams. We should also see to it that industry which uses water in their processes return the unconverted portion of this water to our lakes and streams as pure as it was when they took it out. That is possible today, I would advise the minister. There was a time, not long ago, when I believe that was not possible; but it is possible now and action here should be taken in this regard. We should also prohibit insoluble detergents being passed into our streams. We should make a continuous and concentrated study of the chemical content of all soaps, detergents and cleaning materials being marketed, to ensure no insoluble toxics are passed into our streams. We should review whatever anti-pollution laws have been promulgated by this country and the United States; and since the great lakes waters are common to both countries, the anti-

pollution and conservation laws for the protection of the purity of waters and for the protection of the fish population ought to be exactly the same in each country. I would remind the minister that he should use his good offices to see that this is done. He should see that these laws are uniform, so that when they are enforced neither country is outside the pale of this common legislation.
I will not take up any more of the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, but would remind the minister and his department that the people bordering the great lakes, those in the great lakes basin, are watching to see whether something good is done to abate this nuisance that affects so adversely all the people of this country, namely the pollution of our public and international waters.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter I wish to raise in connection with this item. If I understood the minister correctly, he referred to health and one or two other factors arising out of pollution as the basis for the studies that are now taking place. I wonder whether the minister would tell us if the studies taking place at the present time go so far as determining the effects of the pollution on our fishing and the tourist and recreational value of these waters.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, these studies are comprehensive and I would think they would take this matter into account; but I want to make sure before I give a definitive answer.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting to see whether any other hon. members cared to make remarks on this last item of this part of the minister's estimates. I was wondering whether the minister would consent to our reverting to the first item of his estimates and reopening it, for one purpose and one purpose alone; that is, the opportunity of hearing a report by the hon. member for Red Deer in connection with his recent trip to Africa. This would be the only opportunity we would have of hearing a report from the hon. member for Red Deer, and it is certainly a matter of great interest to members of the house and the people of Canada. I think it would be very discourteous of the members of this house if we did not provide an opportunity for the hon. member to make a report on his trip to Africa and his representations to His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Ethiopia, Dr. Kenyatta and others. Would the minister consider doing this?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Chairman, I think this is most unusual. I believe we should finish the estimates, and then my hon. friend could address himself to this point. We are on a particular item now. This question is concerned with another item. I think we have to deal with each of these items as they come along. The hon. gentleman was here this morning, and we could have dealt with this question on item 35, which was before the committee at that time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Yes. We were on item 35 this morning, dealing with the external aid program of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where have you sent him now?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The Chair would like to bring to the attention of the committee that there is a particular vote before the committee a the moment, and the discussion which has just taken place between the minister and the hon. member for Oxford is certainly not relevant to that vote. If it is the intention of the committee to discuss the possibility of reverting to an item which has already been passed, I cannot see how it can be done under vote No. 40. The minister has replied to the suggestion made by the hon. member, and I would suggest that we go on with the item before us at the moment.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am, of course, completely in Your Honour's hands and would welcome suggestions from Your Honour as to when I may make this request of the minister and do it, of course, within the rules of the house. I used this particular moment to do it because I thought, since we were in committee and rather free and easy, perhaps Your Honour might overlook a small breach of the rules. However, I would be very happy if Your Honour would suggest when I may raise this matter and make a formal request of the minister to reopen item No. 1 of his estimates, so we may have the opportunity of hearing the hon. member for Red Deer.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am sure there will be plenty of opportunity.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, this procedure may be a little irregular, but if we pass these estimates it will be too late, of course, to make the request of the minister. I know the minister is in a co-operative mood so we
Supply-External Affairs thought he would welcome this request. I am foregoing a 30 minute discussion on water pollution in order to make it possible for this request to be accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What a choice.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the house would like me to desist from that discussion but in view of the special circumstances-and they are special circumstances-I would be willing to take this course. Had the hon. member for Red Deer returned yesterday he could have spoken on item 1. He has been a special emissary abroad and we do not know-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My hon. friend does not, of course, want to make a mockery of the rules of parliament. We are discussing the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and we are dealing with a particular item. When we began our deliberations this morning the hon. gentleman had the chance to raise this matter, at which time it would have been perfectly in order, under item 35.


Mr. Lambert:: That is nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that is nonsense, but that is true. All he need do is to look at item 35.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: External aid.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course; that is the item precisely. That is not what we are on now. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to dispatch the business before us and my hon. friends can take whatever other procedures they wish. I see the hon. gentleman is not in his seat. He travelled for a long time yesterday but I am sure he will be available. In any event, I thought I had satisfied my hon. friend by the comprehensive statement I made last night, and he suggested that I did not need to proceed any further with it. I thought 1 had given all the explanations he wanted. In any event my point of order is clear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The minister has raised a point of order which is along the line the Chair has already taken. Members of the committee know as well as or better than the chairman that we have to be guided by the terms of standing order 59(2), which says that discussion in committee must be strictly relevant to the item before the committee. We are now on vote 40, and certainly the Chair cannot see how under vote 40 there

Supply-External Affairs can be any discussion of the subject matter raised by the hon. member for Oxford.


Edward Nasserden: May I speak to the point of order?


Lucien Lamoureux: Well, it does seem to me that the matter is very clear. A point of order has been raised and has been dealt with already by a few hon. members. The Chair has given an opinion and really it seems to me that we would make better progress if we were to limit our discussion strictly to the matter before us.


Edward Nasserden: The only reference I wanted to make was this. After all, a matter of procedure like this is a matter of common sense. This morning-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, a point of order has been raised and you have listened to two speakers. I suggest that we should not allow a mockery to be made of this house.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member for Rosthern sought a moment ago to address the Chair and the committee on the point of order. I believe the point of order has been ruled upon and it does seem to me that the hon. member would want to abide by the suggestion made by the Chair that the subject to which he is now referring cannot be discussed under vote 40.


Edward Nasserden: Then I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The only reason I wanted to refer to the point of order was that a matter of procedure is really a matter of common sense. The hon. member for Red Deer was in the house this morning but no one would have thought of asking him at that time, after the journey he had just completed, to get up and make a report to the house at once. I have asked a question on the matter of pollution which is now before the house, with regard to which the minister said he would try to get information. Perhaps in the interval we could hear a report from the hon. member for Red Deer on this other matter and deal with it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Rosthern said that he was addressing the Chair, not on a point of order but on a question of privilege. I am sure he will admit that there is no question of privilege whatever in the point he has raised and I would therefore ask him to respect the suggestion made by the Chair, which is in effect a ruling, that the subject matter raised cannot be debated under vote 40.
[The Chairman.]


Maurice John Moreau: The hon. member was certainly not showing much common sense.


Edward Nasserden: Could the minister answer the last question regarding the reference which was given the commission, and whether it went so far as to permit them to determine the effects of pollution on the fishing, tourist and recreational values of these waters?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that the reference of the commission was comprehensive, and I believe would include that; but I do want to make absolutely sure and I have not the information before me.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Edward Nasserden: Before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether the minister is sure about this. This is a very important matter.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I have read the terms of reference and I pointed out their comprehensive character. They are directed to the study of whether the pollution is likely to cause any injury to health or property on either side of the boundary; and if that question is answered in the affirmative, to what extent and in what locality is such pollution taking place. These are the terms of reference.


Edward Nasserden: Although the general terms of reference were well intentioned it might have been better to spell them out in more detail so the commission knows exactly what they are doing in this regard. I see the minister is smiling when I say that. He should not smile because he himself has been unable to determine just what this reference which is before us today means. After all, the fishing industry is an important industry to Canada. The tourist industry is an important industry to Canada. The recreational value of these rivers is also important to the Canadians who live along the waterways, and the Canadians who will live along the waterways in the years ahead. I should like the minister to give some thought to broadening the reference given the commission in regard to this matter, because as I read what he has read to the committee today I do not think the terms of reference give the commission any express instruction along that line.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that the terms of reference are broad; but I fully agree with the hon. member about the recreational importance of these waters to the tourist industry. I would assure him that the study

of pollution in the waters around Essex county enables me to say there is no finer tourist centre and no finer recreational centre than the county of Essex.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L 12a. Loans to the government of India to finance the purchase in Canada of aircraft and associated spare parts and equipment in accordance with a financial agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the government of India, $1,367,100.
Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a matter then of external aid?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No, it is not; it is a matter of military assistance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is India part of Canada, then?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: This is a matter of military assistance to India. My hon. friend may recall that questions were asked in this house about military assistance to India at a time when it was dealing with difficulties involving one of its neighbours. Canada agreed to make a loan to India in the amount of $12 million to provide for the purchase of Caribou aircraft and also to provide a further loan to cover the interest bearing charges of this loan. On March 9 the government approved a special intergovernmental loan to India in an amount not exceeding $12.5 million to cover the purchase of 16 Caribou aircraft and related spare parts, and equipment for the Indian air force. The cabinet decision stipulated that the loan would bear interest at the normal commercial rate of 5J per cent but would be accompanied by a grant sufficient to defray half the interest charges up to a maximum grant of $2 million. In the fiscal year 1963-64 expenditures under this loan amounted to $11,132,982 and the unspent balance of $1,367,018 lapsed. It is necessary to submit, therefore, for revote, an amount of $1,367,100 in order that funds will be available in the current fiscal year to enable the government's total commitment to be met.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
External Aid Office-[DOT]
L 14a. Special loan assistance for developing countries in the current and subsequent fiscal years, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, for the purpose of undertaking such economic, educational and technical projects as may be agreed upon by Canada and the developing countries or recognized international development institutions, $50,000,000.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, "External Aid Office" is the heading here, and the details read as follows:
Supply-External Affairs
Special loan assistance for developing countries in the current and subsequent fiscal years, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, for the purpose of undertaking such economic, educational and technical projects as may be agreed upon by Canada and the developing countries or recognized international development institutions, $50,000,000.
It is a pleasure to find that we are now well within the rules. The hon. member for Oxford, myself and others transgressed the rules a short time ago, but may we now ask the minister to consider the request made in good faith by the hon. member for Oxford, because we would like to hear from the hon. member for Red Deer?
A casual observer of this institution might, at infrequent intervals, notice a sharp partisan interplay, but normally we carry on in a co-operative spirit, just as we are now doing. Although we do differ politically with the hon. member for Red Deer, we are all members of parliament. He has been on a mission abroad at the request of the government and we have taken a keen interest in his efforts. We should like to receive a report from him. How can we obtain such a report other than by requesting it at this stage? Surely we should not ask that the house adjourn to discuss an urgent matter of public importance simply because that member has now returned. The minister's estimates will be completed shortly and we will have no opportunity then to ask for such a report.
There are not many members in this house who would question the accuracy of the minister's report about that hon. member's travels abroad, and he did give us a rather full report last night. Surely now that the hon. member is here and available he should give us an account, which I hope will correspond with the minister's account.
When that member left for abroad I think he did so as a result of a serious lack on the part of the Department of External Affairs, in that this expedition was not publicized. It was only by dint of a great deal of searching and co-operation on the part of active members of the press that we found out that this House of Commons was being represented abroad by one of its members not on the government side. That situation is hardly fair to that hon. member, because whenever members of the government travel abroad we receive press releases containing information as to their efforts. Surely when a man is given a special commission we should hear about it.
The minister will recall that we expressed some surprise that there was no one within

Supply-External Affairs his department who could represent us over in Africa. When we heard about this appointment we wondered what special qualifications the hon. member for Red Deer had that placed him in a category different from other members on the opposition side.
Considering all these things together, it seems imperative that the hon. member should be properly recognized by the House of Commons. The minister has told us that he was over there on a very serious mission with regard to Canadian hostages in the Congo.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I point out to my hon. friend that the member for Cariboo has indicated that my hon. friend's prize, the member for Red Deer, has been contacted and he will be here shortly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is good.
I noted from the minister's remarks last night that Mr. Kenyatta has said that the hostages are relatively safe, but the minister expressed some doubt about that report. We should like to find out from the member for Red Deer whether he has any information in this regard.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit an interjection. The minister indicated he could reply to a point to which I made reference. Perhaps he could do so while we are waiting for the hon. member for Red Deer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Of course on many occasions I am only too pleased to yield to the hon. member who has just spoken, but I do not see any great haste to hear such a reply at this time. We still have a few minutes before-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us take all next week. We have lots of time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister suggests that he would like his estimates to continue to be considered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would just love that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And all the time we have been trying to help him get his estimates through.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do not do that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister set up the barrier of obstruction last night. Anything that could usefully be said about Indonesia was said last night, but he prevented us from voting on it then. You know how people criticize this house for not voting on something that has been discussed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He talked for half an hour so that some of his supporters could be dragged out of bed and here for the vote.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to know, when the hon. member for Red Deer appears, just what the situation is in Africa, and how close he came to the centre of the trouble area. Perhaps the hon. member could indicate the advice he would give as to what may be done in the future, because the crisis is not over. I asked the minister a question last night as to what steps could be taken by this government in the event the hostages were freed-and we hope they will be-but require assistance. If the hon. member for Red Deer could answer that question, which the minister could not answer last night, I am sure we would be satisfied.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. friend, the member for Burnaby-Richmond, for his forbearance. I should have dealt with his question last night.
First of all, may I say on the population problem to which he referred, that this was discussed at the United Nations general assembly and has been previously discussed at the economic and social council. The Canadian government did register an abstention on the matter. I hope my friend will realize that in registering that opinion, rather than voting for or against, the delegation was acting on instructions.
However, I listened to what my hon. friend had to say last night during his constructive and well articulated statement, and we will give attention to what he said. I will not say at this time what our attitude will be, because I want to give more consideration to this matter. As the hon. member will realize, there are many considerations involved, some of which he touched upon last night in a very clear way.
I know the hon. member regards this matter as important. He has played a significant part in planned parenthood organizations, and I respect his sincerity in this matter as I am sure he understands mine.
At this time I should like to make a brief reference to what the hon. member said about foreign service officers' pay. He was in a position to know something about this because he himself was in the department. Foreign service officers grade 1 now receive starting salaries from $4,860 to $6,060 per annum. The lower figure is for those who simply have the basic qualifications, while the top figure is for those with doctorates or equivalent academic qualifications. There are

three or four intermediate salaries offered, according to qualifications and experience.
The hon. member may be interested to know that the foreign service officer competition now taking place seems to have been successful in terms of the number of applicants. There will be interviews this year of over 300 applicants, which is almost a record. This speaks well for the interest that the young men and women of Canada have in the foreign service.
With regard to the particular item before the committee I should like to say that this represents a complete new program in Canada's external aid policy. The new loans in the amount of $50 million this year or $150 million over a three year period represent a very important new aspect in Canada's external aid program. The motives are the same as those which for the past 14 years have motivated Canada's outright grants.
Initially the terms are expected to be comparable with those of the international development association, that is, a 50 year maturity period with 10 years grace, non-interest bearing and with a service charge of three quarters of 1 per cent. The development loan program will be directed toward countries now eligible to receive Canadian bilateral grant assistance and in addition will permit a further Canadian contribution to economic progress in Latin America in close co-operation with the international development bank. My hon. friend will remember that last week we announced that $10 million had been apportioned, which represents a departure in the form of assistance by Canada to Latin American countries. Negotiations with regard to this loan and all the other loans that will be made under this vote will be carried on with various countries.
In short, parliament is being asked to provide under this vote for a new instrument to provide assistance. The loans are based on bilateral negotiations based in turn upon a consideration of projects that can best be assisted in this way. I think this represents a very important departure. It is one that was not established first by Canada but we are among the first to use this kind of assistance apart from the United States which I believe was the first country to embark on this type of program.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have just one question I should like to ask the minister before we take advantage of the opportunity to hear from the hon. member for Red Deer. Is the minister in a position to confirm the press report, which I presume he must have had
Supply-External Affairs at his disposal, that 800 Belgian paratroopers are based on Ascension island ready to land in Stanleyville to save the lives of the white hostages held there by the rebel government of the Congo? Apparently these troops arrived at Ascension island a few hours ago with the permission of the government of the United Kingdom and are ready to attack Stanleyville if necessary. I wonder if the minister can confirm that report, because it might be helpful to the discussion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, there are many things about this matter I could confirm but as my hon. frend, who has had a very deep and penetrating experience of foreign affairs, knows, you do not disclose intended strategy. I know it is in the newspapers but my hon. friend will realize there are many things in the newspapers which are accurate. There are many things that might be in the newspapers which are not there. There are plans to try to relieve these unfortunate hostages and I will wait until the proper moment to disclose all the other steps that are being taken to try to relieve the situation. I am sure my hon. friend, with his deep understanding of these problems, will understand why I take this position.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, the press report indicates that this move was officially announced by the Belgian government and I was wondering whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government have been informed and whether this report is correct, because it might make some difference to our discussions.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: This matter is one that is not under the control of any one government, either the Belgian government or any other.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this type of answer does not add anything at all either to the knowledge of the house or to assuage the feelings of the Canadian people. The question asked by the hon. member for Oxford is one that should be answered. Is there a basis for this report? Is the Belgian government in this announcement placing before the world as a whole information that is not correct? I simply cannot understand this assumed attitude-I do not quite know how to describe it-of pretence on the part of the minister, that for him to give information like this which is already known world wide would be harmful under the circumstances. This is nothing but nonsense on his part and he knows it. If he had been asked for information as to courses being taken which are

Supply-External Affairs not known to mankind as a whole, one could understand his attitude; but for him to raise himself up and stand on an altar of pretence in a matter such as this certainly is in line with the regular course followed by the minister in dealing with external affairs. We are interested in knowing if there is a foundation for this report. I have had some experience too in this regard and I should like to know what the minister would have done when he was sitting over here at the time we were in office and anyone on the government side had chosen to give that kind of answer.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Does my hon. friend want me to answer that question?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will wait, I am asking for information now and we have a right to have it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I know that those hon. gentlemen sitting opposite choose to live in an atmosphere of ignorance, but the rest of us want to know what is going on. I ask the minister to give this information. Let us at least have a picture that he has some appreciation of what is going on, for certainly the press has been very definite and clear in this regard. I am not asking him to tell us what other courses of action the government may have in mind. The government has undertaken several courses of action in this regard and they have all blown up in its face. Finally India has been called upon by the United Kingdom and two other nations, the United States and Canada, to exercise its diplomatic facilities so that apparently as of this moment, with India called in, all that has taken place heretofore has not been successful. We are not asking the minister to give information that is secret, but certainly for him to adopt an attitude of mystic silence in regard to a matter that is known to everyone through the press is not in keeping with the responsibilities of a minister.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I see that the hon. member for Red Deer is now in the house and this item is broad enough to provide him with the opportunity to give us the benefit of his experiences in Africa and to tell us about his attempts to be helpful in the matter of the release of these missionaries from Stanleyville, and also the other objectives of his mission. I was wondering whether we should not have the opportunity of hearing from him.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, before the member for Red Deer proceeds I should like to raise a point of order in view of the discussion we have had about his trip and having to do with the remarks he may make. In view of the fact that the member for Red Deer went to Africa at government invitation, under government auspices and at public expense and presumably returned the same way, I wonder whether or not the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government are now willing to accept responsibility for all that the member for Red Deer may say to the committee this afternoon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what will be the full purport of what the hon. member is going to say.


An hon. Member:: Has he not reported to you?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has made a report to the government. I want to say that we are grateful to the hon. member for Red Deer for what he has tried to do in a most difficult situation, affecting the freedom and security of a good many Canadians and many others from other countries.


Frank Howard: I am not arguing about these latter comments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If he is not willing to take responsibility for what the member for Red Deer now says as a result of his trip, which was made at the invitation of the government, under government auspices and direction, and paid for out of public funds, then I think we should pay no attention to what the hon. member for Red Deer says, but only to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs is willing to take responsibility for.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want my hon. friend to know that I have the fullest confidence in the execution of this mandate by the hon. member for Red Deer.


Frank Howard: But you do not take responsibility for what he is prepared to say.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Leboe:: If I may speak to this point of order; surely it must be obvious to members of this house that any report which the hon. member for Red Deer is making is one for which the minister is going to be responsible, as a report to the minister and not particularly to this house.


Robert Norman Thompson: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I am very pleased to note the interest of various mem-

bers of the house in the situation that presently centres around the insurgent held territory in the Congo, the capital of which is Stanleyville. Unfortunately, it seems to me that public opinion with regard to this very serious crisis is not too much aroused. It is only a matter of 50 years ago or less when a few hostages held in this way would have been the cause of a world war. Today we have something over 1,000 people being held as hostage under blackmail for political and military purposes. Unfortunately the world does not seem to care too much.
I am not speaking, nor do I make any pretence to speak, on behalf of the government as I report briefly on the situation as I see it. I do count it a privilege to have been entrusted with the responsibility of trying to do something for those in this situation, not only for the relief of some 33 Canadians who are amongst these hostages, but on behalf of the 16 countries that have nationals in the Stanleyville area. I say it was a privilege not only because of the fact that, as a result of my experience in Africa it was felt that I might be able to perform these duties in a way that a person not having these contacts and this experience might not be able to do, but it was a privilege because of the general good will and respect in which Canada and Canadians are held in Africa and across the world. At this point I must say that I come back feeling very proud of the fact that I am a Canadian with the hope and the wish that Canadians in Canada could do an equally good job in getting along with each other and meeting their home responsibilities as Canadians outside Canada obviously are able to do.
This situation relating to the hostages is a very difficult one. It is very difficult because of the complexity of the Congo situation. It is very difficult because, should I or any other Canadian in some position of responsibility make a false step or make a comment which could be misinterpreted by those who are responsible for the welfare of these hostages, it could mean the difference between life and death for them. I am sure therefore that every member in this house will understand and appreciate this situation and will be willing to accept the fact that it may not be possible to say everything publicly that might be said or that one might be thinking.
Now, briefly, the situation in the Congo is this: a large area in the northeastern and eastern part of the country during recent months was taken over by insurgent Congolese, sometimes better known as the rebels,
Supply-External Affairs a name which is strenuously objected to by most African leaders today. This, again, adds to the complexity of the situation. The insurgents have set this up as the people's republic of the Congo. In taking over this area, they have taken into their custody something like 1,000 foreign nationals who represent 16 nations. I might just identify these nations. They are the Argentine, Haiti, the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Greece, Italy, Pakistan and India, and then four African nations, being Kenya, the Cameroons, the Upper Volta and Nigeria. These are foreign nationals carrying passports who were there on some particular assignment.
You may ask how other African nationals are there. It is the result of the fact there was working in this area of the Congo a number of United Nations agencies. I refer to the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, UNESCO and the United Nations technical assistance program. The purpose of these people being held as hostages is to further strengthen the political and military position of the insurgent authorities and forces. The situation became critical when the Congolese government forces, that is the military forces of the democratic republic of the Congo, began to close in on the Stanleyville area. These military operations, briefly, are encircling around the north, around the south, up along the eastern border which is known as the Uganda frontier, and then southwest in a pincer movement. Only a few days ago they took over the city of Kindu and several other towns farther along.
As this military operation closes in, the real problem develops as the rebel authority begins to break down. I am sure that the position is much more dangerous so far as these hostages are concerned from these radical elements within the rebel area, one of which is known as Lajeunesse, than it is from the rebel authorities themselves. It is for this reason that, should any mismove be made in so far as our efforts are concerned, and I speak now of the efforts of the 16 nations having nationals there, it could mean the slaughter of these people.
Canada has taken the initiative in trying, one, to get the international Red Cross into Stanleyville; and, two, through the facilities of the international Red Cross to arrange the evacuation of these hostages. In taking this initiative the government of Canada asked me if I would make this trip because it was felt that I happened to know personally many of the African officials on the

Supply-External Affairs eastern side of Africa where contact is maintained with the rebel Congolese. I did so because it seemed to me there might be more hope of getting into communication with the rebel authorities.
I would say to those who have been interested or who have been critical of my going in the first place that it had been the original plan that during the recess I should make a trip which would involve a survey of what was being done in Africa under Canada's aid program, particularly as it relates to some of the African agencies attempting to co-ordinate the African development program. It so happens that the headquarters of these organizations are located in Ethiopia. One is the economic commission for Africa, more commonly known as the E.C.A., which is an agency of the United Nations. It is the aim of the E.C.A. to coordinate all the aid programs of the various friendly countries and at the same time to bring about a degree of co-ordination in the economic development of those countries to which the aid is directed. This is a reasonable and practical approach. Another organization concerned is the organization for African unity. I may say that this organization has been a dream of the Emperor of Ethiopia for many years, and when I served his government we used to spend many hours discussing how it could come to pass. So we have been familiar with it from its inception. In addition, and connected with the E.C.A. but functioning as an autonomous organization, is the African development bank which held its formative convention in Lagos, Nigeria a few days ago. Then, there is the United Nations technical assistance agency with headquarters in Addis Ababa.
It was thought that, because of my familiarity with these various organizations, my experience might be put to good account, not for the benefit of the Liberal party, as I understand, but for the benefit of Canada and her external aid program. Since we did not have a recess, as we had expected at one time, plans for this assignment were delayed, until the crisis in the Congo due to military pressure reached a point where there were justifiable fears for the wellbeing of Canadians who were being held as hostages.
Briefly, the following is a summary of what has been done to gain the release of these hostages. A few weeks ago the organization for African unity set up a special ad hoc conciliatory committee for the Congo. This commission was charged with responsibility

for trying to work out an answer to the complex political problems of the Congo. Because this organization was in existence, it was felt that the only sensible approach to the rebels would be by way of this ad hoc commission. When I first arrived in Africa I had an opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Nkrumah, the president of Ghana and, in particular, with his foreign minister who is a member of this ad hoc commission which I have just mentioned. I soon found out in discussion with them and with officials of some other countries who had a good deal to do with this commission that the general attitude in the minds of many Africans toward these hostages was: "Let them remain there; if they can do some good in stopping the dropping of bombs from Congo military airplanes provided by the United States, or the advance of mercenary soldiers who, reportedly, are paid out of Belgian funds, they will be performing some useful purpose; but if the presence of the hostages fails to do this, let them all die together."
This is the very difficult attitude with which we were faced. While I did not agree with this attitude-it is contrary to all humanitarian reasoning and certainly it is in contravention of any of the Geneva conventions which have been signed-it is one which is, nevertheless, held by a great many representatives of the African countries. What did we do after this? Without going into all the details, may I say that we used our knowledge of the situation and the contacts we had with various individuals to appeal to two of the older men of Africa, both of whom are held in great respect and both of whom have shown they understand the responsibility of democratic government and humanitarian dealing between peoples. One of them is the Prime Minister of Kenya, Mr. Jomo Kenyatta, the chairman of this ad hoc commission. In appealing to him we felt we were making a direct approach to the rebel situation because he had been authorized to deal with the Congo situation. We consulted with many individuals in Kenya as well as with the governor general Mr. Malcolm MacDonald. We were given an assurance that the lives and well-being of these hostages were guaranteed by the rebel authorities.
We then approached the Emperor of Ethiopia on the same basis. I might say I presented to Mr. Kenyatta a telegraphic letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that it was the hope of Canada that he, Mr. Kenyatta, would use his good offices to intervene in this hostage

situation. As we discussed the matter with the Emperor of Ethiopia it became evident that this elderly gentleman, who is regarded with such great respect across the world and who is looked on by other Africans as more or less the founder of modern Africa, possessed a deep understanding and appreciation of the issues which were involved. So the weight of the influence of these men was added to the appeal made to the rebels, first of all, to allow the Red Cross to enter and, second, to permit the Red Cross to arrange for the evacuation of the hostages.
In all these discussions Dr. George Hoffman, who is delegate general to the international committee of the Red Cross in Africa, was present. He had found it impossible to reach some of these senior authorities. Thus we were able to assist him and, in return, his presence lent weight to the argument we were putting forward, namely that this situation must be dealt with on humanitarian grounds and separated entirely from the political aspect. I may say that in addition to this general appeal for intervention and consideration on the part of the two elder statesmen of Africa I have mentioned, we came up with the idea that it would be a very good thing if the nations which had nationals among the hostages could get together to form what we called, for want of a better term, a concilium in order that they as a group, rather than unilaterally, might present their request for the objective we had been endeavouring to secure through direct negotiation. I am pleased to say that in the latter days of the negotiations both in Kenya and in Ethiopia I was joined by one of the most experienced Canadians in the Congo situation, Mr. Michel Gauvin who is a senior officer in the Department of External Affairs. At the present time he is in Nairobi more or less leading this effort to get these nations together and in recommending that the good services of India might be used, because India has a number of nationals involved as well.
This is the point at which we left and came home. We came home for the purpose of passing through Europe and contacting as many of the nations concerned as possible to encourage them to take part in a joint appeal.
All of us are sorry that it should be the case, but as those who know something about the situation realize, it was not possible in the present circumstances to gain the outright release of these hostages. The rebels were not willing to release them. Every means of persuasion has been used. Direct contact has 20220-654
Supply-External Affairs been made through the representative of the rebel authorities, a man named Thomas Kanza, who spends his time outside the rebel held area of the Congo negotiating for and representing the Stanleyville authorities. I would be most happy if I could report to the committee that we were able to gain the consent of the rebel authorities to meet the Red Cross and grant the evacuation of these hostages. They apparently do not intend to do so. As the military situation worsens, it is obvious that they have more reason and are more intent on keeping control of these hostages than ever.
I might just say in summing up this matter which I have briefly surveyed that as I left Addis Ababa the day before yesterday I issued a statement which was intended to emphasize again the purpose of my visit and the desire and will of the Canadian government. I might say before I read this statement to the committee that we received word just a couple of hours before we released the statement that Dr. Carlson, the American medical missionary who had been condemned to die, had been given a reprieve. We felt this was a very definite step in the right direction. We were encouraged by it and we made this statement with the intention that it might further encourage consideration by the rebel authorities to grant amnesty to the hostages. I will now quote from this statement because I think it is of interest to all of us and, as it has been released to the press, it is a public document:
As I leave Africa to report to the government of Canada on my mission, I believe it is only fitting that I should set the record straight with regard to the purpose and the results of my mission as it relates to the hostage problem in the Congo.
I came to Africa at the request of the Canadian government in order to contact a number of friendly governments and exchange views with them on matters of mutual concern.
Particularly as it relates now to the new African organizations:
Within my terms of reference, I was requested to deliver to the Prime Minister of Kenya, Mr. Jomo Kenyatta, in his capacity as chairman of the ad hoc commission on the Congo, a message from the Honourable Paul Martin, the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada, expressing the concern of the Canadian government for its nationals in the Congo who are in the area of Stanleyville and about whom we have had no news since the start of hostilities last July. I was instructed also to see His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, whom I know personally, having served in Ethiopia from 1943 to 1958, and to call on the secretary general of the organization of African unity, His Excellency Diallo Telli.
In reply to Mr. Martin's message which I delivered, Prime Minister Kenyatta assured me that he had made several appeals to the Stanleyville authorities and in response had received assurance

Supply-External Affairs
that the foreign civilians in Stanleyville would not be harmed. In a subsequent telegram he expressed the hope "that the lives of the persons concerned"
*-those in Stanleyville-"will not be in danger".
I was received by His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of Ethiopia, on four occasions. The Emperor expressed grave concern over the fate of the Canadians and other foreign nationals held as hostages. I likewise discussed the matter with the minister of foreign affairs, Ato Ketema Yifru who, on returning from Kenya where he had conferred with Prime Minister Kenyatta and other Kenya officials-
Perhaps I might break in here to say that the first action the emperor took in this regard was to send his foreign minister, along with other senior officials, with myself back to Nairobi to carry on these negotiations. Coming back to the text of the statement:
-informed me that he also had been assured that there was no reason to fear for the lives of the foreign nationals held by the insurgent forces. During the past week end this has been re-emphasized by Mr. Thomas Kanza, the representative in East Africa of the Stanleyville authorities who on several occasions has given his firm assurance that the hostages were in no danger and there was no reason to fear for their lives.
Yesterday-
That is, the day before I left Ethiopia:
-I met His Excellency Diallo Telli, who told me Mr. Kenyatta was doing everything humanly possible for the protection of foreign nationals in Stanleyville. Mr. Telli referred me to Mr. Ken-yatta's statement to the effect that Stanleyville authorities had given him assurance that foreign nationals were not in danger.
Might I just say, Mr. Chairman, that the reason I reviewed this as I did was to place the responsibility for the well-being of these hostages back on the individuals who had given me those assurances. I felt it would again place some degree of responsibility- at least the maximum which we could obtain -for their safety on the individuals who had given me these assurances. Continuing with this text:
During the course of all these discussions I continually emphasized the fact that my purpose in urging the release of the hostages through the international committee of the Red Cross was solely on humanitarian grounds, and should be considered as such apart from all political implications. I explained that Canada would very much like to see the African nations, particularly those represented on the ad hoc commission of the organization for African unity to use whatever influence they had on the Stanleyville authorities to allow the international committee of the Red Cross to be permitted to enter Stanleyville in view of the imminence of an attack by the forces of the democratic republic of the Congo. I explained that the holding of the hostages by the Stanleyville authorities is in violation of all international conventions and that they are being denied even the good offices of the international committee of the Red Cross.

I believe that this statement had some good effect, because very shortly after the text had been presented to the Ethopian minister of foreign affairs and to the secretary general of the organization of African unity by Mr. Gauvin-that is, two hours after I had left- a further message was sent by Ethiopia to Mr. Kenyatta urging him again to contact directly the Stanleyville authorities and emphasize the importance that the lives of these hostages be carefully safeguarded. A second effect of this was that I believe it speeded up the agreement amongst the member nations of this so-called concilium in such a way that today they have met in Nairobi and have agreed to ask India to take the lead in making their appeal. I think this was a very wise decision; I believe that India can have a great deal of influence.
I might briefly close my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by referring briefly to the situation that obviously is disturbing to all of us in so far as concerns the report that Belgium has placed certain troops on the Ascension islands ready for military intervention in the Stanleyville area. I know nothing about this, no more than any of us do who may have seen the report in the newspapers. On the other hand, it is the Belgians and the Americans who have the greatest number of nationals at stake, there being something over 700 Belgian nationals and some 60 Americans, a fair proportion of them being consular representatives which the rebels themselves have said are being held in confinement. I neglected to say earlier that the Canadian hostages, unlike the Americans, Belgians, Italians, and I believe one other nation, are merely being held under house arrest or compound arrest. I do know something of the concern of these nations for the large number of their nationals. We held many discussions with representatives of these two governments as well as representatives of other governments concerned in the area; but whether or not there is any truth in the story that the Belgian government has decided to take this action, I do not know. I merely refer to this because I can well understand their fear as the forces of the government close in in the Congo. Again, Mr. Chairman, may I emphasize to hon. members of the house that the situation is extremely critical.
It would be a terrible blow to the peace of Africa; it would be a very difficult situation for the organization of African unity, and it would further complicate the very difficult situation existing in the Congo, not to mention the atrocity it would represent on



20, 19G4

[Stage Direction]
any basis of humanitarian thinking, if these people should be destroyed. Therefore what we say and what we have done, and what will be said and what will be done, before the situation is cleared up is something which must be taken with the greatest of concern, forethought and carefulness, bearing in mind that any misstep might result in the tragedy that we are all so concerned about.
Let me say in closing that this experience has been a privilege for me. In spite of some of the criticisms which have been made, if the situation were to arise again where I might be asked to carry out such an assignment I would be very happy to do so. I cannot emphasize too much to the members of this committee the regard in which Canadians and Canada are held, not only by the nationals of Africa but by all those with whom we came in contact. By offering our good services and taking the initiative in an effort to free these hostages we were doing something which perhaps no one else could have done, and I am sure all members of the committee will understand this.
I could go on and make a few remarks about external aid but I think I might do that a little later on, if it is considered relevant, as at this time we are closing our deliberations on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I will just leave this statement as it relates to the hostages by itself, because we do not want to do anything to detract from the urgency and the gravity of the situation.
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Indian Affairs-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council with the governments of the provinces and territories and with local school boards in respect of social assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, and to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $47,742,400.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed with the examination of the 20220-654J
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration estimates of the Indian affairs branch, vote No. 15. This item is to be found on page 62 of the blue book, the details on page 65.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity on another day when these items were before the committee, as did other hon. members, to make a few comments, but since that time there has been another development in the field of Indian affairs which I think is worth a comment or two. Incidentally, I understand that just within the past few days-the move may still be taking place -the Indian affairs branch, along with other offices under the minister's jurisdiction, is moving into a brand, spanking new building. Many of the personnel are there already. I hope the atmosphere of freshness, vigour and newness which exists in this new building will also have some effect on the minister and his officials, so that they may come up with fresh, invigorating approaches and policies in regard to Indian affairs.
Since the last time these items were before this committee a federal-provincial conference has been held on Indian affairs. This was a conference from which the native Indian people were excluded. Because of the exclusion of the very people whose rights and freedoms were being debated in that conference there has developed a very large degree of resentment against this government and against the provincial governments for participating in a conference held behind closed doors, and for discussing and debating and doing heaven knows what else with Indian affairs and the rights of the people themselves.
The reason given by the minister for holding this conference in secret was that it was a dominion-provincial conference, and dominion-provincial conferences have traditionally been held behind closed doors. This reasoning may be sound if this conference, as with conferences in the past, had been about fiscal arrangements, taxes, statistics or dollars and cents, but at this particular conference the federal and provincial governments were not dealing with cold, inanimate statistics but with human beings, a group of human beings incidentally who populated this part of the world countless thousands of years before Europeans ever dreamed it existed. This conference dealt with our first Canadians and their basic rights, their fundamental freedoms, their position under the law and the whole field of their social activity.
I echo, Mr. Chairman, their resentment as being excluded from this conference. They do not know what went on behind these

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration closed doors and I do not know that they will ever know. But certainly they should be fully advised if any similar conferences are held in the future. Regardless of the expressions of view of certain provinces the minister should insist, in his position as minister responsible for the provisions in the British North America Act concerning Indians and the land reserved for Indians, that any future conferences should be open, and that the native Indian people should be able to sit in on, participate in and listen to what is taking place with respect to their rights and freedoms. Because, as I said earlier, these native people are not statistics or taxes or cold, inanimate objects; they are human beings for whom we should have a far higher regard than was the case with this particular dominion-provincial conference.
Incidentally a suggestion was made in connection with conferences which I think the minister should reject or say something about. This was the position taken by the province of Quebec-what the other provinces said I cannot say at this stage:
The Quebec delegation believes in the need for future federal-provincial conferences following the present one.
In our opinion, these conferences should be held not only between ministers but also between the senior officials.
It could be left to the federal government to convene these conferences but. in our mind, the provinces should play an active part in their preparation and especially in setting up their agenda.
I suggest to the minister that even though Quebec is his own province he should reject that sort of proposal, because all it does is carry on the proposition that these conferences which take place in secret represent the form of conference which should be followed in the future. The minister should tell the native people that he made an error in holding this last conference behind closed doors, excluding the native Indian people from it, that he does not wish to repeat that error at any future conference, and that so far as his government is concerned future conferences will be open to the native people.
It is true that following the conference, both as the communique mentioned and as the minister himself said in reply to questions in this chamber on November 22, there have been continual references to the idea that consultation should take place with the Indian people before anything is done. I submit that consultation will mean relatively little to the Indian people unless they are told fully, openly and honestly what the positions are that were taken by the respective

provincial governments behind those closed doors.
The proposition is being held out to these native people that they might be in a better position by accepting the jurisdiction of the various provincial governments. One of the things the native people will be concerned about before accepting that proposition is the attitude adopted by this, that or any other provincial government. They do not know what that attitude is and they will not be able to discover the attitude expressed at these conferences. How are the native people going to know what the position was that was taken by the province of Quebec at that conference? How are they going to know what are the proposals the province of Quebec put forward at those discussions? How are the native people in Alberta going to know what the government of Alberta proposed at that conference? If the minister continues to say that what went on at that conference is privileged and cannot be disclosed, then the native people will never find out.
I do not intend to single out the province of Quebec, but I do happen to have some information about the representations it made at that conference. I should like to refer to one other proposal made by that province about education, and this is of vital concern to the native people of the province of Quebec. This will also be of concern to the native people of other provinces, if a similar proposal was put forward by other provincial governments. Let me read part of this proposal:
The province of Quebec gladly accepts the proposal of the federal government to the effect that, when feasible, the Indian reservations be incorporated in the school districts of the province, providing, evidently, that the Indians contribute, one way or another, their fair share toward educational costs.
When reading between the lines, what does that mean to the Canadian native people? I do not intend to give my interpretation of it, but shall state only what the native people feel and fear as a result of this proposal. They are afraid their Indian reserves will be incorporated in the school districts, and a land tax immediately imposed for educational purposes. These lands will then be liable to seizure and sale, if the native people are unable to meet the school taxation which might be levied.
The minister did say that there was a protection in this regard in the British North America Act. I wish he would expand on that and indicate where that protection is, or what led him to that conclusion. There is a

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
protection section in the Indian Act to the effect that Indian lands are exempt from taxation, except those taxes which may be levied by the bands themselves for their own purposes. However, I remind the minister that laws have been changed before in respect of Indian affairs, and because there is now a protecting section in the Indian Act is no guarantee that it will remain, regardless of what the minister has said.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And if jurisdiction is transferred to the provinces your statement is even more accurate.


Frank Howard: If jurisdiction is turned over to the provinces the whole protection is gone, and the Indian people will be at the mercy of heaven knows what.
The key point of all this discussion is that proposals were made by the minister and his government which still remain secret. Behind those closed doors various provinces made proposals which also remain secret. While there was some reference to the proposals by the province of Saskatchewan contained in a Regina newspaper, and I recall also seeing something in a newspaper about what the province of Manitoba suggested, these were selected references of what took place at these discussions.
You are now going to commence a program of conferences with native Indian people to discuss with them whether they will accept provincial services such as welfare, health measures and education. Can you stand up now and say that at that same time there will be a full and honest disclosure by the provinces of the proposals that they put forward at those closed door conferences? It is not the final agreement that may be arrived at between the federal government and the provincial governments that is of importance to the native people, but rather what is in the back of the minds of the provincial government officials. We owe it to these native people to tell them freely and honestly all about the detailed discussions which took place at those meetings, if the provinces will not do so. We owe it to the native people of the various provinces to be honest with them and declare fully the intentions of those provinces.
The minister will appreciate even more than I that the native people have grounds for continuing suspicion of governments, and I am not referring alone to his government. As long as these suspicions exist, that there is something underhanded taking place, the minister will not be in a position to make
any really progressive steps in the field of Indian activities. This is one thing which must be cleared up before the minister can hope to develop anything worth while for the native people. The governments must have open, honest and frank discussions with them.
One other point of concern to Indian people to which T should like to make reference is the manner in which these conferences are going to take place. At page 9652 of Hansard, the minister stated that he was going to give clarifying explanations about this matter, and then said:
This consulting procedure will operate at two levels.
First, in every province of Canada, there shall be held a conference to which all Indians will be invited-
Does that mean that in the province of British Columbia there will be facilities available for more than 40,000 Indian people to congregate in one place?
Who is going to be responsible for the financing of the transportation of native people to these conferences? The minister talks of a conference in each province, so presumably there will only be one in each province, which will be held at a central location. Unless the public treasury is willing to finance the travelling of native Indian people so they may attend these conferences it will mean that the points of view which will get across at the conferences will be those of the native Indian people who live closest to the conferences and will be able to attend because their transportation costs will not be great. It will be the point of view of those bands who have a sufficient amount of money in their treasuries to pay the expenses of their representatives. It will not be a broad, general, representative point of view.
I think the minister owes it to the country and to the native people particularly to explain in great detail the mechanics by which these conferences will be held, how the native people are going to get there, where the conferences are going to be held, how long they are going to last, what procedure will be arranged for the discussion of ideas, what procedure will be used to reach conclusions at the conferences. Will there be voting by the people there or will there just be some sort of gathering of opinions and an attempt to assess the reaction? All of these mechanics and fine details need to be explained as soon as possible so that the native Indian people will know just where they stand with respect to these conferences. Then the minister went on to say:
10344	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
After this consultation and provided the Indians agree-
I have just dealt with that point. How are you going to determine the extent of their agreement, by vote, or what is going to take place?
-that such provincial services would be des-sirable, there shall be a second method of consultation: the bands will be consulted-
I am omitting some words in order to retain continuity of thought.
-that is, the councils of those bands will be consulted in order to ascertain if they wish to take advantage of a program to be established in a province-
And so on. We want to know in greater detail just how this consultation procedure is going to operate. Will there be mechanics for voting set up? Will there be in the case of the bands, as I suggested earlier must also be done at the conferences, a full, honest and open expression of what is in the minds of the provincial governments so that it may be determined whether or not there are any nefarious schemes involved in this transfer of administration? These are details that the bands also want to know about. The minister went on to say:
Third, it was decided at the conference to set up, in each province, a standing Indian affairs committee which will be consulted on any administrative question concerning the Indians.
How are you going to set up these administrative committees? Are they going to be selected by the Indian affairs branch? Are they going to be selected by the minister? Are they going to be selected by the provincial governments? Are they going to be elected? Are the native Indian people themselves going to choose their own representatives on these standing Indian affairs committees? What is the fine definition of the word "consultation"? The Indians are vitally concerned about this point. "Consultation" runs throughout the whole aftermath of the dominion-provincial conference where, if anywhere, consultation should have taken place.
It is very easy to consult with someone after you have made a decision as to what you are going to do. The dominion and provincial governments can come to some agreement and in fact may well have come to some agreement behind those closed doors. I know that the native people are not merely going to accept the bland statement of the minister about consultation unless they know what consultation means. Does consultation mean that you are going to be bound by the decision of the native people or, as has been the case so often in the past, does it mean


you are merely going to speak with them about a certain subject matter and then go ahead and do what you like anyway and try to look for support?
It has not been beyond the activities of Liberal governments in the past to attempt to hand pick native Indian people who support their point of view in order to use them as a consensus in making changes with regard to Indian affairs. I was going to say that this was what the present Minister of Transport did, but it probably was Walter Harris who was the first minister of citizenship and immigration. In any event, this is what the Liberal government did with regard to the amendments to the Indian Act in 1951. Their consultation procedure involved hand picking native Indian people who they knew would support them, and then saying that the opinions they expressed represented the consensus of the Indian people:	"We have
consulted them and they have told us this and we are going to put it into effect." The amendments to the act in 1951 were a most disgraceful and arrogant show of a desire to control all Indian affairs from the ivory tower of the minister's office, because it was at that time the minister's power was extended so that the native people could do practically nothing without first obtaining the permission of the minister.
I was reminded of this when I heard the message program over one of the radio stations at home. This is a public service to some of the remote villages. On this program the Indian agent or Indian superintendent, as he is now called, gave permission to a lonely couple in an Indian village whose child had died to proceed with the burial of their child. This sort of thing is ridiculous. Over the message program the Indian superintendent gave permission to Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so to go ahead with the burial service for their child who had died.
The 1951 amendments gave the minister virtual power of life and death over the native Indian people and their band councils. That is not the type of consultation the native people want now and its is not the type of consultation that any member of the house wants for the Indians, if he thinks seriously about the matter. I think it is up to the minister to explain in full detail what he means by consultation and what democratic processes are going to be put into effect and are going to be guaranteed so that the native people will control their own destiny, and so that some politician will not control them

merely because he happens to think it is the wise and smart thing to do.
There are many other things I mentioned earlier, about which I should like to talk, which involve details of the activities of the Indian affairs branch in my own riding of Skeena. However, we have agreed to confine consideration of the remaining estimates so that they will be completed by next Friday and I do not want to transgress the opportunity and right of other members to comment on some of these matters. But because the minister has not had the opportunity so far I would urge him to take all the time he requires to reply, not only to my proposals but to those that other members have made on the various occasions that the estimates have been before the committee, in order that we will have a full explanation of the attitude of the department and the minister, and so that the Indians will not be left in the dark and will have as complete and understanding as is possible of the manner in which the government intends to deal with their rights. After all, as I said earlier, they are human beings and deserve perhaps a far greater degree of consideration in this parliament than any other group of human beings in Canada. I am including the Eskimo people in this reference. We should be prepared to give them this consideration.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a few comments to make on this item, some of which I have delayed for some time. I did not speak on the first item of the minister's estimates because I thought it might be wise to wait until now so that my comments could be concentrated. First of all, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the newly appointed assistant deputy minister. I know of his work in Alberta and I am sure he will bring a great measure of satisfaction, experience and knowledge to this department. As a matter of fact, this appointment did not go as far as had been originally suggested in the joint committee report on Indian affairs. At that time I believe we considered the establishment of a separate department. However, this move goes a long way and it is long overdue. I am happy to see that the move has been made and the position is occupied as it is.
It is quite obvious, as the hon. member for Skeena has said, that the government is now giving serious consideration to what are, in effect, very drastic, very sweeping changes in the administration of Indian affairs. In doing so they will tend to shift jurisdic-
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration tion, responsibility or administration or possibly a combination of all three. This, of course, is indicated in the press communique released following the conference the hon. member for Skeena mentioned. Let me make it quite plain that this was also a matter to which we referred in the joint committee. Personally, I believe this is a move in the right direction. There were a number of briefs presented by Indian bands indicating concern about the possibility, which was posed to them during a meeting of the committee, of a change of jurisdiction from the federal to the provincial government. My own view is that it is not right that we should have two sets of laws pertaining to groups of people in this country and that the ultimate, most desirable result, will be to have, as circumstances permit and people themselves require, jurisdiction put into the hands of provincial governments so that there will be an integration of the rights and responsibilities of the people of Canada.
Having said that, I must say that we must move with the utmost care, the utmost caution, not only to see that equity is done but to give the appearance of doing equity. In our dealings with the Indian people in the past, this has not been the case. The suspicions which they have indicated they possess are suspicions which they are certainly entitled to harbour because of what has happened in previous years. There must be the most careful, sympathetic consideration given in each instance to each band, each group, each section, each district and each area. It must not be done by wholesale regulations issued from Ottawa and bearing on all parts of the country.
We have to make it crystal clear that there will be no compulsion, no force of any kind. Any changes which will be made will only be made after the fullest consultation, discussion and advice. In the final analysis, the choice will be the choice of the Indian people themselves. I have had some experience with the Indian people in my area, and there are many thousands of them there. I can think of a number of cases in which departmental officials have attempted to compel these people to have closer contact with the white people with a view to fitting them into the white man's world. These conditions were not acceptable to the Indians within the area, as was proven by the results. I am not going to go into the details, but there is not the slightest doubt but that there are as many problems as there are Indians. Perhaps there is not an Indian problem so much as there are many Indians who have problems.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
It is obvious to me therefore, Mr. Chairman, that consideration is a condition precedent to what I propose to deal with subsequently. I am not raising the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in, I think it is the Sikyea case, otherwise known as the case of the lame duck, but I want to extract from that case the fact that by a decision of the territorial court of appeal, which was confirmed in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Indian treaties have now been relegated to a position where they have very little legal effect. I do not think there is any question about that. The statement made by Mr. Justice Johnston, who delivered the judgment of the territorial court of appeal after hearing the case at Yellowknife, indicates that this is the situation. I feel this is going to have the effect of increasing the existing suspicions that so many of the Indian people have with regard to the rights which they feel should be theirs under the terms of these treaties, and as to the intentions and policies of the white man, particularly the white man's government.
This, in turn, is bound to have some effect on the proposal of the government in connection with the Indian claims commission. I believe the terms of this commission are now being considered. In my view, they will have to be substantially widened from those originally contemplated. They will have to be made more equitable, and benefits extended to people and situations which were never originally contemplated when the first measure was being introduced. There is no doubt at all, Mr. Chairman, about the fact that this decision downgrading the Indian treaties and the benefits which they were intended to confer upon the Indian people, is going to be detrimental. Certainly, as a result of the decision the use of the word "treaty" becomes absolutely meaningless. These treaties do not have the effect of treaties.
It does not do any harm to refresh our memories by examining some of these treaties very briefly to ascertain just what was said. I think that this was done very well by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories when he was speaking on these treaties some time ago. I have here a treaty which affects the Indian people in a very large area of northwest Canada. One particular section which I think is of interest reads as follows:
And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees with the said Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations

as may from time to time be made by the government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.
This section should be read in connection with a letter which accompanied the treaty because it indicates the frame of mind with which the Indian people approach the execution of these treaties, and makes even more unfair the conditions which now have been attached to the treaties and the effect which they are having. I have here a letter dated September 22, 1899 sent to the superintendent general of Indian affairs in connection with the signing of this particular treaty, treaty no. 8. I should like to read this paragraph from the letter-the agent who negotiated the treaty is discussing the difficulty he encountered when he was negotiating on this matter of hunting and fishing privileges with the Indians.
Our chief difficulty was the apprehension that the hunting and fishing privileges were to be curtailed.
How right the Indians were in having those apprehensions.
The provision in the treaty under which ammunition and twine is to be furnished went far in the direction of quieting the fears of the Indians because they admitted it would be unreasonable to furnish the means of hunting and fishing if laws were to be enacted which would make hunting and fishing so restricted as to render it impossible to make a livelihood by such pursuits.
But over and above the provision, we had to solemnly assure them that only such laws as to hunting and fishing as were in the interest of the Indians and were found necessary in order to protect the fish and fur bearing animals would be made and that they would be as free to hunt and fish after the treaty as they would be if they never entered into it.
In addition, some consideration should be given to the appreciation the Indian people had as to the effect of these treaties. The white man believed in the personal and private ownership of land, but the Indian had an entirely different concept. This was made very plain during the meetings of the joint committee at which we heard a most interesting witness, a Mrs. Worthington, who has had a lot of experience and done a lot of research. At page 108 of the transcript of the evidence given before the joint committee in the year 1959 this interesting paragraph appears:
The tribe are tenants and in a sense trustees. The Indians may have granted loans to the whites. They possibly granted rights to pass overland, to lend the whites use of land, the right to cultivate it, to use its waters, animals, birds, fish, but with the expectation that at the end of the loan the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
whites would return the land, the waters, and that the animals, fish and birds would be replenished, the scars healed.
Of course, this conception came into conflict with the use of the land made by the white man. After the treaty had been signed, the white man felt himself free to deal with the land as he saw fit. There was no true meeting of minds. What the Indians thought when they agreed to these treaties was not what the white man thought. And, of course, the recent decisions in the Supreme Court of Canada confirm that the white man's view is the one which must prevail. For these reasons I submit that when the Indian claims commission is established the minister and his officials should give the most careful consideration to the requests and to the briefs which I am sure the Indian people are presenting. Let there be no stone unturned in the effort to ensure that the terms of reference to this commission will be wide enough to ensure that all legitimate complaints will be dealt with fairly and equitably. I think, too, that in all justice the government should consider amending the Indian Act so as to place these treaties in a far higher category than that in which they have been placed as a result of the recent decisions of the supreme court, and requiring the courts to give effect to such a clause. I know we have to be reasonable. We cannot turn back the clock and give the Indians back what they once had, even if that were desirable. But I think we must start immediately to put them in a position they would have enjoyed but for the effect of downgrading the treaties.
I wish now to make a suggestion in connection with education. There has been established in the last year and a half in the northern part of Alberta a vocational training school which, while it is open to all young people, was specially designed to permit the Indian peoples of northern Alberta and the territories to receive a trade training which would enable them to find a place in society. It has been found that many of the Indian boys and girls attending this school are not equipped scholastically, although grade eight rather than grade nine has been accepted as being the minimum standard required for individuals, to deal with the subject matter being taught. It was suggested in a brief submitted to the Department of Labour, copies of which I believe I sent to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, that a number of satellite schools be set up throughout the area so that the young people who would ultimately be going to this training school might receive better training than in the past 20220-655
and consequently, when they did arrive at the school, would be better able to profit from the instruction given to them. I have made a point of visiting this school on several occasions. Excellent work is being done there. The principal, Mr. Bill Thomas, is a full blooded Indian who has had a notable career in business, industry and education. He is doing a wonderful job and it was inspiring to watch these young Indian people equipping themselves, side by side with white people, with skills which will serve them well in their careers. However, in order that best advantage may be taken of the facilities offered by this school it is necessary that the additional step I have mentioned should be taken. I suggest that the minister and his officials establish liaison with the Minister of Labour whose department is charged with responsibility in connection with these vocational schools, so that an educational program may be made available.
Finally I wish to say something about agriculture. There are a number of areas in the north country where the Indians might well avail themselves of opportunities to take up farming. Unfortunately there is one hindrance; they find they are unable to take advantage of credit facilities such as are generally available today under the terms of the Farm Credit Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the bill recently passed by this house, the farm syndicate machinery bill. The reason is that the Indian people have no title to their land; they farm only under a certificate of occupation. Consequently they are not eligible for credit under any of the various bills I have mentioned. I suggest that the minister should give serious consideration to this problem and consider whether arrangements could not be made to enable the Indian people to have access to credit of this type in order to improve their farms, purchase machinery and help themselves attain a higher standard of living. The opportunities afforded to them should be brought in line with those afforded to white settlers in similar circumstances.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. I asked the minister a question on the orders of the day about ten days ago- whether or not when he proposed to make adjustments in connection with the transfer of jurisdiction and responsibility in connection with Indians to the provincial governments he thought it would be necessary to do so by bringing a measure before parliament to have an amendment made to the Indian Act. His answer was that it was not necessary. I
10348	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration realize this is not the occasion on which to enter into an argument as to the law, but I have reason to believe that if the changes which are now contemplated are of the nature which appear to be outlined in the press release, in the communique, there will have to be changes in the Indian Act. I believe the executive does not have the power to make these changes. From the viewpoint of legality, therefore, I think it is essential that the matter be brought into the house, and I believe that from the viewpoint of propriety as well changes of this nature should be considered by parliament and not merely by the executive.
The hon. member for Skeena a moment ago referred to the question of taxation. I think that is dealt with, if I recall correctly, by section 86 of the Indian Act, which in fact prohibits the taxation of lands of Indians, individually or in bands, in Indian reserves. But as one goes through the Indian Act section by section it seems quite apparent that sweeping changes of the kind contemplated, having in mind that the federal government is charged with the sole and exclusive responsibility under the British North America Act for matters relating to Indians, would not be possible without there being first secured the approval of parliament. I would urge the minister and his legal advisers to make quite certain, before these changes are brought about, that they are doing something by executive decree which they have the right to do, because I have grave doubts whether this right exists.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the minister because I hope to hear him reply at length to the comments of the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Peace River; but as an honorary chief of the Ojibway band of Christian island, in the southern part of Georgian bay-an honour that I share with the hon. member for Simcoe East-I have been asked by the band to make a simple request of the minister of citizenship. I would point out that you do not use the term "immigration" when you are speaking of the Indians of Canada and addressing the minister. I have been requested to ask the minister of citizenship if he will consider granting $6,000 to the Ojibway band of Christian island for the installation of a marine telephone line from Cedar point to this island. They have occupied the island for several hundred years. This is one of the finest Indian reservations in the country, and they are absolutely cut off from the rest of Canada by a


stretch of water of 1J miles. The nearest telephone service to them is a municipally-owned line in the township of Tiny, with 235 co-operative subscribers. We are unable to spend $6,000 to bring in one or two telephone lines to Christian island, and if the Indian affairs branch would appropriate only $6,000 for this purpose, it would help the Indian band immensely.
Under vote 15 we are voting money and authorizing the minister of citizenship to provide instruction and supervision and to furnish materials in respect of Indian commercial activities. These Indians on Christian island are now operating a commercial pheas-antry; they raise 4,000 or 5,000 pheasants a year. The hunting season is open seven months of the year, from September 1 to March 31, and yet would-be hunters from Hamilton, Toronto, Oshawa and large urban centres in central Ontario are unable to get in touch with them by telephone. There is a radio-marine telephone, which has been in operation for about two years, in the Indian agent's office to communicate with Midland; but you cannot talk to the island except during the hours when the office of the superintendent of Indian affairs on the island is open, and it is not open during week ends, when most of the hunting is done.
For an expenditure of merely $6,000 the Indians on Christian island would be put in touch with thousands of would-be hunters who are willing to spend money on the island in their pursuit of pheasants for seven months of the year. It would also give direct access to the mainland. They are now leasing cottage property sites on the island, which is becoming big business. As vote 15 covers advances by the minister for commercial activities of the Indians so they may be selfemployed, I strongly urge that he give consideration in the current year to spending $6,000 for a marine telephone cable from Cedar point to Christian island Indian reservation in the southern Georgian bay.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I will take only a couple of minutes. My interest in the Indian dates back quite a long time. In the days of the 'flu epidemic back in 1920, as a result of the discovery of a number of very serious situations throughout the province at that time it so happened that it was ascertained that Indians dead, alive and dying were all occupying the same beds. The end result was that my father, although he had a very large family of 11 living children at that time, took three Indian lads and helped to raise them. As a matter of fact, they grew up with the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
rest of the boys, including myself. Further than that, in the lumber business operation it was our privilege to have in the Babine lake area a complete crew of Indian lads working in the saw mill industry. We found them to be a little bit on the irresponsible side, naturally, because it was not in their makeup to stick with the job for any length of time. However, this was solved very simply by having the chief become responsible for seeing that we had a crew every morning. Believe me, there was no doubt in the world that every morning we had a full crew-* maybe not the same ones, but we had a full crew every day, because the chief made sure that if one Indian disappeared another took his place.
Over the years I have been advocating that we get into a situation where we can somehow have one jurisdiction. I am glad the government is looking into this proposition and working-we hope all the way-with the Indians themselves to accomplish this very, very desirable result. Previous speakers have dealt very fully with this question and I want to commend the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Skeena on their speeches today and the questions that have been put. We will be looking forward with interest to the answers that will be coming forward to some of these questions, and there is no need to deal with them further at this time, Mr. Chairman.
The important thing, in my view, is that whatever society needs to do in order to carry on, if there are some things that society is going to deprive the Indian of, let us see that the Indian gets something better in return. This is possible, surely. I think it should be borne in mind at all times that if for some reason in the development of society some things have to be taken away from the Indian, we should return to him more than we are taking away. This is quite possible, of course. With those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see the estimates passed. I am sure several hon. members would like to take part in the debate this afternoon. I would just like to say thank you to the government for their apparent interest, and I would ask them to pay very close attention to the remarks made by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Skeena.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I have but a few observations to address to the minister responsible for Indian affairs, and they have
20220-655J
to do with an Indian band in my area, the Weymontachie.
A few weeks ago, I got in touch with the minister to try and provide those Indians with decent accommodation. During a visit I made to the Sanmaur area, where their reserve is located, I noticed that their accommodations were-no, I would not say poor-just nonexistent. Their village dates back to some 50 years and the houses are even older, so that those Indians prefer, even right in the middle of January, to live in tents. Conditions there are almost inhuman.
I, therefore, asked the minister to press this affair and find a solution to the housing problem facing this Indian band.
The radar station located but a few miles from where this Indian band lives was closed recently. I then suggested to the minister that this Indian band be established in that abandoned radar station. Those Indians could take advantage of appropriate schools and even of a hospital, and benefit from all necessary services. The minister told me that after consulting with some high officials who deal with those Indians, he had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to transfer them to that location, because they could not be provided with the education and other necessary services. I wonder then what are these essential services which are not to be found in Parent.
Eventually these people will have to be moved because I know that the Quebec government intends to build a hydroelectric dam in that county and that part of that area will be flooded. Therefore, we have to think about relocating that Indian reserve. I would like to ask the minister if he has given serious consideration to finding a solution. If the solution I have suggested is not agreeable to him, I would urge him to find another one, because it is essential to provide suitable accommodation for that Indian band as soon as possible, as well as educational and medical facilities, in short, all that is necessary from a humanitarian point of view.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, at this hour I almost hesitate to take part in this debate, but for a number of years I have looked forward to saying something about the Indian affairs branch of the department, and on each occasion seemed to find myself in much the same position in which I find myself today. However, I should like to say a few things and I will try and be brief, so that
10350	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration others who may want to make a few remarks may do so.
There are a few Indian reserves in one part of my riding, and every time I visit them I must say I am appalled at the conditions I find there. When I look at the estimates of the department over the years going back a considerable period of time, I am appalled at the amount of money spent and at the little positive result we have seen. I believe the purpose of the department, if it is anything, should be to create a new dignity for and respect toward these native people of our country. I cannot help but ask the question whether or not we are achieving that today, with the expenditures we are making and the way they are being used.
In saying that I am not being critical of those who work in the department. One has only to visit any of the reserves in my area to realize that something more is needed. I believe one of the things which is needed is a greater sympathy for the Indians, greater independence for them and a less paternal outlook on the part of the department, as well as perhaps a little more co-operation with those agencies which exist locally to try to help these people. I understand that at the present time it is very difficult indeed for an individual on a reserve to secure assistance in a case where he is the boss of the enterprise he is trying to manage. I know the situation with regard to this particular matter. There are many who perhaps are not ready for that full measure of confidence that the department would like to give; but there are some, and an increasing number, who I believe could be given much more confidence than the department and its officials are giving them today.
As I talk to those who have been very close to reserves in years gone by I get the impression that this situation seems to be getting worse with the passage of the years, and that there has been some deterioration in the character of those who might have become very good citizens of our country. I believe one of the essentials is to create a spirit of initiative, a sense of self-respect and pride; and I want to leave the thought with the minister that perhaps a partial answer to this might be to encourage some resettlement of those who are desirous of such resettlement, without any loss of treaty rights presently existing. This might give them a better opportunity to take part in the life of the community in a province or in the country at large. From speaking to some of them I find they are very disappointed at the way


some of their fondest hopes are neglected, sometimes discarded, by officials of the department, including officials of the department in Ottawa when a matter is sent down to headquarters for decision.
I believe that we have a good staff generally, but in recruiting staff for the department I think more consideration should be given to a preference for people who have proven through experience that they have sympathy for and the understanding of the Indian people. These people are found in any area where there is a reserve. I believe that if these people are recruited to the staff of the department and given a little training and instruction, though they might not have much formal training otherwise, they might get a grasp of what is the department's policy, which I hope of course is one which will give more and more responsibility to the individual on the reserve.
Other hon. members have dealt with other various aspects of this matter and I will not go over them. I will not mention any personal cases which may have come to my attention, though there have been one or two. I should like to see the department try to give these people the same opportunities they would give anybody else in this country, and this can only be done by giving them more responsibility than that which the department seems to be prepared or able to give them today.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that the estimates of this department will get through today, and I am sure many hon. members agree with me there. I will not be too lengthy, but like the hon. member for Peace River I should like to congratulate the new assistant deputy minister, Mr. Battle. On many occasions when we were attempting to work out Indian problems on the reserves in the constituency of Bow River he was extremely helpful. He is one official who at that time, while working in that area, was liked and respected by the bands of Indians. I hope in his position now he will be able to exercise some influence upon the department of Indian affairs.
I was very impressed by the speeches made by the hon. members for Skeena and Peace River, and felt that they touched upon an important problem facing the Indians, particularly in relation to these so-called conferences. As pointed out by both those speakers, when we are considering amendments to the constitution affecting Indian rights we should keep in mind the Indian treaties which were signed by officials of Canada and the Indians.

I have in my hand a copy of the book "John A. Macdonald, the old Chieftain" by Donald Creighton, from which I should like to read one paragraph, because of its reference to these treaty rights. I have sent photostatic copies of this paragraph to all the chiefs of the various reservations in Alberta because it emphasizes some of the history behind the treaty of 1886. This is what Creighton says about John A. Macdonald, the old chief. Macdonald had left Winnipeg early in the day in the year following the completion of the railway, and Mr. Creighton writes:
But the darkness of the long summer day had already fallen when the train finally pulled up at Gleichen, the little station, east of Calgary, in the heart of the Blackfoot country. Chief Crowfoot, who in the dark days at the beginning of the northwest rebellion had pledged the loyalty of his tribe to Macdonald, was waiting, a little on his dignity, for he had been led to expect the visitors nearly three hours before; and it was not until very early the following morning that the Indians, who had come to the rendezvous in full force, began to assemble for the pow-wow. The lesser chiefs-Old Sun, Eagle Rib, Medicine Shield, Running Eagle, Little Plume-sat about portentiously in full war-paint and feathers. Crowfoot alone was in his oldest clothes-in memory, he informed Macdonald, of the dead Poundmaker. His face, with its well shaped features and fine lines, was shrewd and proud and intelligent. He told the listening Indians that Macdonald was the "biggest man" they had had among them for a long time. He begged Macdonald to banish the fears of the Indians for their children's nourishment and welfare. Then the Indians did a dance, and presents were distributed; and Macdonald gave Crowfoot a dark broadcloth suit with silk facings-a proper suit of mourning.
It is only about two weeks ago that I stood in a hall at Gleichen on the Blackfoot reservation in the very place where John A. Macdonald met Chief Crowfoot.
When the people at that time signed these treaties they understood that certain rights would be guaranteed. I was very pleased at the way the hon. member for Skeena referred to the so-called consultations. It seems to me the kind of consultation we should have if, as I think we do, we have respect for these treaties, is by way of plebiscite. As the hon. member so ably stated, the proposed consultations would be with hand picked individuals, whom the department, the minister or others, wanted because of the influence they might have on programs to be outlined.
I should be very disappointed if this government placed the administration of Indian affairs under the jurisdiction of provincial governments, because this administration is one of those things delegated by section 91
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of the British North America Act to the federal government. Certainly these rights should not be used to satisfy the desires and ambitions of certain provincial premiers. After all, these rights are based on treaties. Last evening we heard discussion about giving $350,000 to Indonesia. I wish we could persuade the officials of some weekly magazines or newspapers to send their representatives across this country to take photographs of the homes in which our Canadian Indians are living. Several newspapers have suggested that I am extreme in the language I use. Perhaps what is extreme to some is not extreme to others. I have visited the reserves at Morley and at Gleichen, and with the exception of the new housing development which is progressing very slowly, these people live in hovels.


Mr. Bigg:: And they are the best.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member suggests that those are the best homes. If they are, I should not like to see the worst.
It is all very well for the minister to smile, and I am not blaming him by any means for this situation which has existed for a long time, but the Indians are living in destitute circumstances, and let us not forget that fact. I see an hon. member shaking his head. If he has any doubts about what I am saying I invite him to go there and see for himself.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Chairman, we are not smiling at what the hon. member is saying, but at the way in which he is saying it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You were shaking your head as though you were not in agreement. I hope you are in agreement, because the situation there is appalling. Their standards of living, even under the most native conditions, was much better than has been the case since our arrival.
These people are paid $5 treaty money per month. That amount was established some 100 years ago. What effect has the inflationary trend alone had on the value of that monthly payment? What is it worth today? Just as a matter of interest I consulted the dominion bureau of statistics about a lawsuit in which a $30,000 judgment had been given, and was informed that it would now be worth only $25,000. That would indicate there has been a decrease in the value by at least one fifth, and one can readily see the change in value of the $5 treaty money over the 100 year period.
If we are going to wage that war on poverty talked about so often by the President of the United States and others, we should
10352	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration establish one of our battle lines on the reservations of this country. I do not wish to speak in incendiary terms, but if there were more of these people and they were organized, we would be faced with a rebellion in this country. No other class of people in this country would put up with the poverty and standard of living we find on these reservations.
Changes are constantly being made without consultation with the native people. Two hospitals to which the women went to have their babies were closed without consultation. These women must now travel to hospitals elsewhere. While I realize some changes must be made, the Indians find that they are being made at great inconvenience to them. How is an Indian husband receiving his $5 per month expected to take his wife from the reserve at Gleichen to a hospital in Calgary to have her baby? Sometimes he is even forced to beg a ride from other people. These are the actual circumstances that these people must accept. Not one word of what I have said is exaggerated and I have never before described these circumstances in the kind of terms I intend to use this afternoon. The circumstances are disgraceful.
If a newspaper editorial writer wishes to write another statement to the effect that Eldon Woolliams speaks in extreme language, let him send his newspapermen to these areas to observe for themselves the poverty stricken conditions and disgraceful circumstances under which these Indians are forced to exist. I am not now referring to the housing development which was commenced under the Conservative administration-and even it moved very slowly. There are only a few houses completed and I do not know who chooses the families to live in them. I do know, however, that the majority of homes occupied by Indians are nothing more than hovels. We constantly refer to and talk about missionaries going to underdeveloped countries of the world where the inhabitants are living under substandard conditions. We had better look to our own backyards, because they certainly need cleaning up.
In reference to Indian claims, let us immediately set up a program so the Indians can bring their claims before a proper commission. Surely that could be done quickly. There is a case now pending with reference to the Blackfoot reserve involving several million dollars. I do not know anything about the facts, but do you know what the chief of the Blackfoot reserve tells me? He tells me that the documents he wants to prove the claim have been refused him day after day.


Some people say they have disappeared entirely so that their claim will never be proven. How does the department deal with these people?
I hope that Mr. Battle, with the sympathy I know he has for these people and who understands the circumstances, will exercise his influence so that in that regard they will receive better treatment. There are things that should be said in this regard. The whole of the rights of the Indians are based on treaties but, as the hon. member for Skeena said, how can the Indians trust the white man? These treaties were signed and certain rights were guaranteed the Indians. Certain standards of living were guaranteed them. You may say that there are always two sides to these matters; but these people who are living with us and among us as Canadians and with Canadians, are the real Canadians, and we have reduced them to a standard of living lower than that of the peasants 50, 75 or 100 years ago in certain places in Europe and Asia. So we have an obligation to the Indians.
There is just one thing I should like to say about the kind of consultation that should take place. Let us give the Indians a plebiscite before changing the jurisdiction. Let us give them a standard of living that is realistic. Let us see that they receive the treaty money about which they talk. We talk about a contributory pension plan but it will not affect these people because they have nothing to contribute. To be realistic they should be getting at least $50 a month and the kind of homes that will enable them to live in dignity with their families. I say, set up the claims commission immediately, respect their treaty rights and let us declare war on poverty among the Indians. This may be one of my shortest speeches but I have never been more sincere. Let us have something done in this regard.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I understand we have to go to the other place at 5.45 and I am wondering what the intentions are with regard to these estimates and whether or not they will be followed through on Monday.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman. The arrangement was that on Monday the justice estimates would be called for one day, so I am unable at the moment to say when we will come back to these estimates.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the point just raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur I would hope that the house leader, in arranging for further consideration of these estimates and in view of what he has

said about the understanding respecting Monday, of which we are all aware, will take into consideration the fact that certain other estimates took longer today than some of us had anticipated and that one of the most neglected subjects during this entire session has been the question of Indian affairs. We really have not had the kind of opportunity we would have liked to have to hear the minister's views on certain questions.


George James McIlraith: I am quite aware of that. I had expected there would have been that full opportunity today. I realize there has not been but all I am able to say at the moment is that on Monday we will consider the justice estimates. However, I will certainly try to take account of what has happened today. Our expectations with regard to today were somewhat different, but I will try to see how an opportunity to complete these estimates properly can be worked into the program.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak at length on this topic and I am not going to have the time to do so now. I want to raise what I think is the major problem in connection with the Indians. It is a problem that has not been touched upon in this debate and I have not raised it before because of a natural hesitancy in connection with the subject. But I have come to the conclusion that it is the most vital problem in connection with the Indians. I have seen it in depth in my own part of the country. It is the factor that is demoralizing the situation more than anything else and destroying most of the progress. I am not making these remarks with any bravery in bringing this matter out into the open, but I believe we have got to talk about it and we have got to ascertain the position and stance of the Indian affairs branch with regard to it. We have got to find out how they are going to meet it. It may be we will be told it is perhaps not the main problem throughout the country but only in the part of the country I represent.
I am talking about the problem of alcoholism, overdrinking and all the consequences and difficulties that flow from it. We are beginning to take a greater and greater interest in the Indians. I am, as a member of the house, and I have at least 7,000 Indians in my riding. There are a number of reserves and also a great number of Indians who are nomads. I have increased my knowledge but at the same time decreased whatever confidence I had in my own ideas or in the ideas of the Indian affairs branch to move with speed to meet the problem.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
There are two matters that are never talked about but which seem to me to be central, and the major one from my point of view is alcoholism and drinking, and the effect of drinking upon these people and their place in society. The other is a very controversial subject that is touched on occasionally. I refer to the whole question of religion, the religious approach and the relationship of the religious communities, mainly Anglican and Roman Catholic, to the Indians on their reserves and in the missions.
In my own travels I have never encountered any missionaries or other people working with the Indians for whom I had any disrespect. I have a tremendous admiration for some of these people whose lives are full of hard work and filled with frustration because of the inadequacy of response, either in religious or social terms, to their teaching and the work they do. But if we are going to have a realistic appraisal of the Indian situation it seems to me that we need to know more accurately what the effect is of the religious association with Indians across the country, and we simply have to know much more about the problem of alcoholism and drinking.
I want to give some examples to indicate why drinking is a problem. Many of you may remember that a few years ago the regulations regarding drinking in Ontario were altered so that Indians could play the part of normal citizens in the use of beer parlours and so on. At that time I was one of those who believed very strongly that they should have this right. I did not want to see them segregated from the same opportunities that all the rest of us have, and I have not changed my opinion in that regard. But when I go to communities such as Sioux Lookout, Armstrong, Nakina, Beardmore, Macdiarmid, Heron Bay and other places in my riding and see some of the consequences of the opening up of opportunities to drink, when I see the extent of all the difficulties that follow from this overdrinking, it makes me realize that, in a way, this is a crime that our free society with its mores and practices commits, because of the effect upon these people who have not really been a part of this society and have not been brought up in our tradition.
Recently at a certain place in my riding- I am sure some of the people in the Indian affairs branch will know about this-a considerable spending program was completed for a school and teacherage. Almost before the carpenters had cleared out, nearly every window in this new building was broken and
10354	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration other damage was done. By whom was it done? It was done by teen age girls and young fellows. I do not know what the police court evidence may disclose, but I understand a couple of them are now in jail. This was the result of drinking. It was not a random incident in that particular location. There have been thousands of incidents like this.
Just a day or two ago there was an annual meeting or pow-wow when the treaty money was handed out and a new band council was picked. Within two days the chief was in the hospital, after being almost kicked to death by his fellow councillors of the band. All of them had been involved in a big drinking session. This is incident No. 2. I could name, in connection with that group of Indians, many others, perhaps dozens of incidents like this which indicate the breakdown in morality.
One of the most shocking things that happened in my constituency happened to one of the simplest and noblest characters I have met, a Roman Catholic priest. He was attacked by Indians who were drinking. This man had laboured in the community and had given a great deal to it. However, aroused by the noise and tumult of this kind of session, things exploded and went too far. How you get an analysis of the effect of this kind of drinking upon Indians, I do not know.
May I just give one last example to point out to hon. members what is involved, and the difficulties of the Indian affairs branch? I received a letter from a young Indian couple to the effect that winter was coming on, their house on the reserve was completely inadequate, and could I ask the Indian affairs department to do something about it. I went to see the young couple. It was a long drive of 150 miles through the bush. I got there to see them sitting in their house. You could see the dust from the yard blowing through the cracks in the house, and I got very worked up about this, to think that the branch had done nothing for them. They gave me this story. They were a very contrite, soft spoken couple and I accepted their story. Incidentally, there was nothing wrong with the young man or young woman; they were not crippled. I spoke to the Indian affairs branch, and was told they had provided the couple with paint, Ten-Test and all the materials necessary to fix up their house. The branch had trucked them in all that distance. What had this young couple done? They had taken the material almost as soon as the one truck was off the reserve, carted it away and sold it. What followed was that they


went on a week long drunk and left their children alone. As a consequence we had the children's aid people coming in.
This state of affairs is desperately serious. It is at the core of almost every problem I know of in relation to the Indians in northwestern Ontario. If the minister knows anything about the Indian situation, he will know that they are in as desperate a situation as anyone else anywhere. There is a breakdown here that relates to work. A couple of years ago, I talked with some of the Abitibi foremen up near a place called Auden. They had tried to work some Indians into the pulp cutting operation. Auden is up in the north corner of lake Nipigon. The reports from the union stewards and the foremen agreed that these Indians were able-bodied and strong enough to do this type of work. They have all the skill. But what happened? After they had worked a few days and there was a bit of money piled up, a cheque came along. As soon as the cheque came along, they took off. In this particular case of which I am speaking, they had not paid their union dues. They just took off, and they were gone for several weeks. Their money lasted them that long. A couple of them finally came back, and they were in very bad shape because again they had been off on a long boozing session. They could not understand why the company was hesitant about hiring them again. The company did hire them again and the very same thing happened as soon as the first cheque came along.
Two years ago, I visited another Abitibi camp down near Regan. Again, there is an Indian reservation near there called Mobert, and this has been one of the busiest cutting areas Abitibi has had. There are over 100 able-bodied men and I do not know how many women on that reserve.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to provide for the establishment of harbour commissions.
An act to repeal certain acts of the province of Newfoundland respecting harbours and pilotage.
An act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such representation in accordance therewith.
It being ten minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
External aid office-
L14a. Special loan assistance for developing countries in the current and subsequent fiscal
Supply-Items Passed
years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, for the purpose of undertaking such economic, educational and technical projects as may be agreed upon by Canada and the developing countries or recognized international development institutions, $50,000,000.
B-International joint commission-
40. Salaries and expenses of the commission and Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the commission, $151,500.
Loans, investments and advances-
L12a. Loans to the government of India to finance the purchase in Canada of aircraft and associated spare parts and equipment in accordance with a financial agreement entered into between the government of Canada and the government of India, $1,367,100.
L13a. To extend the purposes of the account mentioned in Vote 630 of the Appropriation Act No. 2,	1954, to provide advances for medical
expenses as well as to posts and to employees on posting abroad and to increase to $1,500,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to that account; additional amount required, $400,000.
A-Department External aid office-
35. Economic, technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the estimates, $75,600,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 23, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer a certificate of the election and return of Mrs. Margaret Rideout, for the electoral district of Westmorland.


[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Margaret Rideout, member for the electoral district of Westmorland, introduced by Right Hon. L. B. Pearson and Hon. H. J. Robichaud.
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1965, was presented by Hon. G. J. Mc-Ilraith (President of the Privy Council), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, last week I promised to make a statement at the beginning of this week respecting the administration of the Canada student loans plan.
On Monday and Tuesday, November 16 and 17, officials responsible for administering the Canada student loans plan in all the participating provinces, together with representatives of the province of Quebec and the territories, met in Ottawa with officials of the Department of Finance for the purpose of reviewing the operation of the Canada student loans plan. This was the first opportunity for such a general review since the initiation of the plan last September.
Provincial representatives expressed the unanimous view that the plan has met a real need for a large number of students. Many students attending universities and other institutions this year would not have been able to attend in the absence of the plan. Many other students, who might have managed to attend without the benefit of the plan, are able to devote more time and attention to their education because their financial burdens are now less demanding. In spite of its late start, the plan has already proved to be an outstanding success.
A total of 29,000 students had received certificates of eligibility for loans as of November 13. The average loan under these certificates for the academic year is about $680, for a total amount of approximately $19.8 million, representing 73.3 per cent of allocations for the loan year ending June 30, 1965. I ask the permission of the house to include in Hansard a table which gives the breakdown of these figures by participating provinces and territories.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]

Student Loans Plan
Canada Student Loans Plan Report on certificates of eligibility issued as of November 13, 1964
				Percentage
Number of	Total	ofProvincial	Certificates	Amount	AllocationProvinces and Territories	Allocation	Issued	Authorized	UtilizedNewfoundland	$ 1,176,000	498	$ 320,230	27.23Prince Edward Island	232,000	340	231,984	99.99Nova Scotia	1,736,000	2,107	1,387,635	79.93New Brunswick	1,416,000	1,746	1,157,117	81.71Ontario	12,440,000	14,590	10,885,139	87.50Manitoba	1,968,000	1,669	1,106,808	56.24Saskatchewan	1,908,000	2,398	1,450,390	76.01Alberta	2,852,000	2,445	968,320	33.95British Columbia	3,236,000	3,203	2,296,909	70.98Yukon	24,000	10	7,200	30.00Northwest Territories	48,000	7	7,000	14.58Totals Quebec	$27,036,000 12,964,000	29,013	19,818,732	73.30


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am pleased to report that students are making effective use of the plan to a greater extent than was expected when the plan was discussed in advance with provincial officials last summer. With few exceptions the loan certificates are issued by bodies already accustomed to furnishing student aid. This has greatly facilitated speedy implementation of the plan and minimized risks of overborrowing and abuse.
As I reported to the house on July 14, we expected that financial provision would be ample, based on the assumption that approximately one student out of three might make use of the plan and that the average loan would be about $500. I added, however, that if perchance actual needs outran our expectations we would bring the matter back to parliament. In practice, financial provision on this basis is proving about right in some provinces, rather more than sufficient in a few cases, and less than sufficient in two provinces.
In the discussion of subjects put forward by the provinces at last week's conference it became apparent that many of their administrative problems were the result of varying traditional practices in handling student aid, and a general desire emerged to seek a greater degree of harmony in these practices. To this end it was agreed that special reports would be prepared during the next two months on three subjects; the criteria for judging student needs; questions relating to students from one province making use of loans under the plan in another province; and the whole

question of standards and criteria for the designation by provinces of educational institutions under the plan. It was agreed that pending consideration of these reports there would be no basic change in present practices. I should add that representatives of the province of Quebec will be associated with these studies.
I have already mentioned the fact that the financial provision for this year is proving adequate or more than adequate in the case of all but two provinces, where the demand for loans is outrunning the allocation made under the act as passed by parliament this summer. In these circumstances many students, particularly those who had postponed making financial arrangements for the second term of the academic year, could be faced with the interruption of their education because of financial difficulties. The government has considered this situation and decided to seek approval from parliament to increase the guarantee authority of the Canada Student Loans Act in the current loan year by $8 million, this amount to be available for allocation to provinces upon application to meet additional requirements in the loan year ending June 30, 1965. A special item for this purpose is included in supplementary estimates "C" for 1964-65 which have just been tabled. At the present time it is expected that only two provinces will exceed the provincial allocation for this year. Accordingly, if this turns out to be the case, less than one half of this proposed additional provision is likely to be utilized.

The alternative payments under the act to a non-participating province relate to actual disbursements by the federal government in the administration of the act. Such payments will, of course, automatically rise to the extent that enlarged allocations are utilized.
I should emphasize that the special financial provision which the house is being asked to consider will apply only to the current loan year and will not alter the provincial allocations for subsequent years as now provided for in the act. I have outlined the nature of the studies which provincial and federal representatives have already undertaken. Against the background of these studies, a more general review of the Canada Student Loans Act, of the loan limits which it provides and of the formula on which those limits are to increase year by year, will be made when the full results of the current year have been collected and reviewed.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will welcome the success which the student loans plan has achieved in meeting the financial needs of so many students across Canada in extending their education and training. This has been due in no small measure to the fine spirit of co-operation shown by provincial educational authorities and lending institutions.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, the house has listened with a great deal of interest to the statement just made by the minister with respect to the administration of the student loan fund. As he has said, certain difficulties have arisen in connection with the administration, and I am very happy to know that apparently the conference last week was prepared to deal specifically with those administrative problems.
I had hoped that possibly the minister would make some statement with respect to scholarships in connection with the student loan fund, but I presume that is a matter which we can look forward to at some not too distant date, because it is certainly something which the people of Canada expected of this government when it took office.
The minister referred to the three points which I understand were agreed upon last week, and I think it is well that there has been some hopeful agreement in that connection. However, I am sure all hon. members have heard of the difficulties which have arisen as between the provinces with regard to the means test basis. Some provinces have been much stricter than others in that regard. I know one province which, because of the
Student Loans Plan
short time available, is still using the application form which they provided for their own student loans years ago, and is much stricter than under our regulations or what should be our regulations. This brings up the old problem of reconciling the prerogative of the province which administers education with the responsibility of the federal government which pays the bills. It is well to know that careful study is being given to this matter.
Then there is the further problem of the residential qualifications that certain provinces require. I had a rather pathetic case the other day, and I am sure many hon. members have had such cases over the last few weeks. In this particular case the man happened to be in the armed forces, but he might have been in any other employment. He was transferred from one province to another, and was told that in order to get a loan in the province to which he had been transferred he would have to be a resident for a year. He could not get a loan from the province he had left because he was no longer a resident there. This question of residence must and should be dealt with in order to clarify this ambiguity. This difficulty affects only a few, it is true. The great majority of students are realizing a great deal of help from this legislation. However, there are these two points respecting the means test and residence which need to be ironed out, and a degree of co-operative federalism should be attained in the near future.
In so far as the standards of educational institutions are concerned, this is something that has been with us for a long time. We have it in connection with university grants. I am sure there is machinery available by which the problem can be ironed out, and we look forward to some standardization on that basis. The other day I had a case of a student going to the United States, and of course he could not get a student loan. I believe a loan was obtained later on. All these matters are bound to arise, of course, in connection with a measure which is in its preliminary stages. We appreciate what has been done for the students so far, but there are many other difficulties which have to be ironed out. I hope they will be ironed out in this conference to which the minister has referred.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance made a statement respecting the application of the Canada Student Loans Act.
I have already asked questions in the house concerning this act, and I did not receive any

Student Loans Plan
other answer than the following: the government of the province of Quebec can ask its own questions and apply for its own information.
I have also mentioned that we Quebec members in the House of Commons, also represent that province and that we were entitled to obtain that information.
In the statement he made today the Minister of Finance did not see fit to answer the questions we asked him concerning this federal student loans legislation.
Now, according to this legislation a province which does not want to participate in this student loans plan will receive an equivalent and appropriate compensation from the federal government.
On several instances we asked the Minister of Finance to tell us what amount of money the federal government gave the province of Quebec as its equivalent and appropriate share of those student loans which are being granted the other provinces. The Minister of Finance has never replied in the past. Today he makes a statement concerning what his government guarantees in nine provinces. However, he forgets, he neglects or he does not want to reveal the amount the federal government returned to the province of Quebec under that section of the act which provides for an adequate compensation for the province of Quebec.
In my opinion the Minister of Finance gave us an incomplete statement. We are entitled to know the whole truth about this matter, and we want to know how much the province of Quebec received under this act, and if it has received anything at all.
If the Minister of Finance did not give anything yet, let him say so. We will know then that the Minister of Finance put through another piece of legislation concerning the provinces where provisions of the act dealing with the province of Quebec have not been applied. If he gave anything, let him say so and it will reassure everybody. But we believe the Minister of Finance should make a full statement and not hide the facts nor the truth; he should tell us exactly what amount the province of Quebec received under this act.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I, of course, have not failed to give all the facts. As hon. members know who have read the act, the amount payable to the province of Quebec cannot be ascertained accurately until the end of the year.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will support the proposal advanced today by the Minister of Finance. At this point I would merely like to say there is a large body of opinion among all parties in the house which feels there are unnecessary complicating factors when you have to work out the administration of this plan with the provinces. There is a feeling in the house that to be a resident of Canada is alone sufficient and that many people suffer hardships because of the added qualifications. We would like to see changes made so that Canadian residency will be sufficient qualification.

On the orders of the day:


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance, and I hope he will find it easier to answer than the question posed by my seat mate, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), a moment ago. My question arises out of his statement earlier today about the student loans plan administration. Can the minister satisfy my curiosity, in view of the fact that he did not mention which two provinces need additional funds beyond the original provided; and can he also inform the house how many credit unions have been certified to operate under the plan and in which provinces?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In reply to the first question, Mr. Speaker, the two provinces are the smallest and the largest, Prince Edward Island and Ontario.
In reply to the second question, I shall be glad to obtain that information. There are a considerable number of credit unions which have been certified, but I do not have that information at my fingertips. I will ascertain the facts and give them to my hon. friend tomorrow or next day.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it is expected that the item in supplementary estimates (C) regarding student loans will result in all qualified applications for student loans in Prince Edward Island being met by the banks for the current year?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is the purpose of the estimate. I cannot give a categorical answer because I do not know the numbers involved, but I think the amount will be adequate.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notice of
motion:
November 20-The Minister of Justice-The following proposed motion:-That a special committee, consisting of 15 members to be designated by the house at a later date, be appointed to consider the state of penitentiaries under the control of the government of Canada and the plans of the government in relation thereto with powers to: report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon; send for person, papers and records; adjourn from place to place; sit during sittings of the house; and print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Webb: 1.	How many Canadians went to Hong Kong to serve during the last war?
2.	How many were killed in action or died there?
3.	How many are still alive?
4.	How many are receiving more than 55 per cent pension?
5.	What, if any, are the future plans of the government with regard to these veterans?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 1956.
2.	Killed in action or died of
wounds,	290
Deaths from other causes,	267
Total	557
3.	In June, 1964 there were 1,272 still living.
4.	Three hundred and four.
5.	An investigation to compare the physical and economic positions of Hong Kong veterans to that of siblings who served in other theatres of war is now under way. Future plans of the government with respect to these veterans will be formulated following consideration of the results of this investigation.
Questions


ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITIONS
Mr. Gelber: What architectural competitions have been held in Canada in the 15 years by federal, provincial and municipal authorities for public buildings?


Maurice Lamontagne: In 1952 and 1953 an architectural competition was held to choose an architect for the proposed new building for the national gallery of Canada.
The government has no information available with respect to competitions held by provincial and municipal authorities.


TENDERS FOR RURAL MAIL ROUTES, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to call tenders for R.R. Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7, Amherst, N.S., when these contracts expire, in view of the fact that the Post Office Department considered it necessary to call tenders for R.R. No. 2 in order to alter the route of the service so that it would start and end at the Amherst post office an alteration which will be necessary for the aforementioned rural routes?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: The existing contracts for Amherst R.R. Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 will not expire until 1967 and 1968. These contracts will be reviewed prior to expiration.



CANADIAN MONEY SUPPLY

['As of September 30, 1964 the total number of commissioned officers serving in the Canadian forces is as follows: (a), (i) 5,504; (ii) 8,967; (iii) 3,159; (b), (i) 968; (ii) 1,090; (iii) 193.']
Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. There is no official definition of "money supply'' but the term is commonly used to refer to the total amount of currency outside banks and deposits at chartered banks, both including and excluding

Questions
government of Canada deposits. The figures for October 21, 1964 are as follows:
($ millions)
Currency outside banks
Bank of Canada notes	1,857
Coin	215
Deposits at chartered banks
Government of Canada deposits 360 Personal savings deposits 9,026 Other notice deposits	1,426
All other deposits (less float) 4,463 Total	17,347
Total excluding government of
Canada deposits	16,987
2.	Currency outside banks and deposits at chartered banks
Dec. 31/44 Dec. 31/54 Oct. 21/64
(millions of	dollars)	
Total 5,892	10,314	17,347
Total excl. Govt.		
of Canada		
deposits 5,185	10,137	16,987
3.	(a) On October 21, 1964 the total amount of coin was $247 million, of which $32 million was estimated to be held by the chartered banks and $215 million by others.
(b)	On October 21, 1964 the total amount of Bank of Canada notes outstanding was $2,298 million, of which $441 million was held by the chartered banks and $1,857 million by others.
(c)	See answer to 1.
(d)	and (e)
Government of Canada Securities Outstanding at October 28, 1964 ($ millions)
Canada
Savings
Bonds
Held by:
Bank of Canada	-
Chartered banks	-
Government accounts	-
Others	4,893
Total	4,893
4.	The commonly used definition of money supply described in answer No. 1 above does not include deposits in credit unions and trust companies.
Credit unions and caisses populaires, Dec. 31, 1962: deposits, $905 million; shares, $611 million.
Trust companies, second quarter 1964: deposits and demand certificates, $911 million; deposit receipts and guaranteed investment certificates, $1,413 million.
5.	The Bank of Canada owns no gold. Under the terms of the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act (section 25(i)) the bank is not required to maintain a reserve of gold against its liabilities.



Mr. Woolliams: Does the government intend to implement any of the terms and conditions of the O'Leary commission to prevent other Canadian magazines and
rMr. Pennell.]
Treasury Bills	Other Direct & Guaranteed Securities	Total498	2,571	3,0691,164	2,419	3,58335	594	629433	7,368	12,6942,130	12,952	19,975
periodicals from disappearing because of bankruptcy?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Measures to strengthen the position of periodicals published in Canada are envisaged in legislative amendments which appear in Votes and Proceedings of March 11, 1964. As indicated on previous occasions it remains the government's hope that this legislation can be dealt with as soon as possible.


HOUSING SURVEY, NAVAL PERSONNEL, HALIFAX
Mr. Coates: 1.	On whose instructions was the survey initiated into housing needs of naval families in the Halifax area?
2.	How many personnel will be involved in the survey in question?
3.	What is the estimated time allocated for completion of the survey in question?
4.	Is one of the objectives of the survey to provide integrated naval housing within the community?

5.	Has the committee, established by Postmaster General Nicholson, been instructed to act on the results of the survey in question?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1.	At the request of the Atlantic command, R.C.N., a joint committee of navy and C.M.H.C. personnel was set up in October to investigate the problem of housing accommodation for naval personnel in Halifax. One of the first steps taken by that committee was to undertake a survey to determine the housing conditions of naval personnel.
2.	All married naval personnel in the Halifax area are being asked to complete the survey questionnaire. (Approximately 7,000).
3.	The questionnaire has been distributed and returns are expected by mid November. The resulting information will then be tabulated and analysed.
4.	The object of the survey is to provide a factual basis for an assessment of the housing needs of naval personnel.
5.	The function of the committee, after considering the results of the survey and other information on the housing situation in Halifax, is to make recommendations for action.


CONTRACTS TO ENAMEL AND HEATING LTD., AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coaies: 1.	What new contracts have been awarded to the aircraft division of Enamel & Heating Products Ltd., Amherst, N.S., since July I, 1964, by the Department of Defence Production, and what is the total amount of the contracts in question?
2.	What subcontracts have been awarded to the aircraft division of Enamel & Heating Products Ltd., Amherst, N.S., by prime contractors with the Department of Defence Production, and what is the total amount of the contract awards in question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Twelve contracts have been awarded to the aircraft division of Enamel & Heating Products Ltd., Amherst, N.S., since July 1, 1964 to a total value of $331,661.14. In addition, three amendments to contracts issued prior to July 1, 1964, have been awarded to the company increasing the value of these contracts by $13,444.59.
Grand total of all contracts and amendments issued subsequent to July 1, 1964, $345,105.73.
1 Contract, 12 modification kits for Neptune aircraft fuel and oil system. Amount of contract, $133,391.16, (awarded as a result of competitive tender).
1 Contract, R & O modification and reduction to spares of MN-1A dispensers. Amount of contract, $114,000.00.
Questions
10 Contracts, Supply of CS2F airframe spares and miscellaneous items, $84,269.98.
3 Contract amendments, Supply of CS2F airframe spares, $13,444.59.
2.	Subcontracts from D.D.P. prime contractors have been issued to Enamel & Heating Products Ltd., Amherst, N.S. to the values shown below. These subcontracts are open ended in nature and are being progressively increased as suitable workload becomes available.
Canadair Limited	$82,664.08 (estimated)
The de Havilland Aircraft of
Canada Ltd.	$32,150.00 (estimated)


$114,814.08 COFFEE SHOP, TORONTO AIRPORT
Mr. Martin (Timmins): 1.	What is the name of the firm who operates the coffee shop at the Toronto international airport?
2.	Does the firm who operates the coffee shop have a concession and, if so, what monthly rent or other revenue accrues to the Department of Transport?
3.	Does the Department of Transport have any control over the prices charged by this coffee shop and, if so, has such control ever been exerted?
4.	What cut of meat is served by this coffee shop as a ribeye steak at $2.95, and what is the average size of one serving in ounces?
5.	Has the Department of Transport received any complaints, or other representations, regarding over charging by this coffee shop and, if so, what action was taken, or will be taken?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Cara Operations Limited operates the restaurant concession in the aeroquay including the coffee shop at Toronto airport.
2.	The rent is calculated on a percentage of gross food sales with an annual guarantee as follows: 14.2 per cent of total annual sales up to $1,200,000; 15.2 per cent of total annual sales up to $1,600,000, if total sales exceed $1,200,000; 16.2 per cent of total annual sales if total sales exceed $1,600,000, or $201,000, per annum. The company is paying $16,750 per month representing the annual guarantee prorated over 12 months.
3.	The agreement between the department and the company contains a clause whereby the company agrees to charge prices comparable with prices in similar establishments in the greater Toronto area. During the years in which the company has operated at the airport, it has maintained a comparable price level, and therefore the department has not found it necessary to take any action in this regard.

Questions
4.	The ribeye steak is the centre cut of the meat trimmed from the standing rib. The average size of serving in the coffee shop is nine ounces.
5.	The department has not received any complaints regarding over charging in the coffee shop.


POST OFFICE SERVICE, TOBERMORY, ONT.
Mr. Loney: 1.	How many householders are served by the post office at Tobermory, county of Bruce?
2.	What is the number of the rental boxes?
3.	What are the dimensions of the boxes?
4.	What is the approximate number of householders served by general delivery?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1.	At present, 207 (including 66 served by R.R. No. 1); summer, 402 (including 133 served by R.R. No. 1).
2.
Type"A"	144	
Type"B"	12	
Type"C"	6	
Total	162	
3. Type "A", 4" wide, 5J"	high, 13	13/16'deep; type "B", 6" wide, 5J"	high, 13	13/16'deep; type "C", 12" wide, 5|"	high, 13 13/16'	deep.	
4. At present, 28; summer, 125.


DUNDAS STREET ARMOURY, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: Is the Dundas street armoury in London, Ontario to be turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for resale and, if so, on what date?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The question of accommodation for reserve units will be reviewed following implementation of the reorganization recently announced. Until the review has taken place it is not possible to forecast what disposition will be made of individual buildings.
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AIRCRAFT [DOT]


Mr. MacRae: 1.	How many aircraft are in the establishment of the Department of Transport?
2.	What are the types of these aircraft and what is their value?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Thirty nine fixed wing aircraft and ,18 helicopters, the latter of which are operated for the Canadian coast guard service.
There are two additional Bell 47 helicopters owned by the Department of Mines and Tech-

nical Surveys which are operated by the Department of Transport.
2.	Beechcraft D18S, Beechcraft B55, de Havilland Beaver, Pipe Apache Aztec, Douglas DC-3, Vickers Viscount, de Havilland Heron, Lockheed Jet Star, Bell Helicopter, Sikorski Helicopter.
Book value as of November 12,	1964,


$3,140,693. TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT PURCHASE OF &quot;JET STAR&quot; AIRCRAFT
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Has the Department of Transport recently purchased a "Jet Star" aircraft and, if so, what was the cost of this aircraft?
2.	Is this aircraft used for inspecting and testing runways?
3.	Does this aircraft have any other function?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1, 2 and
3. The department has not recently purchased a Jet Star aircraft. As indicated in Hansard on page 6250 for July 13, 1960 one was ordered and later acquired at a cost of $1,136,000; and has been in use since that time for special transportation, for evaluation of performance of radio navigation aids at high altitude, and other navigational monitoring.


EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION ON HUMANS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Is the government conducting or supporting research into the effects on humans of air pollution in (a) urban areas (b) rural areas and, if so, at which institutions and under whose direction is such research being carried out?
2.	What have been the findings of each research project carried out within the last year?
3.	For each of the last five years, what has been the cost to the government of such research?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Under the national health grants, support is being given by the Department of National Health and Welfare toward research into the effects of air pollution in urban and rural areas at the following institutions: University of Montreal under the direction of Dr. F. J. Tourangeau and Dr. E. Robillard; University of Western Ontario, London, under the direction of Dr. N. M. Lefcoe; University of Toronto, under the direction of Dr. A. W. Brewer and Dr. J. M. Beekmans; University of British Columbia, Vancouver, under the direction of Dr. F. E. Murray and Dr. D. O. Anderson.
2. As each research project supported within the last year is being continued in the present fiscal year, the results are not available at the present time.


VALUE OF ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS IN WEIGHT REDUCING
Mr. Mather: Have artificial, low calorie sweeteners a proven value in weight reducing?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Under conditions of rigid clinical control, where it can be established that the calories eliminated by the use of artificial sweeteners are not replaced through other foods, some advantage in weight reduction has been demonstrated. Where such clinical control is lacking, the calories tend to be replaced through use of other foods and no benefit of significance is considered to accrue.


NAPPAN EXPERIMENTAL FARM PERSONNEL
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many permanent seasonal employees were associated with the Nappan experimental farm from 1954-1955 to the present?
2.	What was the payroll at the Nappan experimental farm for each year from 1954-55 to the present?


Harry William Hays: 1. (Continuous-(permanent)): 1954-55, 44; 1955-56, 46; 1956-57, 47; 1957-58, 48; 195859, 48; 1959-60, 52; 1960-61, 54; 1961-62, 54; 1962-63, 53; 1963-64, 54; 1964-65, 54.
(Seasonal): 1954-55, 3; 1955-56, 3; 1956-57, 4; 1957-58, 10; 1958-59, 11; 1959-60, 13; 1960-61, 15; 1961-62, 15; 1962-63, 15; 1963-64, 13; 196465, 10.
2.	1954-55, $123,024; 1955-56, $128,578; 195657, $148,048; 1957-58, $164,936; 1958-59, $179492; 1959-60, $209,864; 1960-61, $233,723; 196162, $242,585; 1962-63, $252,974; 1963-64, $265,341.


UPWARD REVISION OF MAIL CONTRACTS, MANITOBA
Mr. Mandziuk: Is the Post Office Department giving consideration to revising upward the mail carrier contracts in Manitoba to take care of the increased gasoline tax in that province and, if so, will increases be made retroactive to the date of the tax coming into force?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The Post Office Act and mail contracts presently provide for the adjustment of contract rates under specific circumstances and when certain stipulations have been met. No provision is made to automatically compensate contractors for increased taxes of any kind. Should a mail contractor find himself in a
Questions
difficult position as a result of increased operating expenses, he may submit his case to the department where it will receive every consideration within the provisions of the law.


INVITATION TO PRIME MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Prime Minister receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


John (Jack) Davis: No invitation was received.


INVITATION TO EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: No.


Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Transport receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The answer is no.


Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of National Defence receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.


Mr. Howard: Did the President of the Queen's Privy Council receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the

Questions
100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


George James McIlraith: No.


Mr. Howard: Did me Minister of National Revenue receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: No.


Mr. Howard: Did the Associate Minister of National Defence receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minisfer of Naiional Defence):: No.


Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Public Works receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Hon. J. P. Deschalelels (Minister of Public Works):: No.


Mr. Howard: Did the Solicitor General receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (Solicitor General):: No.


Mr. Howard: Did the Postmaster General receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from 
whom was me invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No.


Mr. Howard: Did the Minister without Portfolio receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Hon. Yvon Dupuis (Minister withoui Portfolio):: After reviewing the records of the Minister without Portfolio, it has been determined that no invitation has been received to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year.


Mr. Doucett: What is the total number of commissioned officers serving in our military service as of September 30, 1964 (a) in Canada (b) outside Canada (i) in the Canadian army (ii) in the Canadian air force (iii) in the Canadian navy?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: As of September 30, 1964 the total number of commissioned officers serving in the Canadian forces is as follows: (a), (i) 5,504; (ii) 8,967; (iii) 3,159; (b), (i) 968; (ii) 1,090; (iii) 193.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	In the year 1975, how many individuals is it estimated will receive retirement pension payments from the Canada pension plan?
2.	How many of these people will be receiving the maximum benefit?
3.	How many will be receiving old age security?
4.	What is the total amount of retirement pensions estimated to be payable in that year (a) from the plan (b) from old age security?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may address a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him if it is correct that two men, Mr. Leo

Rivard and Mr. Charles Groleaux, are being held in Bordeaux prison and that the United States is seeking to have them extradited to face a charge of dope smuggling. I want to ask the Minister of Justice whether any complaints have come to him that persons in high positions in Ottawa have sought to bring influence to bear by calling on Mr. Pierre Lamontagne, who is a lawyer acting for the United States government, in order to grant these men bail. I would ask the minister whether this complaint came to him, whether he indeed ordered an investigation by the R.C.M.P., as I am told he did, what was the result of that investigation, and whether any charges are to be laid as a result of it.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer the first part of this question today, but I can obtain the information within a matter of minutes as to whether these two men are being detained at Bordeaux jail at the present time. Would the hon. gentleman agree that as my estimates will be before the committee in about half an hour, just after the question period, this might be a good time for me to report on that matter?


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister, when he is supplied with the information which he tells the house will be available to him, during the discussion of his estimates make a full statement to the committee regarding all the circumstances surrounding the allegations which have been adverted to by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam?


Guy Favreau: I just answered that question, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport?
Can the minister tell us whether he is acquainted with the statement made by the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Gordon, to the effect that the new labour code proposed by the government will be detrimental to labour-management relations; if so, does this statement reflect the minister's views and will it result in changes being made in the labour code?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has asked a rather complicated question to which I do not think I could give an answer very easily without examining it very carefully.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question to the Minister of Transport?
Could the minister simply tell us if he is acquainted with the statement made by the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Gordon, concerning the new labour code?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir. I have been given by Mr. Gordon this morning a copy of the observations that he made at the study conference held by the economic council of Canada. I believe these papers have all been made public by the economic council and for that reason, if it would be of any convenience to the house, I would be very glad to table this document so that all hon. members can see precisely what it was that Mr. Gordon actually said. If I have the approval of the house I will be glad to table the document.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, relating to the question asked earlier by the hon. member for Lapointe, having to do with the views of Mr. Donald Gordon concerning the proposed Canada labour code. In view of the fact that the House of Commons has already given second reading to this bill, will the minister tell us what reply he made to the representations which Mr. Gordon made to the Minister of Transport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, these representations, as the hon. gentleman is pleased to call them, were not representations made to me. These remarks were contained in a speech made by Mr. Donald Gordon some time ago to a panel of the economic council; therefore I did not feel that I was called upon to say anything whatsoever about them. In fact I only became aware of the speech this morning when Mr. Gordon was kind enough to give me a copy

Inquiries of the Ministry of the document which was subsequently released by the economic council of Canada.
I might say, however, that having read what Mr. Gordon said, it seems to me that his main point was that he did not question in any way whatsoever the right or the responsibility of the government or parliament to take any action it sees fit, but that he hoped some of the realities which appear to him as a railwayman will be taken into account in dealing with this matter. As this was a panel on labour-management relations it does not seem to me to be a very revolutionary statement.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING CLOSING OF LIMOILOU SHOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the house if he has received from the Quebec city council a resolution asking that the C.N.R.'s decision regarding the closing of the Limoilou car repair plant be reconsidered?
I do not think the minister heard my question.


Some hon. Members:: He did not understand it.


Lucien Plourde: I shall repeat my question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell the house if he has received, from the Quebec city council, a resolution asking that the C.N.R.'s decision regarding the closing of the Limoilou car repair plant be reconsidered?


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


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Since this plant is going to be shut down in the next few days and that by putting this question on the order paper the answer would come after the shutting down of the plant, I wonder if, in these circumstances, in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport was ready to answer, you would not allow him to do so on account of the urgency of the matter, as it has been done in the past?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted, I would be very glad to inquire whether any representations have been received. I regret to say that I have been away from Ottawa since Thursday evening and have not had an opportunity this morning to check all the documents that my staff had ready for me.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Minister of Transport make a statement tomorrow on this subject?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly answer the hon. gentleman's question tomorrow if I cannot obtain the information later today.


Lucien Plourde: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Minister of Transport on that occasion come to a decision that would not let this plant be closed without consideration having been given to both sides of the matter as well as to the baneful effects this action could have on those concerned and on the whole population of Quebec city?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will look into that, sir.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance based on a story which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail regarding the negotiations now going on for the sale of the Canadian interests of the Hawker-Siddeley group. Can the minister give us any information as to whether this sale is to Canadian purchasers or to foreign purchasers?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question

about periodicals legislation. It is rather complicated, but I think it is relevant. Last night some of us heard him say he could not give details as to intentions respecting the periodical legislation before giving them in the house; yet we have on the order paper, in the motion of March 11, the details expressed in the resolution. I want to ask the Prime Minister, does this indicate that the government is not going to proceed with this resolution and is going to introduce another resolution that will be much different in its content?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member need not draw that conclusion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister indicated about ten days ago that he would make an interim statement on this particular matter. Can he give us any indication when that is likely to come?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we know when we are likely to be in a position to proceed with this resolution-in other words, as soon as we dispose of one or two items that are now before the house-I will then be in a position to inform the house as to what subsequent legislation will be taken up before Christmas. I would like to think this would be one of them.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would tell the house if the house need not draw the conclusion that it is not the Prime Minister's intention to proceed with Senate reform, in view of his remarks of last night.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member read too much into my remarks of last night.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister what the attitude of the Canadian government will be, or is, on the matter of the establishment of an Atlantic
Inquiries of the Ministry nuclear force. In that connection, so far as the multilateral force is concerned I think there has been general support of the stand taken by the government. It represented the views we expressed after the conference between Prime Minister MacMillan and the late President Kennedy, but the recent suggestion from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is one upon which I think the house and the country should have the views of the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the reported proposal of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom respecting an Atlantic nuclear force, which would presumably replace the proposed multilateral nuclear force, has only been made within the last day or two, and we have not yet received sufficient detailed information on this matter to give the house any statement as to what our attitude might be. As soon as we are in a position to do so I will be very glad to inform the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether any suggestion has been made as to what Canada's contribution to this new force would be? I repeat that so far as the multilateral force is concerned, that received the general approval of the government and we had already taken that attitude while we were in office. This new proposal, however, is such that I would ask the Prime Minister to assure us that before any decision is made by the government in this regard, parliament will have the right to look into this very important matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no specific proposal has been made regarding Canadian participation. I do not know whether the prime minister of the United Kingdom has gone even that far in his consideration of this matter. But I repeat that as soon as we are in a position to do so and have sufficient information on which to base an opinion, I will be glad to make a statement in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister, before a decision is made by the government, allow a day's discussion in connection with this most important matter, which is one that will represent in the years ahead either a step forward or, as some regard it, a most retrograde step?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would not be unreasonable to wait and see whether a formal proposal is to be made. No such proposal has yet been received, and I think

Inquiries of the Ministry it would be premature at this stage to indicate a view as to whether a day should be set aside tor discussion of it until we know more about the details.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from asking a question connected with the Prime Minister's debut on television last evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The applause provokes me to say that if I did there would be questions asked for the rest of this afternoon, because everything was left up in the air. However, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any word that would be helpful to the house in connection with the hostages held prisoner in the Congo. This is something upon which the house and the country are most anxious to have the latest report, and I hope the Prime Minister will be able to give it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before I try to answer that question I might thank the right hon. gentleman for his friendly publicity for my broadcast last night, which I understand is going to be repeated tonight. May I add how much I regret that the football game in Vancouver made necessary the postponement of his own broadcast.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not have any broadcast.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then I may have been misinformed.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: When are we going to see your film?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In dealing with the right hon. gentleman's question, something which is in my mind and which is a very serious matter, all I can say in addition to what was said on Friday is that I am informed that the situation to which my right hon. friend referred is still as critical as was indicated in reports made to the house on Friday. The Belgian and United States governments have taken certain precautionary measures which have been referred to in the press, and these have involved the transfer aboard United States planes of a Belgian paratroop battalion to Ascension island, where it is stationed with the authorization of the British government.

This is in the character, I am informed, of a precautionary measure which would enable the United States and Belgian governments, if necessary, to effect a rescue operation.
There have also been news reports that a number of foreign hostages in Stanleyville, the ones we have in our minds, have been transferred by the rebels to a location outside the city which might make this kind of rescue operation more difficult, if reports are accurate; but we have nothing to indicate or to confirm that they are accurate.
On Saturday in Geneva 12 countries including Canada issued an appeal to all concerned-and since Saturday three other countries have joined in this appeal-to allow the International Red Cross to fulfil its humanitarian duties toward the civilian population, including the foreign hostages, in the Stanleyville area. That, Mr. Speaker, is all I can add to what was said on this matter on Friday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is naturally one subject upon which all of us feel very keenly. I realize the difficulty of action being taken which might be considered as not helpful, but I wonder, in view of the extraordinary power and influence of Prime Minister Kenyatta and also the president of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, whether it would be considered appropriate to get in touch with them and have them personally go into that country and communicate with the leaders of the rebels. It is a terrible situation, one which I know exercises the minds of the government; but knowing the influence of these two men, both commonwealth leaders, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would give consideration to taking the initiative in this regard, for I feel that the influence of these two men might be of decisive effect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understood that negotiations are now also going on in Nairobi between representatives of the rebel authorities in Stanleyville and, I believe, the Belgium and United States representatives, with the assistance of Mr. Kenyatta, for the purpose indicated by my right hon. friend. But I will be very glad indeed to take this proposal under immediate consideration and see whether we can help in the way he has suggested.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Last week he promised to

give me an answer with reference to the report of the national harbours board concerning the location for a grain elevator on Burrard inlet; and to say whether, first, the report would be tabled and, second, whether public hearings would be held by the board at which representations might be made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I must commend myself for my own prudence in not answering the first part of the hon. gentleman's question, because there is no report at all in the possession of the harbours board. What does exist is a report which I am informed was made by the C. D. Howe Company for the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which is the property of the pool and which it would not be competent for the government of a free country to table in the house unless the pool wanted it tabled or wanted it made public in its own way. They were seeking to find the best site and they obtained advice on the matter.
As for the second question, I think I did answer it the other day. The harbours board would be glad to hear any proper representations by persons who are in any way seriously affected by this matter, which is one of great urgency. I am sure the hon. member, who was once premier of Saskatchewan, will realize that it is just as important to have adequate facilities for the shipping of our wheat as it is to grow the wheat itself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am also aware that there is a deadline of February 15 for five firms to tear down their plants and move them, and for men to be relocated, which is a very short period of time. Is there any chance that the national harbours board would be prepared to extend this deadline for at least another couple of months?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter on which I would not want to give a snap answer, but I will consult the harbours board.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether the Secretary of State is able to inform the house when the government will be in a position to produce copies of the documents requested in the notice of motion for production of papers 20220-656
Inquiries of the Ministry No. 186, which the government agreed to produce last Wednesday?
Kon, Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of
State): Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice affecting his estimates. Motion 186 asks for the production of documents concerning the Banks case. Particularly in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said last night on television that he did not think there were any cheques passed to the Liberal party but there may have been to individual members, does he not feel that these documents should be returned to the House of Commons before we proceed with the justice estimates?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman wants to put his question to me quite clearly so that I can understand what it is about, I will be happy to receive it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will put it very clearly. Would the Minister of Justice consider tabling those documents today before we proceed with the estimates of the Department of Justice; that is, those documents with reference to the Banks case. Jack knows all about it.


Guy Favreau: There are no documents in the possession of my department in relation to the Banks case.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I believe he said on television last night that there were no cheques passed over by Banks to the Liberal party but that there may have been cheques passed to individual members of the Liberal party. Has he any explanation in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a paraphrase of what I said. I can only say in answer to the other question put by my hon. friend, which was in order, that I will look into the possibility of producing the documents immediately.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealing with the publication, "Progress of the Columbia plan, 1963," but since neither the Secretary of State for External Affairs nor his parliamentary secretary are present I will put it on the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he has changed his intention to call an election in the spring as a result of the advice he received from the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) that he could not run at that time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am receiving advice on this subject from a great many sources, including some across the way. All I can say is that an election will be called when it is necessary.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, prompted by newspaper reports concerning the P.E.I.-N.B. causeway. Can the minister advise whether the government has now decided that this vital project will be commenced in 1965 and, if so, is it to be with or without a railway?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is also a question for the order paper.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, with great respect may I indicate my desire to debate this at ten o'clock.



WHEAT-SUBSIDY ON EXPORTS BY UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforf-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that
the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not in his seat I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Now that it is obvious that the dumping of export grain by the United States is contrary to all ethical practices in the trade markets, and in view of the fact it is subsidizing this grain, would the Prime Minister not consider at this time making a strong protest to the United States about this unethical trade practice?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the importance of this matter was underlined by members on both sides of this house, I think last Thursday. The matter is under investigation; the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be in his seat later this afternoon, at which time he may have something to say about it.
[Mr. Cantelon.l



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Because of the government's special concern in the economic wellbeing of the British West Indies, will the minister consider the desirability of a system of tax incentives to encourage Canadian investment in industrial development of the British West Indies?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Surely that is a question for the order paper.


An hon. Member:: Debate it at ten.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that I will debate this at ten o'clock.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) asked me the following question:
Could he tell us why the government allows the national film board, an agency financed with the Canadian taxpayers' money, to have its films dubbed in France, thus depriving Canadian artists of needed and quite important revenue?
I want to inform the hon. member that since February 1962 all film dubbing (from English into French and vice-versa), as required by the national film board, has been carried out in Canada.
Moreover, as from September 1961, the film board entrusted its dubbing to a commercial company newly established in Canada and specializing in this sort of work. After a few experiments the company having satisfied the technical and artistical standards of the board, the latter continued to supply them with work and, for almost three years all dubbing required by the board has been done in Canada.



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or other dependants of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,109,600.


Lucien Lamoureux: When this vote was being considered on October 7 last the hon. member for Yukon proposed an amendment, as follows:
That vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice be reduced by the sum of $16,999.
Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the minister announced on orders of the day that he would be making an opening statement with respect to the matter raised by the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam and myself. I understand the whip's office was informed that the minister would be making a brief opening statement. I wonder if we might hear that statement now.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, the opening statement which I intend to make relates to the functions of my department generally and to two aspects of the activities of my department.

The Department of Justice-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister starts, may I ask whether he is going to make the statement referred to in the course of this general statement?


Guy Favreau: Not in the course of my general statement, but this will arise in the course of the discussion of my estimates. I intend to answer any questions later if questions arise. I will consider that matter as a question, but it will not be part of my opening general statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister will make it at the end of the general statement?


Guy Favreau: Yes.

In a general sense the Department of Justice comprises several branches or sections of the public service which are the responsibility of the Minister of Justice.
The strictly legal functions are discharged by the law branch. I should mention also
20220-656^
Supply-Justice
the Bankruptcy Act administration, the Combines Investigation Act administration and the Parole Act administration.
The minister is, moreover, responsible for the administration of the Supreme Court of Canada, of the Exchequer Court of Canada and of the penitentiary system.
The Minister of Justice is also responsible to parliament for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the restrictive trade practices commission.
He also has jurisdiction in matters of patents, copyrights, trade marks and industrial designs.
Under the Criminal Code the attorney general of Canada is attorney general as concerns the Northwest Territories Act and the Yukon Territory Act.
I intend today to make some remarks concerning that function of my department having to do with the administration of the penitentiaries and our projects in the field of reform.
During the last few years the Canadian penitentiary service has experienced important progress. However, in order that such progress be rational, the government thought it appropriate to approve in principle a new development program, the implementation of which would take place between 1964 and 19/3. This program I intend to explain briefly to the house today.
The primary function of the Canadian penitentiary service is to protect society against individuals bent toward crime, and this through preventive detention and reform training during imprisonment. These measures should reduce recidivism but, in the long run they increase the normal costs of penitentiary operation; on the other hand, they should return to our society, as useful citizens, people who, otherwise, might be a threat to it.
In order to ensure adequate reform training for the inmates, the following requirements have to be met: surveillance, physical and body needs, education, as well as economic, psychological, moral and spiritual needs.
Consequently, the inmates will be scattered in various institutions, according to the requirements of detention and security.
The training program in every institution will be prepared according to the needs for reformation of the inmates.
In each region in Canada there will be organized a penitentiary system comprising the following institutions: special detention

Supply-Justice
institution, maximum security, medium security and minimum security institutions.
In each of the four regions the following will also be provided for:
(a)	reception centres to be used for purposes of reception and diagnosis so the inmate can be sent to an appropriate institution;
(b)	institutions for juvenile delinquents, medium security type, to be used for the detention and training of inmates from 16 to 25 years of age;


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether I could interrupt the minister briefly. I am not trying to embarrass him in any way, but he has been speaking about young offenders and I should like to ask him a question. Some months ago a return was made showing the number of young offenders held in custody in our penitentiaries. Are they still in the penitentiaries? Has there been any change in that situation since the return was made?


Guy Favreau: I have no figures as to changes. There certainly or probably must have been changes by way of promoting young prisoners from one institution to another, because to the extent that accommodation is available it is the policy of the penitentiaries system to try to detain young offenders in these specialized institutions. But there may not have been substantial changes, and this is precisely why we are providing for those types of institutions in each region which I know the hon. member understands and agrees are essential.

(c)	hospitals for the purpose of offering medical and psychiatric services; finally
(d)	a kind of institution yet unknown in Canada: predischarge centres to house inmates who have almost completed their full sentence and who, consequently, must be reintegrated ipto society.
Each institution will have facilities to apply programs of activities offering inmates occupations, constructive pastimes, religious services, contacts with their families, with social agencies and with representatives of the public, a classification process, education and technical training.
The plan will be achieved in two stages: the first phase, which is already begun, will extend from 1963 to 1967; the second, from 1967 to 1973.
According to a comprehensive survey of the trends of institution population in the past, it is anticipated that the inmates will number 8,500 in 1967 and 10,500 in 1973.

The accommodation needed in the years to come will depend on the increase in the number of inmates and the need to keep apart certain types or certain classes of inmates. The type and the number of institutions to be built will depend on the need to separate, the degree of danger that they represent and the need to offer a special training to certain classes of inmates.
The immediate purpose is to set up for 1967 a uniform detention and training system in each of the four regions in Canada so that each inmate can be confined with a degree of security desirable and so that each can take advantage of the training most appropriate to his needs. The policy restricting the maximum population of each institution to 450 will be maintained. The treasury board has already approved substantial expenditures to provide for the carrying out of that project.
A special detention unit has been built and is already in operation at the British Columbia penitentiary and three more will be built in Dorchester, N.B., St. Vincent de Paul, Quebec, and Millhaven, Ontario.
In 1965, the construction of a maximum security institution will get under way at Ste. Anne des Plaines, Quebec, and in 1966, the construction of another institution will start at Millhaven, Ontario.
A medium security institution is being built in Cowansville, Quebec, and recently a contract was awarded for the construction of a medium security institution in Springhill, Nova Scotia.
In a few months, tenders will be called in order to undertake the construction of two other medium security institutions, one in Warkworth, Ontario, and the other in Drumheller, Alberta. An institution for the treatment and training of drug addicts, male and female, is under construction in Marsqui, B.C.

At this point I wish to recall that in January last the then minister of justice, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, announced that in the fiscal year 1965-66 a new prison for women would be constructed in the vicinity of Cornwall, Ontario. Developments in the penitentiary service since that time lead to the conclusion that the construction of a new federal prison for women should be postponed for some years.


Mr. Fairweather:: That is the best way to get Chevrier out of the basket he was in.


Guy Favreau: This is the best way to be objective and have justice done.

The average daily population in the existing prison for women at Kingston, Ontario is 120 inmates. Of these more than 50 are narcotics addicts from western Canada. At the present time a new narcotics addict treatment institution is being constructed at Matsqui, British Columbia. When completed in September, 1965 it will provide accommodation and training facilities for 150 female inmates. At that time the female narcotics addicts from western Canada will be transferred to the new institution, where they will have the benefit of a program of treatment and training especially designed for their needs. The female narcotics addicts of eastern Canada will continue, that is for the present, in the women's prison at Kingston.
There is a conflict of opinion on the question of whether the narcotics addicts can best be rehabilitated through a treatment program involving addicts alone, on the one hand, or through a program of training involving association with non-addicts. The Matsqui experiment will make it possible, over a period of three or four years, to determine which technique is more effective. Accordingly I propose postponing the construction of the new prison for women until the results of the Matsqui operation have become apparent.
The prison for women at Kingston has accommodation for 150 female inmates; 50 inmates can be confined in bright, modern rooms constructed, I am pleased to advise hon. gentlemen across the way, in 1960. With the opening of the Matsqui institution and the transfer to it of some 50 narcotics addicts from western Canada, the result will be that the great majority of females confined in the prison for women can be accommodated in modern, clean surroundings. As for those in the small minority, great care will be taken to make such use of the remaining accommodation as will assure the fairest and best possible treatment in every respect.
In the general program, the additional construction that will be required to achieve the 1967 objective is as follows; four new reception centres and three reception centres to be developed from existing facilities; three minimum security institutions; three new medical and psychiatric centres and a fourth to be developed from existing facilities; four prerelease hostels to be obtained by using existing houses owned by the crown or by purchase; administrative facilities for two maximum security complexes; the modernization of certain buildings in three of the existing maximum security institutions that are an integral part of the new program; two
Supply-Justice
staff colleges, one in the Quebec region and one in the western region, to replace present inadequate facilities for the training of penitentiary service officers.
If the foregoing program of institutional development is carried out, it will mean that by 1967 Canada will have a federal prison system that will rank with the best in the world. It will mean a conclusive end to that oft quoted slander that, by the United Nations standards, Canada ranks 44th among the nations of the world in so far as the quality of its prisons is concerned. In anticipation of the completion of the development up to 1967, plans are being made for developments during the period 1968-1973.
There is, of course, no way of determining accurately at this time whait our 1968-1973 requirement will be. It is to be hoped that the reformative program for inmates now being carried on and to be further developed in penitentiaries will reduce recidivism. If this happens the number of institutions required during the period in question will be fewer. On the other hand, there may be some other sociological factors at work that might increase the number required over what is contemplated as a result of past experience. The provinces may develop their probation services further, with the result that committals to penitentiary may be lessened. The operations of the parole board may result in more paroles and in fewer penitentiary committals than has been the case thus far. Amendments to the Criminal Code may result in fewer penitentiary committals.
Whatever happens, there is nothing inflexible about the proposed program. The penitentiary service will prepare, in June of every year, a statement of penitentiary population with predictions of accommodation and training requirements based upon the experience of the preceding ten years. On the basis of this study there will be a prediction of requirements for the succeeding ten years, upon which can be based the penitentiary service estimates for the succeeding fiscal year and forecasts of requirements for the ensuing four or five years.
This method of operation, if carried into effect, will have the twin result of ensuring that our penitentiaries do not become overcrowded and, therefore, less effectual, and planning for the construction of an institution can be carried on at least three years prior to the time when the institution will be required.
Buildings are, of course, essential for the custody of inmates. However, the determin-

Supply-Justice
ing factor in so far as the reform of the inmate is concerned is the quality of the training program that he receives. Effective training of inmates can only be carried out by competent staff. It is with the objective of improving the competence of staff that the penitentiary service has, within the past year, required every newly recruited officer to receive three months of induction training. Formerly no such period of specialized training was required.
It was to achieve this standard of training that a new staff college was recently opened at Kingston, Ontario, and existing facilities were converted to staff training purposes at St. Vincent de Paul, Quebec, and New Westminster, B.C. The program calls for construction next year at St. Vincent de Paul of a staff college that will provide similar facilities to those that are now available at Kingston.
I said earlier that the construction program which I have outlined is not inflexible. I intend to take into full account the representations and submissions which will be made to me in this connection by specialists and other knowledgeable citizens and organizations. In this respect I wish to repeat that it is my intention that two committees be established without delay.
A resolution is being placed on the order paper providing for the establishment of a special committee of the house to look into and report upon the state of penitentiaries throughout Canada. If established by the house this committee will have full occasion to visit Canadian penitentiaries, interview inmates, ascertain the physical accommodations such as kitchen facilities, sanitary conditions, medical, dental or other services. It will have access to the plans already completed as well as those being developed for our construction program. As the committee will have power to report from time to time, it will be able to submit views even for the purpose of possible modification of our short term construction program.
A second committee, which will be a special committee of experts in many ways similar to the Fauteux committee, will be appointed by the government to study, report and make recommendations upon the whole corrections field in Canada. This will include such matters as arrest, bail, personal recognizance, remand and detention pending trial, sentencing, detention under sentence, rehabilitation methods and instruments, probation and parole. The study of that specialized committee will, of course, involve all

aspects of the criminal law which are related to the matters which I have just enumerated. That second committee will have the benefit of both the interim and final reports of the parliamentary committee.
Through these two committees all those interested in the field of correction and penal reform in Canada, and who wish to make their views known, will have ready access to the government before the formal statement of an over-all philosophy and policy of Canadian correction is made.

Before leaving this question, I wish to recall that lately the personnel of the penitentiaries was the object of many unfair and unkind criticisms in the press and in radio and television reports. Those criticisms followed the statements made by a former inmate of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, convicted of having been one of the leaders during the riot which occurred there in 1962.
That man was mistreated at that time, and when the incident was brought to the attention of the commissioner of penitentiaries, the latter appointed an independent commissioner to investigate this matter.
After a serious inquiry, the investigating commissioner stated in his report that eight officers belonging to the personnel were involved in that affair. The report also showed that the officers had thus acted after flagrant provocation.
The report also stated that five of those officers either had left their jobs or had been suspended; the report recommended disciplinary action against the other three. That measure was taken.
The conduct of those eight officers is not typical of that of the officers in the penitentiaries branch. Most of the penitentiaries officers, and there are more than 3,000 of them, are patient and devoted men who perform difficult and dangerous duties under difficult circumstances. Those persons do not deserve to be criticized by the Canadian public; they deserve our gratefulness.

In respect to the matters with which the combines branch of my department is concerned, I wish to make a few comments about the act itself. It is my view that the Combines Investigation Act should be considered at all times as an integral part of the economic policy of the government of Canada, and should have a definite role to play as part of that policy. As the government's economic policy develops, the principles declared in the

Supply-Justice
legislation ought to be reviewed from time to time to ensure that they are making their optimum contribution to the over-all economic policy for Canada. I intend, therefore, to consider whether or not the substantive provisions and the procedural machinery in the legislation require any revision to bring them into line with the needs of our developing economy and of the general economic policy of the government.
One important matter to which I wish to give serious attention in this respect is the extent to which it might be possible to support legislation in this field under the head "trade and commerce" in section 91 of the B.N.A. Act, so as to give greater scope for the application of non-criminal remedies in enforcing the act.
As the committee is aware, the present legislation has been upheld as constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court of Canada on the ground that it is criminal law. The fact that proceedings under the act in the courts are criminal in nature poses particular problems in enforcement and creates considerable rigidity so far as adjusting monopolistic situations is concerned. I therefore am exploring the extent to which it may be within the power of parliament, without necessarily abandoning the criminal law technique, to extend this legislation into the non-criminal field with a view to providing additional and more flexible remedies for dealing with unwarranted restraints upon competition.
As an example which I have already cited to the house on a previous occasion, I have in mind that the greater use of injunctive remedies could, in many circumstances, bring about perhaps more quickly and more effectively necessary adjustments to correct restrictive situations. Indeed, a start has been made in this direction by the administration having obtained in several recent cases injunctions without prosecution under the present criminal provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
I should like to emphasize that I am stating here merely what general consideration I am giving to these matters, and I am not announcing any decision as to government policy. However, as I have informed the house already, certain recommendations in this field are now the subject of discussion between myself and my colleagues in the cabinet, and any decision arising out of such discussion will be made known in due course in the proper way.

Here I should like to add a word concerning the disclosure of investigations carried out by the director, especially in view of the keen interest some hon. members have shown for the application of the Combines Investigation Act in particular cases.
As hon. members know, whenever I am asked if the government has undertaken or will undertake an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act, I always answer that the matter will be brought to the attention of the director of investigations and research, under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, and that the director will take whatever steps the act requires, but that in accordance with the usual practice, no information will be supplied to indicate whether an investigation has been undertaken with regard to a particular group of companies or individuals before such information appears in a published report.
That policy has been followed for many years by the various ministers of justice and it is in keeping with section 28 of the act which stipulates that any inquiry under the act shall be conducted in private, except that the president of the restrictive trade practices commission may order that all or any portion of any proceedings before the commission or any member thereof shall be conducted in public.
Parliament has protected the public interest in the judicious application of the act by requiring that the director, who is a high official, enjoying a high degree of independence, should undertake an investigation each time he has reasons to believe that the act has been or will be violated. The director can also be activated, if I may use that word, through a proper request made by six Canadian citizens or the Minister of Justice. The public is well informed at all times about the administration of the act through the periodic reports of the restrictive trade practices commission, special inquiries, court proceedings and the annual report of the director which has to be submitted to parliament.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Has the minister the consent of the committee to go beyond the allocated time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: I will not be long, Mr. Chairman.
10378	HOUSE OF
Supply-Justice

It can be taken for granted that the director makes a satisfactory preliminary examination of any complaint he receives to determine whether he is required by the law to undertake an investigation. The procedure is the same for any merger brought to his attention, whether or not a complaint has been laid.
However, it would not be in the public interest to reveal, before all the facts have been evaluated, including the arguments and explanations presented by the parties concerned, any information concerning an investigation carried out to determine whether individuals or corporations have broken the law.
To act otherwise would almost necessarily be prejudicial to public interest for two main reasons: it would impair the orderly conduct of the investigation and serious injustices could be committed against those whose conduct is being scrutinized because the general public could conclude too early, before it is in possession of all the facts, that the people concerned must be guilty since an investigation is being carried out. I suggest that such a state of things would be contrary to our concept of the sovereignty of the law.
Two main aspects of public interest have to be reconciled: the policy of parliament, as reflected in the law, which requires that all investigations be carried out confidentially, except in those cases where the law provides for publicity, and the interest of the public which requires that the latter must be sure that the administration always carries out its obligations conscientiously and efficiently and that cases of public interest, within the meaning of the act, are handled judiciously.
Naturally, it is most important that hon. members be on the alert so as to be in a position to recognize any situation which should be looked into. Quite properly, they should constantly draw the government's attention to particular situations and they should seek to ensure that the government remains aware of the importance of applying efficiently the Combines Investigation Act. Still, the immediate disclosure of the director's activities in particular cases is not necessary to enable the house to fulfil its supervisory role, in view of the publicity provided for by parliament in the act.
Consequently, for all these reasons, I shall maintain the policy whereby information is withheld on the existence or the details of inquiries in progress, under the Combines Investigation Act, until a report is published, unless the public is already aware of it either
[Mr. Favreau.l

because the trade itself has revealed its existence, or because the case has been taken to court, or for any other valid reason.

Mr. Chairman, I was asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam shortly after three o'clock, followed by a question from the hon. member for Yukon, whether-if I restate the question incorrectly, will the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam please correct me-in the case of one Rivard, against whom extradition proceedings had been taken at the instance of the United States government, some pressure had been brought to bear by any member of the civil service or any person employed by the government of Canada, so that the full effect would not be given to these proceedings. If the hon. member has something else in mind to be added or included in this question, I would like him to say so before I give my answer. Is that the whole of the hon. member's question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, this is part of the question. I would appreciate having that part answered. There are many more details of this question about which I would like to ask the minister, but this is the core of the question to begin with.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, as a result of information placed before the R.C.M.P. by a person acting in this particular case, the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. reported the matter to me and it was immediately decided that the R.C.M.P. would undertake an inquiry into the matter. I must state that this was the first moment in my life as Minister of Justice that I had heard of that particular case, except through reading about it in the papers; but there had never been any representations made to me directly or indirectly. This is a case with which the Department of Justice as such, through its legal branch, is concerned in holding a watching brief.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, would the minister have offhand the date on which he first became acquainted with this situation?


Guy Favreau: Subject to being corrected by the commissioner, it was approximately in August; maybe September.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, would the minister say who the person was who went to the mounted police?


Guy Favreau: For the moment I do not care to comment on that too much. I will say why later on. I was saying that the

instructions in this case were given directly to counsel by the United States department of justice itself, which had retained counsel in Montreal. It was decided-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister would allow me to intervene just for a moment.


Guy Favreau: Perhaps I could finish my comments on that particular point.


Erik Nielsen: I simply wish to suggest that for the benefit of the minister and of the cabinet as a whole it would be better to have the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the chamber to hear the minister's explanation and what will follow.


Guy Favreau: These are my estimates, Mr. Chairman, and I suppose the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is fully justified in not being in the chamber today. He is outside Ottawa today. I understand he will be in the house tomorrow. I do not know when his own estimates are coming back before the committee.


George James McIlraith: They have been passed.


Guy Favreau: I am told they have been passed. An inquiry was made immediately, upon my recommendation, into all aspects of this matter. When the inquiry was completed, the R.C.M. Police felt there was not sufficient evidence to recommend a prosecution. The commissioner of the R.C.M. Police and myself went through the report, which is of substance and had been prepared by the R.C.M. Police. It was our joint assessment of the evidence that there was no case for the laying of information on the state of the evidence obtained. In this respect the file is kept by the R.C.M. Police as the continuing file, and the R.C.M. Police, of course, is taking into consideration all additional material which might be brought to their attention.
As far as the minute details of the file, the names of witnesses and the persons interviewed are concerned, I am advised by the R.C.M. Police that this forms part of the contents of a report made by them which, as in the case of all reports of the R.C.M. Police to the minister, remains confidential in the public interest. For that reason I believe it would be unfair for me to comment further.
I know the purpose of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is not to elicit in this house-I know this and I assert it very sincerely-information not directed at a particular proceeding, which might only serve, 20220-657
Supply-Justice
until such time as the facts were confirmed, to cast doubts on people without the resulting benefit for the state of further proceeding in the matter. For these reasons I think it would be a betrayal of my duties as Minister of Justice to reveal more details. I think it is also my duty to repeat to the committee that there has been an inquiry, and that the R.C.M. Police, the commissioner and myself, on an assessment of the whole evidence, do not feel or believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify the laying of information in the present state of the material obtained. But I myself am fully aware that, should additional evidence convince us that if a charge were laid it would have a chance of success, there will of course be further proceedings.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister might answer one question before I begin my general remarks. I hear an hon. member opposite laugh. This is an extremely serious matter, as he will come to realize as we go along. 1 wonder whether the minister would tell the members of this committee whether he referred the report and the file of which he has spoken to the law officers of the crown for an opinion as to whether or not sufficient evidence existed on which to base information? If so, when was that reference made to the law officers of the crown?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, it is not the practice of the R.C.M. Police or the Minister of Justice to refer matters to the law officers of the crown for opinions unless (a) the matter is brought to the attention of the minister for that purpose or (b) he is satisfied that there is room for opinion. There has not been a formal submission to the law officers of the crown in this case.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has one or two questions to ask in this respect, Mr. Chairman, I would yield the floor to him before I embark upon my remarks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, before we get into a general discussion of this matter I should like to say that I agree with the minister that no one wants to cast reflections on any individual or to create doubts in the public mind. Therefore I can understand the minister's reticence about naming names and pointing to specific individuals. On the other hand, I hope the minister will understand our responsibility as members of parliament when there seem to be indications, which are now further substantiated-

Supply-Justice


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, may I just rise to say that I yielded to the hon. member for the purpose of his asking a question, not to make a speech.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to make a speech; I was only going to make a point and then ask a question at the end of it. The minister will recognize that we as members of parliament have a responsibility when there are indications that some attempt has been made to subvert justice. We particularly have a responsibility to question whether or not the examination to which the minister has referred can be completely unbiased if some of the persons who are affected are those in senior civil service positions or in the house itself. For that reason I should like to ask the minister whether any consideration has been given by the government to referring this matter to a judicial investigation, turning the material over to a judge, in order that it might be looked into, rather than having names tossed out in the house, which might be unfair. At the same time, if nothing is done to press this matter it may be that attempts to subvert justice will be overlooked, and it would be difficult to persuade the public that there were not political considerations involved in not pressing this matter further. I would ask the minister whether any consideration has been given to a judicial investigation or inquiry.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, the commissioner and myself were so convinced on the state of the evidence

and I repeat, on the state of evidence collected-that there was no possibility of a successful charge being laid that we have not given consideration to this aspect. However, as the matter involves-I do not say implicates but involves-certain persons who were at the time in the employ of the government of Canada, I think I have the right to disagree with the suggestion which has just been made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. If he has in mind that, because of the delicate nature of the facts and the possibility that certain people may be judged in a way which would be tantamount to making useless smears or innuendos or insinuations, this reference or hearing should be in camera, I would be ready to decide right away that that would be appropriate and to advise the government to order immediate holding of such inquiry by way of reference to a judge of a very high court. Would that be satisfactory?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I find this suggestion just as astonishing as the reply of the

minister, and he will realize why I find it so astonishing before I am through. His department in the normal course of events refers these matters to the law officers of the crown for an opinion. I heard him this afternoon- I do not have his words verbatim but I paraphrase-say that when the inquiry which he said he immediately demanded was completed the R.C.M.P. felt that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution. Then the minister went on to say that the commissioner and himself had gone through this very long detailed report, had made a joint assessment of the evidence, and would not lay an information and complaint. I find it unbelievable that the minister would place himself in this position. I find it unbelievable that he would place not only himself in that position but also the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. by deciding whether or not sufficient evidence was contained in the report on which to base the laying of a charge. That is not the minister's job and he knows that, and it is not the job of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., and he knows it. It is properly the job of the criminal law section of his department to make such a decision.
What the minister should have done as soon as he received that report was refer it to his criminal law section and obtain their independent opinion. The minister knows as well as I do that the offenders in this case, and I do not hesitate to name them, were actually employees, one of the minister's office and one of the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Both of these employees have now left.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, that is an absolute lie, because nobody involved in this case, implicated as an offender by the hon. member, is a member of my department or has ever been a member of my department. Unless the hon. member for the Yukon is ready to repeat what he said outside to the newspapermen, under his responsibility as a citizen, and not under the screen of parliamentary immunity, I ask him to withdraw what he just said.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May I suggest to the minister that the word he used may have gone beyond what he had in mind. He did use the word "lie".


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Lucien Lamoureux: That word is not acceptable in our debates.


Guy Favreau: The statement of the hon. member for the Yukon was that one of the

offenders, and I repeat, one of the offenders was a member of my office, and that is not true.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is a distinction, in that the minister can say that the statement is incorrect or untrue, but he cannot say it is a lie. I suggest to the minister that for the orderly conduct of our business it might be better if he limited his statement to saying that what the hon. member has said is untrue, rather than saying it is a lie. I feel that is one word, among others, that should be banished from our discussions. I ask the minister to co-operate with the Chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like the gentleman to withdraw his untrue statement.


Guy Favreau: The hon. gentleman has not withdrawn his statement, and I ask him first whether he will accept responsibility for his statement and, second, will he on the basis of cowardice not repeat what he has said outside this house?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is a matter for
debate whether the hon. member's statement is true or untrue. It may be true, untrue, correct or incorrect, and the minister has the right to doubt the veracity of the statement, but he cannot say it is a lie. Our rules are clear and the minister is aware of the many precedents to support that suggestion of the Chair. I would ask him to amend his statement, as has been suggested by the Chair.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, as far as semantics are concerned, you will recall that I corrected myself and replaced the word "lie" by saying that his statement was untrue.


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest that in view of the minister changing the word "lie" to the word "untrue", the committee should be satisfied.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to you, I do not think the committee is satisfied. By stating that what the hon. member said was a lie he has in effect called the hon. member a liar. In addition to that, by accusing the hon. member of cowardice, he has called him a coward. Both those words should be withdrawn.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I did not hear the second word to which the hon. member has alluded, and I do not think it was said. The first word was said and the minister has altered his statement, and, therefore, in effect the word has been withdrawn. If the hon.
20220-657i
Supply-Justice
member feels the minister should state that he withdraws the word "lie" and changes it to the word "untrue", I would ask him to do so for the satisfaction of the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the minister is going to hear a good deal during the course of my remarks to which he is going to take exception. I suggest to him that he receive my remarks, as hon. members of the committee might receive them, in a calm, unemotional state, so that he may assess them coolly and carefully. I am purposely avoiding indulgence in histrionics, such as that just displayed by the minister. I suggest to the minister that, as the minister with a portfolio as responsible as his, one of the first attributes requisite to a proper discharge of his function is self-control.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could rise on a point of order in a calm and judicial manner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is this. The hon. member for Yukon has expanded this incident by making a statement about something that is within the knowledge of the Minister of Justice, although he gave us absolutely no evidence whatever. He has merely made an assertion that the facts were within his own knowledge. The Minister of Justice has said that the statement is untrue. I suggest that if the hon. gentleman has that regard for justice which he professes, he should give us the evidence first and draw deductions later, instead of commencing by making statements about things with which he may or may not be familiar. He should not make broad general statements for the sake of getting them in the newspapers, having nothing by which to prove them.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I will side with the hon. member for Yukon before he says anything, and draw to the minister's attention the fact that there really is no point of order here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, throughout orders of the day I noticed the Minister of Transport squirming and holding hurried consultations with the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice.

Supply-Justice


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps now I
should ask the hon. member for Yukon to return to the subject matter before the committee.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw the statement that it is a lie.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member should withdraw his personal attack.


Erik Nielsen: I withdraw any reference to the fact that the minister was squirming. He was jumping around like he had ants in his pants.
Let me say that I intend, if the minister will be patient, to provide him with the facts as I know them. I am sure that the Minister of Justice, and some of his very prominent officials, whom I see in the gallery, once they have heard these facts will come to the same conclusion I have reached, and I am sure members of this committee will also come to those conclusions.
I should like to commence my remarks by saying that it is not my intention, to use the minister's own words, to raise innuendoes or smears, or to crucify any innocent person. However, certain facts have come to my attention which indicate quite strongly that there have been offences committed, under the Criminal Code of Canada, offences which the minister and the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. apparently have concluded are not founded upon sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution. Here I differ with the minister because on the basis of my information offences do exist which warrant prosecution under the Criminal Code of Canada.
The next immediately following information was obtained by me from public records. It is available to anyone who wishes to inspect those records and concerns the names of those who were involved in the commission of offences in Laredo, Texas, as it happens. On June 19-I think that is the date in which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was interested-one Leo Rene Maranda Rivard was arrested and arraigned in Montreal. He was arrested with Charles Emile Groleaux or Grosloup-you will have to forgive my French pronounciation

one Joseph Raymond Jones and one Julien Gagnon.
These gentlemen, if we can call them that, were charged with two counts, first, importing and smuggling heroin into the United States between January 1, 1963, and May 27, 1964 and, second, conspiracy to smuggle 35 kilos or 76 pounds of heroin into the United States from Mexico on October 10, 1963, in

league with the following individuals, Jorge Eduardo Morena Chauvet, Paul Mondolini-I am sure that name will ring a bell in a good many minds-


An hon. Member:: Never heard of him.


Erik Nielsen: For the hon. member's information, he is a member of the notorious crime cartel known as the Mafia-Frank James Cuppola, Roger Beauchamin, Joseph Michael Caron, Joseph Raymond Jones-I have given that name already-Jul'ien Gagnon-I have given that name already also- whose alias is Jerry Massey and Charles Emile Groleaux or Grosloup, all in connection with the Laredo, Texas incident.
The minister is aware of those facts and I am sure he will not contradict me thus far. For those who are interested, this information is available from Mr. Pilon in Montreal who is special clerk of the extradition court there. It is available to the public at large. I do not know what the hon. member is laughing at. I had no reference to any member of parliament.
On July 19 Rivard was arrested, was arraigned and applied for bail. July 10 was the first sitting day of the extradition hearing and the trial went on from August 20 to 27. On September 14 the decision was postponed to September 25 and on September 25 an extradition order was issued. Between September 25 and October 10 a writ of habeas corpus was applied for. I have not got the exact date but I am sure the minister knows it. According to the information I have, which dates back to the middle of last week, that particular application has not yet been heard.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, if the hon.
member for Yukon will allow me, this might be a good point to complete the information which was sought a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and which the hon. member has also requested.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Yukon has the floor, of course, but if he wants to yield to the minister to allow the minister-


Guy Favreau: I thought he was yielding.


Erik Nielsen: I yielded for a question. The minister had full opportunity to give us this information and he did not do so, but now that the heat is on and pressure is being applied he all of a sudden wants to rise.


Guy Favreau: There is no heat and there is no pressure.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the minister might permit me to conclude my remarks. If there are any inaccuracies he wishes to correct or additions to the record he wishes to make I think that is the time for him to do so. I would point out to the minister, however, that he had ample opportunity to make a full reply both to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and to myself.
The situation that triggered off the investigation of which the minister speaks has to do, not with these judicial proceedings as such but rather is confined to the bail application. That is all we are concerned with here. I might point out, however, before proceeding that two of the names I read out, Paul Mon-dolini and Cuppola, according to research done by Alan Phillips and published in September, 1963, in a two part article in Maclean's magazine, are members of or connected with the notorious international crime cartel, the Mafia, and the Cosa Nostra of New York.
I want to preface these remarks by saying that had it not been for his integrity and his high regard for his profession the efforts made to bribe and coerce the counsel acting on behalf of the United States government would have succeeded. I do not think the minister will take issue with that. The integrity that this gentleman of the Quebec bar displayed is an outstanding example to all members of his profession and, regrettably, not followed frequently enough. The minister is aware of that as well.
At this point may I say I regret very much that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is not in his seat because this matter involves his office and I would have thought that the Minister of Justice, having foreknowledge of what I would be speaking about today, would have exerted every effort to ensure that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was in his seat. The executive assistant to the minister at that time, Mr. Raymond Denis, offered a bribe in the amount of $20,000 to counsel who was acting for the United States government on the bail application with the request that he not oppose the bail proceedings which would in effect have allowed Mr. Rivard out on bail and presumably to go the way of Banks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No wonder Banks got out.


Erik Nielsen: To his undying credit counsel acting in this case said, "No, I will not accept $20,000", nor any other sum for that matter. But the matter did not stop there. It was then that the executive assistant to the Minister of Justice himself, Mr. Lord, entered the picture.
Supply-Justice
I think he was an innocent dupe or perhaps one might even go so far as to say that because of his immaturity, because of his youth and his lack of knowledge as to why he was being requested to do what he was eventually requested to do he did something which I am sure he would never have done in the full light of maturity, and in the light of all the facts of the case. He called Mr. Lord, and he called to the same counsel and suggested to that counsel that he go easy on the bail application and made representations for the purpose of having counsel acting in this case for the United States government, not oppose the bail application. Now, these are the facts, and the minister knows these are the facts.


Guy Favreau: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. When the hon. member for Yukon says that the minister knows these are the facts, does he imply that I was aware of these facts at the time when he alleges they took place?


Erik Nielsen: I am satisfied from my information that these events occurred without the minister's knowledge. However, that does not mean that the minister acted properly thereafter. I will be highly critical of the manner in which the minister treated this whole affair, but I will grant him this at the moment, that at the time of the Denis phone call-I am sorry that should not be a phone call, it was a personal confrontation-and at the time of the Lord phone call, there was no knowledge, so far as my information discloses, on behalf of the minister that Denis and Lord had done what they did. I am sure that if the minister knew about it, it would have stopped there-at least, I would expect that of a responsible minister of the crown. The fact remains- I can find no other way of putting it-that these tentacles of this international cartel dealing in narcotics extended into the very offices of two ministers of the federal government. This is what surprises me, that it could get this close.
I find it difficult to believe that Lord appreciated to the full extent the consequences of what he was doing. I knew Mr. Lord personally, and my own knowledge of him personally, backed up by subsequent information I was able to obtain, leads me to the belief he did what he did in an innocent way. I do not say it was unintentional because what he did, in my view-and here the minister may differ with me-was an offence under the Criminal Code, section 119 which makes it an offence to in any way

Supply-Justice
pervert the course of justice. I will be reading that section into the record in a moment or two.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police took statements from Mr. Lord. They took a statement from his new executive assistant, Mr. Letendre. They took a statement from Mr. Denis. I must presume they took a statement from counsel who was acting for the United States government, and they took other statements as the minister knows. They made other investigations, the details of which are contained in the report to which the minister has already referred. When these circumstances were brought to the minister-


Guy Favreau: Would the hon. member
yield to a question in view of the seriousness of the matter? I take it that the hon. member for Yukon is not suggesting or implying that at the time Mr. Lord made the phone call to counsel acting on behalf of the United States government, he made any offer of material benefit to counsel?


Erik Nielsen: That is quite accurate according to the best of my information, that there was no offer of valuable consideration by Mr. Lord. However, again to the best of my information, he did say that, you know, government work could all of a sudden stop coming your way unless something were done to see that you did not oppose the bail application. This is my information. I believe the minister will find that is in the police report.
It was at this time, much to the credit of the minister, that he did act, and Denis and Lord are no longer working for the ministers concerned. Denis was fired and Lord is now in Oxford, England, studying at Oxford University. I understand that, from time to time, he is on Mr. Chevrier's staff over there. This may or may not be true. In any event he is furthering his studies.


An hon. Member:: It is not true.


Erik Nielsen: I did not hear the hon. member's interjection. Perhaps he treats this lightly, but I do not and I am sure none of the other members do, either.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. gentleman again yield to a question? In view of the date of the departure of Mr. Lord for Oxford, will the hon. member agree, in order that the record be completed, that more than ten months and approximately a year before he left his duties he had already advised Mr. Chevrier, and subsequently myself at the beginning of my tenure of office, that at the end

of September, 1964, he would be leaving for Oxford?


Erik Nielsen: I have had discussions with Mr. Lord, and of course with others, and I quite agree with the minister, that Mr. Lord had long had the intention; whether it was a year before these circumstances or more, I could not say. However, the relevant facts remains that Mr. Lord did what he did, and Mr. Lord is no longer working for the minister. I do not mean to imply by that, although the minister may wish to enlighten us on this, that Mr. Lord was fired. I do say Mr. Denis was fired. I want to be as accurate as possible in these circumstances.
Let us, for a moment, examine what the responsibilities of an executive assistant are and examine the provisions of the Criminal Code. Here is where I feel the minister comes in for severe criticism. The suggestion may be advanced that he did not act because of the proximity of these individuals to the political offices which are held by the two ministers concerned, one being himself. The minister will no doubt explain fully once I am through. The offence of obstructing under the Criminal Code of Canada is set forth in section 119(1) and I am reading from Tremeear's code, sixth edition, which was put on the market within the last 12 months or so:
Everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
This is a rather broad section, and the minister is aware of the application of it. I suggest to him that section is applicable certainly to Mr. Denis who made the cash offer to counsel and, in all likelihood, to Mr. Lord, who made representations with respect to the cutting off of government work unless the bail application was not opposed.
The next relevant section is section 100(l)(b) of the Criminal Code which reads as follows:
Everyone who gives or offers corruptly to a person who holds a judicial office...any money, valuable consideration, office, place of employment in respect of anything done or omitted to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.
This section may well be applicable in the case of Mr. Denis, although a very nice question arises as to whether or not counsel in this particular instance was an official within the meaning of that section, but this is a matter upon which I am sure the law officers of the crown could advise the Minister of

Justice. I have high regard for the legal knowledge of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., but that is not what he is there for -to judge whether or not evidence falls within the particular provisions of the Criminal Code.
The next relevant section concerns extortion and is section 291(1):
Every one who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to extort or gain anything, by threats,-
And I draw those words to the minister's attention:
-by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or to cause anything to be done, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.
What is a judicial proceeding? A judicial proceeding is defined by section 99(c)(i) and (iii) of the Criminal Code. It means a proceeding:
(i) in or under the authority of a court of justice or before a grand jury.
And:
(iii) before a court, judge, justice, magistrate or coroner.
Certainly the bail application was a judicial proceeding within the meaning of the Criminal Code.
Section 99(d)(i) defines "office" as follows:
"office" includes (i) an office or appointment under the government-
Section 99(b)(1) sets forth that "government" means:
-the government of Canada.
Here the nice distinction arises as to whether or not counsel acting for the U.S. government held an office within the meaning of this definition. He was not acting wholly for the Canadian government. His client, in essence, is the U.S. government, but nonetheless the minister is fully aware how these appointments come about. When the United States requires counsel to conduct Canadian proceedings for it there is no doubt in my mind that the channel of communication is through his office, and certain recommendations are made-selections are made-


Guy Favreau: The channel of communication is not through my office. There is just a watching brief, but counsel is retained directly by the United States government.


Erik Nielsen: I was not suggesting the channel went through the minister's office, because I presume there are certain channels through
Supply-Justice
external affairs which are followed in formal matters. However, having acted as counsel for the crown under both Liberal and Conservative governments-I dare say I will never act under a Liberal government again-but having acted as crown counsel for many years under both governments I know how these recommendations come about; and the minister is fully aware of that, as well as the Minister of Transport, who once aspired to be a magistrate, I believe, in the studies of law in Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not aware of this and I think these revelations the hon. gentleman hinted at would be very edifying to some of the laymen in the committee.


Erik Nielsen: I know the Minister of Transport is extremely touchy on this. It is a very delicate matter, as the Minister of Justice has said, and I am being very careful as to how I refer to it. It is a matter which I feel should long ago have been exposed by the government, and I feel that it is because of the political embarrassment involved that it has not been revealed before this. But of far more serious connotation is the fact that a prosecution has not yet been commenced, an information has not yet been laid against Mr. Denis who made the bribe offer.
I can understand the feelings of the Minister of Justice with respect to Mr. Lord. I can even appreciate them; but I certainly cannot, as a member of the bar, appreciate his not ensuring that an information was laid in the case of Mr. Denis, because here you have a system of justice which has a certain structural procedure erected within the Department of Justice for the purpose of considering, independently of the politicians or the R.C.M.P., the adequacies or inadequacies of evidence. But the Minister of Justice has disclosed to us that he has not referred this matter to the criminal law section of his department for their assessment, a criminal law section which was established and grew up over many years with excellent personnel, excellent professional people in it. Here is a matter which should have been referred to them and it has not been.
In effect what the minister has told us today is that in concert with the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.-I did not include him, the minister did-he made a judicial decision. I do not think the minister will quarrel with the circumstances regarding Mr. Denis' activities as I have laid them out, and surely these circumstances constitute what we know in law as a prima facie case, a case at first

Supply-Justice
blush that an offence has been committed, and it is not upon the minister and the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. judicially to weigh those circumstances and come to any conclusions whatsoever. That is the function of the courts of this country. That is my understanding of what judges and juries are for.


Guy Favreau: Will the hon. member yield to a question? Does the hon. gentleman agree that in relation to the laying of charges there is vested in whomever intends to lay a serious charge a sense of necessary responsibility which ought to prompt him to act in a way where he is showing that in the laying of the charge he is taking into account all norms, that of Christian charity, that of justice, and is doing away with any sort of smear by innuendo by the official fact of laying the charge?


Erik Nielsen: I commenced by saying it was not my intention to smear anybody or arouse any innuendo.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: If any hon. gentleman wishes to accuse me of smear tactics in the light of the facts I have disclosed this afternoon, and the non-denial by the minister as to the truth of those facts, let him rise. This is a matter which I feel as an opposition member I have a responsibility to expose, not for any ill-considered motive or reason but by reason of the fact that we have had a bribe offer made to a counsel of high integrity, acting for a friendly government, in a case which involves the international traffic in narcotics, and these are circumstances which disclose that the power of these criminals extends to the very offices of crown officials.
This is the extent of the message that I am trying to get across to committee members, and I say that it is an indictment of the actions of the minister that he has not referred this matter to the proper law officers of the crown, to whom it should have been referred, to obtain their opinion. It is an indictment of the minister to have acted with the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. in a judicial capacity, which is not his function. This is what we have courts for, and I say that it is an indictment of the activity of the minister in making the decision that he did, shelving the matter. I would like to hear the minister inform this committee when he replies-as he has already told us he has not referred the matter to the law officers of the crown in the criminal law section-about that matter and explain it. He was an associate minister of

the department and I acted as crown counsel under a previous Liberal government-as a matter of fact, I only acted as crown counsel under a Liberal government-and he knows the procedure, as I do.


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


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we let the hon. gentleman continue-on his own responsibility, of course, not ours. But he asked me a question and I think I should answer it at the moment. First I must say that the file about which the hon. member for Yukon is speaking and to which he refers is a live file with the R.C.M.P.; the matter has not been closed. Any further information-as I have said in answer to a question of the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam -is being put on file. All I said was this: There are hundreds of files which presently have not been referred to the attention of the law officers of the Department of Justice by the police, about which there might have been a lapse in investigation because the police are not yet satisfied that there is a case to send for opinion to the Department of Justice. The reason I personally have decided that until further evidence were obtained it would not be fair to lay a charge is only because the laying of charges in a case where one knows there is no chance of judicial success is an act of smear, a lack of charity and an injustice. The laying of a charge must be based on the knowledge that there is sufficient evidence to go to trial.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: A prima facie case.


Guy Favreau: The laying of a charge must also be conditioned by the certainty that all possible evidence has been gathered, and also by the certainty that there is no occasion to obtain more evidence. None of these circumstances exist in the present case. My responsibility, as far as I am concerned, is this.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The theory is fine, but that is not how it works in practice.


Guy Favreau: If in the present case I had personally ordered the laying of a charge, I would have betrayed my conscience and acted against the principle that would govern an honest citizen, because I might have brought about the condemnation without trial-and this is what has been done this afternoon-of two young men whose future ought not to be placed in jeopardy except

with the certainty that the course of justice may be followed and pursued to a successful end. That is the only reason why, on the present state of the evidence, no charges have been laid.
The hon. gentleman for Yukon may feel that for any purposes whatsoever he owes it to this house to disclose the facts; but I would double dare him to tell this house that he has facts which he knows would bring a conviction against any person on the basis of the information obtained by the R.C.M.P. The file is open. I think the best way to assess the minister's conduct on this occasion is to notice my reaction to the suggestion made this afternoon by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, namely that the matter be referred to a high court judge to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence. If I had something to hide, I would not have acceded readily to that suggestion. The reason I did is that I knew that the hon. gentleman was preparing to unveil part of what is in the confidential file, taking the responsibility to make public knowledge matters, without proof, on certain references which may not for the moment be sufficient ground for instituting legal proceedings. If the matter could be heard in camera, then no reputation could be hurt or smeared unjustly, except for due cause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the minister's concept of what his responsibilities are is absolutely astounding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: I find it unbelievable that he would suggest that we discard our whole system of preliminary inquiries, which is a function of courts in order to establish whether or not there is a prima facie case, in preference to an in camera hearing. What star chamber justice is that? There is no justification whatsoever for an in camera inquiry or any public inquiry. What I have disclosed here-and the minister has not said that the circumstances I have placed before the committee are not accurate-indicates that the matter should be at least sent to the criminal law section of his department for their advice, certainly in preference to his decision and that of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., as to whether or not sufficient evidence exists upon which to base an information. I feel that if such an offence had been made by anyone other than Mr. Denis, charges would have been laid so fast it would have made his head swim.
Supply-Justice


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Peters:: Where is Denis now?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Denis is in Montreal practising law, I am informed. Incidentally, he used to be a member of the Geoffrion firm in Montreal, which I believe was Mr. Che-vrier's firm.


Guy Favreau: What a way to put facts before the committee. For the information of the committee, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Denis is not practising law with Mr. Geoffrion-


Erik Nielsen: I did not say he was.


Guy Favreau: -who is Mr. Chevrier's partner; he is practising law with another very reputable firm, which is that of Blais and Associates.


Erik Nielsen: I did not say he was practising law with Geoffrion; I said he used to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Take out your ear plugs.


Erik Nielsen: I hope hon. members opposite will listen very carefully to what I am saying. If they read my remarks when they appear in Hansard tomorrow, they will find that is precisely what I said at the outset. I was being very careful in what I said. The preliminary inquiry, as the minister knows, decides whether or not sufficient evidence exists upon which to send an accused person for trial. As I say, the minister knows that.
He also knows that his criminal law section exists for the specific purpose of deciding whether or not, in their impartial view, there is sufficient evidence to send a matter on. That is one of the functions of the criminal law section, and they have many. Indeed, if at the detachment level the police themselves feel sufficient evidence exists, information can be laid on further reference to higher authority.
However, here is a matter which was referred to high authority and investigated. It concerned an offence in Montreal which should have been dealt with as any other case would have been dealt with by the judicial officials of this country. The minister said he would not personally order the laying of a charge by reason of the fact that he might be smearing somebody, or that he might be exercising his charitable inclinations toward anyone who deserved them. But I suggest that that is not his function. He neither orders the laying of a charge in a situation like this nor, conversely, does he suppress the laying of a charge.

Supply-Justice


Guy Favreau: Is the theory of the hon. member for Yukon that any complaint made to the police should automatically be followed by a charge in the courts? Does he not agree that the most vicious practice in the prosecution of the criminal law is to use the system of a criminal hearing when you know that the man will not be sent to trial but that his name will be placed before the public?


Erik Nielsen: Now the minister is saying, as I understand him, that he is not sending the matter on for a preliminary hearing before trial because he feels there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the matter going further to trial. That is what I have been suggesting to the minister is wrong about his conduct. It does not lie within his sphere of responsibility, indeed it is not his function at all, to consider this matter in a judicial way. That is precisely what he did and that is precisely what he should not have done. What he should have done was to refer the matter to the criminal law section and get their opinion.
Why was it not referred to the criminal law section? A colleague on my left has just pointed out that the minister went further than merely not ordering that informations be laid for the purpose of taking the matter before a preliminary inquiry. The minister went so far as to say that he himself had to be convinced that the offender was guilty before any such action was taken.


Guy Favreau: I said when there was a chance of successful prosecution, and you know it.


Erik Nielsen: That is precisely my point. The minister's function is not to decide innocence or guilt. It is not his function to decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant sending a matter to preliminary inquiry or trial. Nor is it the function of the commissioner of the K.C.M.P. to act in such fashion. This is what the minister did which I feel is wrong. He has a criminal law section set up for this specific purpose, a criminal law section which was avoided. Why?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will allow me to say so, what I have done here is the only possible defence of the Conservative party for not having laid charges against Banks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: For six years.


Erik Nielsen: The minister knows-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
I want to point out that other hon. members would like to direct questions to the Minister of Justice from time to'time. For the present, the same hon. member always seems to have the floor, and, as he stated a short while ago that his time had expired, we should also like to ask the minister a few questions.


Lucien Lamoureux: The understanding was that the hon. member's time had elapsed but with the unanimous agreement of the committee he was allowed to continue his remarks beyond the time allocated by the rules.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I do notice the hour and I will take my seat in a moment or two, but I have one or two more things which should be said. I will say them very quickly so that other members may put their questions to the minister.
The minister did say-the expression I have is "I double dare you to produce facts which would justify me in recommending that information be laid", or words to that effect. That is not my function. The minister knows as well as I do what are facts. He has seen the report. It is his responsibility to act on the facts that that report discloses. That is what I conceive to be his responsibility and I am sure all committee members feel the same way. The minister should have referred the matter to his criminal law section and he should have obtained their advice. Had he done so I feel he would have been advised that there was sufficient evidence to warrant proceeding at least to the stage of a preliminary inquiry. Then the minister in his portfolio as Minister of Justice, knowing that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's executive assistant was involved, should have been even more careful to see that he personally did not intervene in this matter. He should have been ultra careful and seen to it that the matter was referred to the law officers for an independent appraisal at the official level rather than at the political level.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I intend to take further part in this debate after I have heard the minister's reply, because I have not disclosed by any means all of the facts which are in my possession.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More smears.


Erik Nielsen: If the Minister of Transport feels that I have smeared anybody in any

Supply-Justice
way let him rise and refute the circum-


An hon. Member:: He already has that constances I have placed before this committee, sent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, a challenge has been offered to me and I think I can say that I have never at any time in this house or anywhere else made general allegations that people have committed offences when those people had not previously been convicted in the courts. I say that because I have some respect for justice. And I never intend to.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the Fort Garry hotel?


Erik Nielsen: There is a statement, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
We have just seen the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) sit down of his own accord, saying to the Minister of Transport that if he had anything to say, he was to stand up and say it. I think that by so doing the hon. member for Yukon has finished his speech.
Now, others might doubtless raise questions on the same subject. That is what I am inquiring about at the present time. I have only three short questions to put to the Minister of Justice in this connection; it will not take more than three minutes.


Lucien Lamoureux: For the sake of order in our proceedings in committee, what we normally do is this. After a statement from the minister responsible for the estimates which are before the committee we hear a statement from representatives from different parties in opposition. I gather that although the hon. member for Yukon wishes to take part in the debate again he has concluded his preliminary statement. Perhaps we could now pass on to a representative of the following parties, and eventually we will reach the hon. member for Lapointe.


Erik Nielsen: I just have one sentence, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Yukon had not yielded his position and, therefore, still has the floor. If he has a point to make he has the right to make it now, provided he has the unanimous consent of the committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: He did have the consent but it was withdrawn, so apparently he no longer has it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask three questions.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was trying to ask several questions.


Erik Nielsen: I should just like to make one remark, if the hon. member will permit me to do so. The last remarks of the Minister of Transport, who left the committee with an innuendo or a smear, as far as I was concerned, was a remark which could only come from a master of the smear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Surely if the word "lie" is unparliamentary, the word "smear" is also unparliamentary.


An hon. Member:: You used it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not think of wasting the time of the committee by asking the hon. member to withdraw a remark about a subject on which there is no greater expert in the house.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, this matter which has arisen out of questions which were asked by the hon. member for Yukon and myself during orders of the day has taken this committee away from the general discussion now before it. I do not want to do that, as I know there are other members who wish to pose other questions. Therefore, by intervention only, I should like to ask the minister some questions about this particular case rather than about the general functions of the department.
I must say to the minister that I am far from reassured by the statements and answers he has given today. It is now quite apparent that the basic situation, as I understood it when I asked the minister a question earlier, has been completely substantiated, namely that an individual in Montreal, acting for the government of the United States in seeking to extradite an individual to the United States in connection with narcotics infringements, has claimed to have been approached by persons very close to cabinet ministers with (a) some attempt at bribery

Supply-Justice
and (b) some attempt at intimidation. It seems to be clear that these allegations have been made and that the minister has asked the R.C.M.P. to investigate them.


Guy Favreau: On the same day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to be clear that the Minister of Justice now has a report before him but that he has decided not to act upon this report. Those appear to be the facts. I should like the minister to tell us, if he will, since this matter came to his attention in August, when the investigation was ordered and, second, when he received a report from the R.C.M.P. I want to know also whether in that report there is an indication that the person who alleged that an attempt had been made either to bribe or intimidate him, or both, was interrogated and whether his evidence was examined closely. Were the two individuals, who are alleged to have committed these offences, interrogated, and have they involved anyone else higher up in the government?
Quite frankly I can assure the minister that I am not trying to fish in dirty waters, but I am sure the minister must realize that unless he can convince the public that this matter has been investigated frankly and fully, a suspicion will remain that these two men have not been prosecuted because of the fact they might have involved other individuals.
After I get the date the minister received the report, I should like to know what action was taken following its receipt. I took it for granted, when the minister said a short time ago that he and the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. had come to the conclusion that there was not sufficient grounds for successful prosecution, that this meant he had referred the matter to the criminal branch of the Department of Justice in order to ascertain whether there was a prima facie case so that a charge might be laid. I gathered from the minister's silence following the questions posed by the hon. member for the Yukon that this matter was not referred to the criminal branch of the Department of Justice, and I should like to know why it was not so referred.
The minister is now willing to instigate a judicial inquiry but I am curious as to why this matter was not the subject of a judicial inquiry, and why the minister and the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. decided, having received the report, that in their opinions there was not sufficient ground for laying the charge? The minister must have known that in making that decision, involving people very close to the government who may

have implicated individuals even closer to the government, he was dealing with something which would be open to suspicion. I think the minister should have taken steps immediately to remove this decision from himself, by placing it in the hands of either the law officers of the crown, in the criminal investigation branch of his department, in the hands of a judge of the supreme court, or in the hands of a judge of another high court, in order that they might decide whether or not there were adequate grounds for laying a charge, even though the minister had decided no such grounds existed. I am sure the minister will acknowledge that there might be a suspicion in the minds of some people that his decision was prejudiced or biased because of the fact the individuals involved, it has been alleged, were employed in his own office or the office of one of his cabinet colleagues. Therefore I should like to know the reason for the delay following the receipt of the report; why the report was not sent to the law officials of the department, and why no action was taken with reference to a judicial inquiry.
It certainly is better to receive this information now than not at all, but I am sure the minister must realize that we feel indignant as members of parliament, who have no facilities for investigating this sort of thing, had to dig the facts out at a time when the minister, in the interests of justice and of keeping the good name of the Department of Justice, could very well have acted on his own initiative so that this matter would have been dealt with by individuals outside the Department of Justice, thus avoiding the possibility of suspicion in anyone's mind that the whole situation has been swept under the rug. That certainly is the impression one gets on an initial investigation of the facts we have at our disposal.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think the questions raised by the hon. member are fair questions, in that they concern directly the conduct of the minister, but do not lead to the unfair condemnation, without proof, of people who are not before the courts. I think I should suggest that the way in which this whole thing is being conducted ought to be looked into or judged in the light of the manner in which it began. I think this is the best way to draw conclusions and assess the conduct of the minister in this respect.
I must say that when the matter was referred to me very confidentially by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. around the 15th of August-it was the 14th of August-one of

the persons involved was in Ottawa and my special assistant, Mr. Lord, was, I thought, in Quebec city. The commissioner is here so I can speak freely. After the commissioner had explained to me the seriousness of the allegation made it did not take two minutes for me to tell him that he should have the people involved interviewed that day, the one in Quebec and the other one in Ottawa. I told him he should have two of his men briefed accordingly so there would be no occasion for anybody to get in touch with anybody else. Those were my instructions. So the answer to the question, when did the minister order an inquiry or investigation after having learned about the matter, is that it was not only on the same day but in the course of the same conference with the commissioner.
Interim reports were received by the commissioner and they were discussed by me. When I say "interim reports" I mean transcripts of interviews which had been had, and a full report was made to me and discussed with the commissioner on September 18 of this year. I do not want to mislead the house and give the impression that the commissioner has made a decision. It was not up to the commissioner to decide. We discussed his views on the matter from the standpoint of police investigation and fact finding as a result of the investigation. With regard to any decision respecting the lodging of a complaint in the light of the report and that conversation, I, of course, must take responsibility because under the statute the legal adviser to the crown is the Minister of Justice, and not the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. for whose judgment, however, I have the greatest respect.
With regard to the third question, was anybody higher up in the government involved in the declaration made to the police either by the counsel who made the complaint or the person directly involved in the allegation of bribery, I must say that the allegation was violently denied by Mr. Denis, and nobody else in the government was involved by him in so far as the allegation of bribery or attempted bribery was concerned.


An hon. Member:: Were members of parliament involved?


Guy Favreau: I must say immediately that according to the evidence Mr. Lord's telephone call, of which I became aware, of course, only after the commissioner had reported the facts to me, was not at all concerned-this was agreed to by the hon. member for Yukon a few minutes ago-with any
Supply-Justice
financial benefit that might have been promised to the counsel who had made the charge.
I must say that Mr. Denis has been separated or has obtained his separation from the government since and he has now obtained employment with a very reputable law firm in Montreal. I do not know whether he is a partner. Mr. Lord left, and I want to put the record clear in this respect, not as the result of any disagreement between him and me, not as the result of any lack, directly or indirectly, of confidence on my part in him. He left the department at the very time he was supposed to leave as the result of a decision which had been taken quite a long time before.
He had in fact advised Mr. Chevrier ten months or a year before I took office that he would not be with him for more than a year because he was planning to go to Oxford. This was one of the first things he advised me of when I took office as minister. At a certain time around the month of May I think it was not definite whether the conditions of access to the particular college at Oxford where he wanted to study would be obtained and he even asked me to try to make alternative representations to an American university in case he could not succeed in getting into Oxford.
That was around the month of May and early in the month of June, while his admission to Oxford had not yet been confirmed, I suggested to him the particular subject in which he would be tutored at Oxford. This is a subject with regard to which there are not many works. It is what is known in England as public corporations and in Canada as crown corporations, and this is the subject on which he is specifically working. Since that time no additional evidence has come to my knowledge or has been referred to me by the R.C.M.P. which would justify laying an information.
I must say frankly, candidly and earnestly that it had not come to my mind to launch a judicial inquiry as suggested. I have said that as far as I am concerned I would be very agreeable to one being held. Something like that will have to be done now in any event, if only to protect the reputations of those who may be involved and who have been mentioned today. I never really thought that the time had come to refer the matter to the law officers of the crown. I will do that now, of course, although I do not believe that there is really the information to do so. I say that because it must not be forgotten that

Supply-Justice
any opinions given by the officers of the crown are given under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, who may or may not accept the opinions or may give a different opinion.
It may be that certain members will consider that I laid myself open, in acting as earnestly and as naively as I did, to certain possible criticism. I am ready to agree with this. However, I will never accept any insinuation that I have ever attempted to hide the truth to protect somebody from justice. As I said, I might have been acting naively, and the only reason I would not have acted personally was that I felt, in the light of the circumstances, it would have been unfair to lay an information against somebody when no conviction could be obtained on the evidence collected at the present stage. Those are the facts. I am telling them to the house very frankly.
It is quite true, now that the names have come out in the open and they have come out from the mouth of one person and not from the mouth of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, in all fairness to those concerned I have to consider making a decision which will bring this matter to a head in every respect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have two brief questions. The first is, when did Mr. Denis leave the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Was it after August 14?


Guy Favreau: He left on or about October 1, I believe. I would much prefer the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would answer that himself. However, it was after the report made by the commissioner; there is no doubt about that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister could answer the other part of my question I would be interested in knowing if he left at the request of the minister. However, only the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration can answer that.
The Minister of Justice said there was no statement made by either of the persons who were under suspicion involving any other person or persons higher up.


Erik Nielsen: In the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the government, yes.


William Arnold Peters: Who was going to pay the
$20,000?


Guy Favreau: I wonder what my hon. friend meant by "higher up in the government"?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I had not finished my question. The minister stated there was no statement by either of these gentlemen, the two executive assistants, involving any person higher up. I wonder if the minister would tell the committee, was there anything in the statement of the counsel who was alleging attempted bribery and intimidation which involved any person other than the two persons whose names have already been mentioned?


Guy Favreau: I shall attempt to refresh my memory by asking the commissioner. The commissioner tells me he will have to check on that, and at the resumption of the sitting at eight o'clock I undertake to answer this. My recollection is not, but I would not care to make that as a firm statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask the minister to check it very carefully. I have reason to believe that in the allegations there are other persons, or at least one other person, named.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, there is in this respect something which strikes me. The case is still open, and, as long as the case is not closed, additional evidence may be brought up in such a matter. It is quite a point that the case should still be open.
Before I put my questions, I would like to make one or two remarks. First of all, the minister seemed to indicate a short while ago that, in his view, there was as yet no reason to lay information against certain individuals because he himself, or the R.C.M.P., were entertaining sufficient doubts. I do not believe that it is up to the minister, or the R.C.M.P., to decide whether there should-


Guy Favreau: This is to clarify the situation. It is possible that I did talk in such a way that the hon. member for Lapointe did not understand me. I said earlier that it was obvious that the function of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. was not to make a decision but rather that he had the right to express his views and that the responsibility of making a decision would rest on me.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on the other hand there is just the same another principle in law according to which if a man is found not guilty of a criminal charge, he cannot be tried a second time for the same offence. That right gave the minister justification for not taking proceedings when not enough evidence has been collected and for

waiting until all evidence is available before making charges.
Now, here is the question which I should like to ask the minister. Is there in this file a prima facie evidence to refer the whole thing to a preliminary investigation or, if not, is the R.C.M.P. still conducting an investigation to complete its file and, in the alternative, once the investigation is completed, will the minister send the matter to a preliminary investigation if he entertains the slightest doubt because a preliminary investigation is not so serious since under our legal system, until proven guilty you are innocent.
Here is my fourth and last question to the minister: Now that this matter is in the open, does the minister not think that it would be in the interests of the persons involved that a preliminary investigation be carried out?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I feel that I have pretty well answered the last question of the hon. member for Lapointe when I said that now that the names are public knowledge the lesser evil must be sought, and I shall make a decision in that regard.


Gilles Grégoire: I asked the question precisely because the minister has answered that now that everything is public knowledge he will make a decision. On the other hand, he has not told us in which sense. Might it not be preferable for the people concerned to pursue the inquiry?


Guy Favreau: That is precisely what is intended. In all fairness, since the case is still open, I feel that I must make my instructions very clear once more and instruct the R.C.M.P. to continue its investigation in a positive fashion, for the file was never closed by the R.C.M.P.
The R.C.M.P. has never decided that it would accept no further information or that it would refuse to carry on with its investigation if it got additional leads.
The case being open, as the hon. member for Lapointe pointed out, the presentation of new evidence will obviously be the object of a more detailed investigation.
What seems clear, however, is that I will have to instruct the R.C.M.P. to complete the investigation within a given time for the benefit of both the legal advisers of the Department of Justice and the judge who will have to be appointed, if we decide to appoint one.
We will have to prepare a final report and I agree with the hon. member for Lapointe
Supply-Justice
that the setting of a maximum period of time for the presentation of such a report involves the risk of taking legal action too soon.
In view of the age of the people concerned or rather of the one person involved-I still maintain that there is only one-I feel it would have been dishonest for me to order his prosecution because of his family and other responsibilities.
Naturally, it would have been easy for me to wash my hands of the whole thing as Pilate did, but I consider that I have to take my responsibilities and go further. I am confident that I acted fairly in the circumstances.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Would the minister
answer the key question which has not yet been answered. Did he refer the R.C.M.P. report made about September 18 to the criminal law section of his department or to any other officials? Does he not think these officials are motivated by the same high ideals for the protection of the innocent that he tells us motivates him? Did these people know, or was this decision taken by himself alone?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I do not know why the hon. member is asking that question again. I answered it very frankly and honestly when it was posed by the hon. member for Yukon. I said it has not been referred to the law officers of my department, and the reason it has not is simply because I do not feel in the present state of the record and file there is sufficient evidence or justification for doing so.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Well, it is tragic.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I would be in order in not following up the discussion which has been proceeding for the past two hours. As a layman I know there is nothing I can add to the opinion of the eminent member of the bar from the Yukon and to the opinion of the eminent member of the bar who is Minister of Justice, and so far as I am concerned anything I might say in that respect would only compound confusion.
I should like to revert to the first half of the speech made by the Minister of Justice, dealing with the general question of penology. First may I say I am somewhat disappointed, as a matter of fact very disappointed, with the presentation made by the minister on this important matter. Basically I am disappointed because it is the same record I

Supply-Justice
have heard played by ministers of justice for 11 years-an expression of platitudes, of generalities and good intentions, and I feel we are entitled to receive more from the minister than the announcement of the appointment of two committees, one outside the house and one composed of members of the house. That is only putting off for too long action which can be taken now.
I do not intend to speak on the matter of the two committees, but I do want to say that as a result of my many years' interest in penology and of my contacts with the officials of the department, especially those dealing with the penitentiaries system, I am convinced that if the minister and the government really wanted to know what should be done all they have to do is ask their top officials.
From my knowledge of these men I am absolutely convinced that if the minister were to ask, let us say, the commissioner of penitentiaries and the chairman of the parole board, what should be done in the interests of modern penology, inside 48 hours they would have the answers on his desk. They know what should be done and there is only one thing holding them back from doing it, namely that they have not got the money.
If the minister was really sincere in all those wonderful speeches he made during the last six weeks across the length and breadth of Canada I suggest he ask for recommendations from these two men within the next 48 hours, and then speak to the Minister of Finance about getting the money that will be needed.
Before going on to explain some of my views, which basically I feel are those in the minds of the departmental officials, I would like to say I was bitterly disappointed that the minister was not able to take the opportunity today to announce salary increases for the employees in the penitentiaries system. The salaries which are paid to them are an absolute disgrace in view of the responsibilities of their positions, in view of what they have to know, in view of the type of men they have to handle and in view of the fact that their very lives are continually endangered every hour and every minute of their occupation.
During the past few weeks I had an opportunity to go into this matter in some detail. The officials working in the penitentiaries start at the rate of $302 a month and, after reaching their highest classification, they still receive $75 a month less than first class constables who pound a beat in our major

cities. I say that is disgraceful. I also say that these men cannot live on what we pay them, as evidenced by the fact that they have to go moonlighting.
Some time ago I asked one of the branches of the civil service association to make a study of all the employees in one penitentiary, and I would like to read the information I received because I think it will startle members of the committee. However, since it is almost six o'clock may I call it six o'clock and I shall continue after the recess.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is my duty pursuant under provisional standing order 39A to inform the members of the committee that the questions to be raised this evening at 10 p.m. are as follows: The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), House of Commons, completion of redistribution before election; the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquar-rie); transport, P.E.I. causeway, inquiry as to construction start.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, at the time of the dinner recess I was pointing out the disgraceful situation with regard to the ridiculously low wages which are paid to the guards in our penitentiaries. I stated that they could not possibly maintain themselves and their families at any decent standard of living, with the result that there had to be a great deal of moonlighting or their wives working. In order to prove this-because it was my suspicion and contention that this was correct-I asked the New Westminster justice group of the civil service association of Canada if they would make a survey at the B.C. penitentiary for me. I would like to read the result of that survey. I have here a letter under date August 20 addressed to myself. It says:
Dear Mr. Winch:
With reference to your question during a recent meeting with members of our executive committee concerning additional income required by penitentiary officers in order to obtain a sufficient standard of living, I have been instructed to advise:
That 187 members of the staff of B.C. penitentiary have been personally contacted. The results are that 143 or 76 per cent of the members find it necessary to either moonlight, have their wives

go out to work, or take In boarders or foster children in order to have an adequate standard of living.
Most of the remaining officers on the staff, who do not have any income other than their salaries, have stated that they are in desperate financial straits.
That is signed by Mr. H. W. Darby, the secretary of this group. I believe that should be startling information to hon. members and to the government, especially when we realize that the guards in the penitentiaries spend their eight hours of work in penitentaries and are dealing with inmates of penitentiaries who are there because they have broken the laws of Canada and have been sentenced to two years imprisonment or more. Of all those in the penitentiaries at the present time, 83 per cent are recidivists; that means that 83 out of every 100 in the penitentiaries today have broken the law before and have gone to jail before. The guards have to deal with them. There is great mental pressure on the guards and there is also risk to life and limb; they can never tell when their lives are in danger.
In very recent years three guards have been killed on the job. They receive only $302 a month when they start, and when they become first class guards they still receive $75 less than a first class constable who pounds the sidewalks of our city. Moreover, a minority of these inmates who are really dangerous have only one idea; they hate society; they hate the representatives of society; they want to escape. They are very ingenious. They manufacture weapons which are absolutely startling-for use against the guards of course; because why else are they there? It is easy enough for me to say they manufacture these weapons, but that does not carry very much impact. Therefore I made a request for permission to bring to the House of Commons some of the weapons that are found when the guards frisk the inmates and examine the cells. I know that to bring dangerous weapons into the House of Commons it is necessary to receive the consent of the Speaker, so I obtained that some weeks ago. I also know that one must file these things with the Clerk of the House. I intend to do that, because I want to drive home the point that the guards must have an increase in salary. These I now have before me are just a few samples of weapons found as a result of frisks in the B.C. penitentiary. I think they will amaze the members of this house.


An hon. Member:: Turn them around.
Supply-Justice


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member knows that it is not according to the customs of the house to use exhibits in the course of debate, either with the Speaker in the chair, or in committee.


Harold Edward Winch: I thought I had made it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I understood that. That is the reason why several weeks ago I went to the Speaker and received permission to do this, on condition that I filed them with the Clerk of the House, which I intend to do.
I think I have completely followed the regulations of parliament. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that this stiletto which I hold in my hand, is of the type that was held at a guard's throat for 18 hours in the B.C. penitentiary.
Then, if this does not look like a real revolver, which I now hold in my hand I have never seen anything that looked more like a real revolver, for the use of somebody that was going to attempt an escape. It was made out of the holder of a spotlight. If a guard earning only $302 a month gets this rammed in his tummy, what do you think he is going to do? I am happy to bring these weapons here to show what the guards have to face. Their responsibilities are such that we as members of the House of Commons cannot allow the situation with regard to their salaries to continue any longer. That is why I express my disappointment that no mention was made of a substantial increase in the salaries of the guards or that something will be done in the immediate future, Now, sir, in conformity with what is required I will file with the Clerk of the House-


Stanley Howard Knowles: How old is the page boy?


Harold Edward Winch: -all these dangerous weapons.


Gilles Grégoire: You are putting dangerous weapons in the hands of a kid.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not consider you, sir, a juvenile delinquent; I think you can have them in your possession. In the opening of my remarks I said I thought that if questions were asked of the commissioner of penitentiaries and of the chairman of the parole board they could give immediate answers as to the action that should be taken in regard to general penology in Canada. I maintain that the only thing holding back progress in the realm of penology is not the lack of knowledge on the part of the officials in the penitentiary service but rather the lack of money being supplied by the government. If that money was forthcoming, they could immediately proceed into action without having

Supply-Justice
to wait perhaps two years for the report of a royal commission. I believe I can prove that. On January 1, 1959, we had the establishment of the parole board as we know it today. In five years and eight months of the federal parole board's operation, 11,614 inmates in various institutions have been let out on parole. Of these 11,614 inmates on parole, only 1,137, or 9.7 per cent, returned to jail. Of those who returned to jail 585 only returned because they broke the law again. The other 552 had their paroles rescinded because they broke the parole regulations under which they were released.
Of course, when you speak of parole you cover the question of lifers. It is most interesting to note that of those who were sentenced to life imprisonment or who were sentenced to death and had the death sentence commuted to life imprisonment, only 11 have had their paroles revoked or forfeited. There are at present 183 persons on parole who received a life sentence. To the best of my information not one of the lifers ever committed another offence; they merely broke the regulations of their parole. As I have mentioned, out of some 11,614 inmates released on parole in five years and eight months only 9.7 returned.
How many parole officers have we in the federal service? We have 28 parole officers in the federal service scattered among the ten field offices across Canada. The parole officers under the control of the federal parole board which gave authority to release over 11,000 men on parole are employed in ten field offices across Canada as follows: five in Vancouver, two in Edmonton, one in Prince Albert, two in Winnipeg, four in Kingston, three in Toronto, seven in Montreal, one in Quebec, two in Moncton and one in Halifax. I ask, Mr. Chairman, how are you going not only to make the parole system work but expand it? Do not forget that it costs around $2,800 a year to keep an inmate in a penitentiary, whereas a parole officer can handle between 34 and 50 men. The ideal number is 34 or 35 but he can handle up to 50. For the price of one parole officer you can handle 35 men; and on the basis of the record of the parole board since January 1, 1959 you can save about 90 per cent of them. Do we have to wait two years for the report of a royal commission to find out we need more parole officers and that the 28 in the ten field offices across the country are not enough? No. I know for a fact that if the minister would just ask for a report, if he has not already got it from the parole board, the parole board and the 
chairman can tell him immediately what to do.
There may be regulations governing parole which require to be amended; perhaps a change in the act itself is required. But something should be done because the government's policy in some regards is crazy. I have in mind a young man-a young scamp, that is what he is-who comes from a very good family in Vancouver. I know his parents well. He got into trouble, serious trouble, and landed more than once in jail. On the third occasion he broke down, became a mental case, and was transferred to the insane asylum. There they did a marvellous job and brought him back to a good approach, a good attitude and to good health. And what do we do with him? We put him back in the British Columbia penitentiary.
I saw this young man two months ago in the penitentiary looking forward to going out on what is known as the SNAP program which deals with narcotic offenders. May I say that I compliment the government for this new move and for the success of the first SNAP program experiment. But this man did not make it. One month ago that boy broke down and now he is back in the mental institution once more. I received a report a few days ago and the treatment he is receiving is bringing him back mentally. When Essondale says there is nothing more they can do, that he is fine, what will happen to him? Will he be sent back to the B.C. penitentiary? If this is the case, my guess is that he will break down again and perhaps he will never come out of the mental institution to which he will be once more committed.
These are things known to your officials, Mr. Minister. They are the sort of things which should be corrected now in order to save lives and the taxpayers' money. These are some of the matters we are asking you to think about and to do something about now, instead of waiting two years for a royal commission report. There are other things which can also be done. Speak to your commissioner of penitentiaries who has had years of experience. He knows the wardens and he knows the penitentiaries, and he knows the psychiatrists in those penitentiaries. Is the minister going to wait and perpetuate the situation presently existing, which is the most stupid and asinine policy I know of? Psychiatrists are employed on a part time basis. There are around 800 to 850 men in the B.C. penitentiary. There is a medium security prison at William Head and a minimum security prison at Agassiz. What can one psychi-

atrist employed half time do for 1,000 men? The majority of these men he is never able to see. Those he does see he sees for only a few minutes, and psychiatric treatment, Mr. Chairman, requires more than a few minutes.
I would ask the minister to talk to those psychiatrists, as we who are interested in this matter do. Talk to Dr. MacDonald in the British Columbia penitentiary. He told me three months ago that there were many sex offenders there requiring attention. There should be full time psychiatrists at that penitentiary, in which case 55 per cent of those in jail for sex offences would never come back again. He said they need three or four psychiatrists in every penitentiary and if that were the case over 55 per cent of the sex offenders and the mentally unbalanced would not be anti-social any more. But no, we would rather spend $2,800 a year to keep a prisoner in the penitentiary than give the parole board a few more parole officers or employ psychiatrists full time. Admittedly we might have to pay $25,000 or $30,000 a year for a psychiatrist, but if 55 per cent of the sex offenders did not come back to prison you would not only save lives but you would save the money of the taxpayers.
These things are known to the minister's officials; and I know they believe in what I am saying. Why did we only get generalities, platitudes and promises for the future from the minister when he spoke at the introduction of his estimates this afternoon? We are asking him for action now, not for some vision for the future. As 1 said this afternoon, I could have closed my eyes and thought to myself "My golly, that is the same speech I have been hearing now from ministers of justice for the 11 years I have been in this House of Commons, on the subject of penology". Now is the time for action, and we did hope we would get it from the present Minister of Justice.
I see my time is running on, Mr. Chairman, and very soon it will run out, so although this is a subject very dear to my heart I am not going to carry on, as I could, for hours, if I had the opportunity, to speak about narcotics and the need for forensic clinics. But I would mention what is said to me by every psychiatrist I have spoken to who is interested in penology, and that is that money and lives can be saved if there is segregation between the young and the old, the new offenders and the old offenders, the narcotics and the sex psychopaths.
I should like to conclude by using the minister's words. I have been interested in
Supply-Justice
all these wonderful speeches which the minister has been making over the past two months across the country. I am very grateful that he has been so kind as to send me a copy of these speeches. I have always wondered why it is that only in the last two months he has grasped the need to do something, the need for a new approach. I could ask him why it was he did not learn about that during the years he was a deputy minister and do something about it then. However, I always believe the best of people; 1 am not like some others in this House of Commons.
I should like to read from a speech made by the Minister of Justice on November 5, 1964 at Montreal to the Canadian club as follows:
If I were to reproach those who today condemn our prisons, I would tax them with restricting their censure to merely a small part of our correctional system. You, who in your various professions, form a virtual parliament of Canadian corrections, can measure this failing better than anyone; you know that at stake is the entire treatment of delinquents, their entire treatment right from the prevention of juvenile delinquency to after-care, not to mention sentencing, probation, imprisonment, rehabilitation and parole. For in spite of considerable recent progress, our correctional regime remains in many ways disorderly, reactionary and inhuman.
Those are the words of the minister on November 5, this year. He also said this:
But it must be observed that, in the long run, punishment promises society no real security. The only lasting way to prevent offenders from falling back into crime-unless we imprison them all for life-is to change their anti-social attitude.
Mr. Chairman, I conclude by drawing the minister's own words to his attention, particularly where he says that our correctional regime is disorderly, reactionary and inhuman, and that the object is directed toward rehabilitation and parole. In view of his remarks to the Canadian club at Montreal, I remind him that it is not enough to appoint a parliamentary committee to study the existing penitentiary situation. Nor is it enough to appoint a royal commission to study the situation and report two months, three months, six months or even three years from now. If he meant what he said, he has members on his staff with knowledge and experience in this field so that he can take some definitive steps to correct the existing situation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I suppose one should say the nice things at the beginning. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Justice confirm the plans to build a penitentiary at or near Drumheller, and that it is going to be built in 1965. Without being critical

Supply-Justice
I should like to state that it was my hope that this penitentiary would be proceeded with in 1964 as was promised. However, I do appreciate that the preparation of plans, tendering for contracts and so on take up a good deal of time.
Since I have been a member of this House of Commons I have enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Vancouver East speak about penitentiaries and correctional systems generally in this country. That hon. member has been recognized many times in the past as an expert in reform practices. I remind the minister again, as did the hon. member for Vancouver East, that there are a great number of infants confined to our penitentiaries which are supposed to be institutions of rehabilitation and correction. I should like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works the fact that this project is of tremendous importance and should be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
It is very pleasing to me today to have the opportunity of saying a few words in regard to a matter which has been in the forefront of public attention for some time. I was shocked and surprised to hear the minister's remarks in his reference to the Denis case. I think he should have kept the circumstances and treatment of this case in mind when considering the whole trend of Canadian justice and the rules of law as manifested by the Banks case. We are faced with the fact that an individual was able, by the posting of a few thousand dollars bail, to escape this country and avoid the penalties imposed by our courts. I appreciate that there were difficulties involved in this particular case, but as far as the average member of the public is concerned, it appears as though there has been some special application of the laws, for some unknown reason, in this respect.
The Minister of Justice will undoubtedly blame the inadequacies on the chief justice of Quebec, as far as the Banks case is concerned; but the chief justice of Quebec happens to be a friend of mine, and I am convinced that he acted in good faith but without, perhaps, definitive evidence. If that court had been presented with available and complete evidence as to the actions of Mr. Banks, Mr. Banks would never have been afforded the opportunity to avoid the inevitable judgment of the court.
When one analyses what has taken place he must come to the conclusion that Mr. Banks was treated liberally by the Liberal party. The situation was summed up very well by

the Toronto Daily Star when it reported that Mr. Pearson had admitted the possibility that the S.I.U. had provided some financial assistance to Liberal candidates in an election campaign. This fact has been the subject of cover-up within the past several weeks. I suggest if there was nothing to hide the Liberal government should have been quite honest and open in releasing the facts of the case. I am sure that a great many Canadians feel that Mr. Banks has had the sympathy of the Liberal party, and has been, through devious means, given the opportunity of avoiding Canadian justice. Perhaps this same attitude has been taken in respect to the Denis case, and the same freedom purchased by Banks was purchased in that respect.
There is a suspicion in the minds of the public that Mr. Banks purchased Liberal freedom as a result of the fact that certain individuals knew that they might be found out if Mr. Banks were given any reason to produce the evidence. That certainly has been the attitude of the Minister of Justice in answering questions posed by the hon. member for "Yukon in respect of the Denis case. Why did not the minister disclose the facts before the House of Commons? Why did he not say this afternoon, if there were some suspicious circumstances surrounding this situation, that the department was suspicious about the facts and intended to look into the situation? Why did the minister not give some indication, if there is suspicion, that he would look into the situation personally? I suggest that the good reputation of the Department of Justice, particularly its administrative side, is deserving of a complete exposition of the circumstances surrounding the Hal C. Banks matter. It is much better for us to remain on this side of the house than it is to be in a position of having ill-gained power as a result of suspicious dealings with individuals such as Mr. Banks.
The government in reference to this whole matter has failed to make any full disclosure. We can only feel, as has been expressed by the hon. member for Yukon, that certain circumstances are such that they must be withheld from parliament and from the public. The hon. member for the Yukon did not make a personal attack upon the Minister of Justice, nor has anyone made such an attack on this side of the house. However, the hon. member for the Yukon has suggested this afternoon that there was a misadministration of justice in the Banks case. Mr. Banks gained his freedom by putting up several thousand dollars bail. Banks apparently has been a Liberal

scrip. Apparently he has been the Liberals' cheque book. Apparently Mr. Banks has been the exemplification of new Liberal justice. Perhaps Mr. Banks has been the new Liberal national bank. Perhaps Mr. Banks has been behind the whole Liberal campaign, and this government, just for a pot of gold, has allowed Mr. Banks to buy his freedom. Just for a pot of gold the Liberals have given him freedom. Just for a pot of gold the Liberals have purchased power, but they now shuffle about and fear they might be found out.
I suggest again that you can keep your ill-gotten gold on that side of the house. I hope you enjoy your temporary power, but it is better that we sit on this side with our principles. It honours us to be members of the opposition under these circumstances. Better is it to be a member of the opposition than a member of the present Liberal government, debauched, derogated, bedraggled and, above all, a desperate government whose emolument is power derived with the aid of corruption, and whose hands and speech are now feared.
The government because of this matter is now full of exercitations with no answers. Our arguments will withstand all attacks because they are irrefutable and irrefrangible. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice at this stage why Banks should enjoy immunity from the hands of justice while others must suffer punitive action both outside and under the rules of law.
What is to be the rule of law? Are we now to have rule of law by prime minister, or by the minister of justice? Are we to be subjected to a rule of law by the Liberal cabinet? Have these rules of law replaced the accepted rule of law, and have these rules of law tempered and shaped government reasoning because of the fear that Banks may talk?
Let us now take a look at the Pierre Berton program and find out what the Prime Minister has said. Mr. Berton asked this question:
Let me ask you another contentious question-
Some of them were not contentious questions. Perhaps I should repeat the beginning of the question:
Let me ask you another contentious question, about Hal Banks and the S.I.U.
Surely such a question would be contentious. He then said:
It is true that Canadian corporations and unions and other organizations contribute campaign funds to political parties. Is there anything unusual in the fact that Mr. Banks and his S.I.U. appear to have contributed only to the Liberal party?
Supply-Justice
The Prime Minister said:
But who says they contributed only to the Liberal party?
Mr. Berton said:
Well, the newspapers, which are pretty good at unearthing things-
I am going to have something to say about what they have unearthed.
-have only been able to discover that they contributed to the Liberal party. Are you suggesting that they contributed to the Conservatives?
Nobody has ever suggested that. The Prime Minister replied:
Well, I am suggesting that you should not say they contributed only to the Liberal party because that may or may not be the case-
He does not know.
-but there seems to be evidence-
This is an amazing admission to be made over television.
-that individual members of this union or the union itself have contributed to individual members of parliament in Montreal where the S.I.U. has its headquarters.
I think we are entitled to know who got these contributions. I say this to the Minister of Justice: If the S.I.U. has made contributions to the Liberal party or to the New Democratic party or some other party that may not have much weight with anybody in this house, but if they have made contributions to members of parliament, to members of the government, members of the cabinet, in past elections including the last election, then the language I used was far from strong when I said that Banks bought his freedom just for a pot of gold. You gave him his freedom just for a pot of gold.


Guy Favreau: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: -I do not know why any matter concerning the contribution of political funds would be discussed on the occasion of the consideration of my estimates-


Mr. Skoreyko:: There are a lot of things you do not know.


An hon. Member:: You would like to appear naive.


Guy Favreau: -unless whoever intends to discuss the matter of funds is ready to assert in this house that to his knowledge or even in his opinion, and stating why, the receipt by anybody of funds from one particular source has had any bearing on the decisions which I made in relation to the Banks case.

Supply-Justice


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Be honest, be true. That is the old song.


Guy Favreau: It is all very well to smear reputations by innuendo, by insinuation.


Mr. Nugent:: Just facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Give us facts instead of smears.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Get back to your own seat and say that.


Guy Favreau: It is something else to say and to have the courage to say that there is a relationship. This is a point of order because this is the only way in which this matter could possibly be tied up with my estimates, that there is a relationship between the receipt of funds from this particular person and that particular person because the Minister of Justice has thereby been convinced to deal with his functions in a fashion which ought not to have been expected. If the hon. member is ready to say this and to state that this is the point he wants to make and that he has the facts to establish it, then I say this is related to my estimates but otherwise it is not.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that was a point of order but I should like to answer it in this manner.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. A point of order was raised by the Minister of Justice, to which the hon. member for Lapointe would like to address himself.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice.
In my opinion the minister is shifting the matter somewhat. He says that if we want to talk about that matter we should bring up some fact or evidence or express an opinion that would be related to it.
The estimates of the Department of Justice are not examined to give the opposition an opportunity to express opinions or make assertions but rather to get the truth from the Minister of Justice.
Personally, I must say-and I take responsibility for that statement-that if Hal Banks contributed to the campaign chest of Liberal candidates or members of the House of Commons, his action was not entirely disinterested; he surely hoped to get something in return

from the Liberal party. And what was that? We know what happened recently.
Now, I claim that we have the right to know. But the truth is hidden from us.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is now discussing the matter rather than giving an opinion on the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice.
I should like now to hear the hon. member for Bow River.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister said if I could bring one scrap of evidence he would be happy. The best evidence I can bring is that-


Guy Favreau: You will not take the responsibility.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -"Pearson admits S.I.U. aided some Liberals". I do not know where you could get better evidence than that. If the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberals, admits they got money, surely Banks was not just helping the campaign for nonsense. Banks was a lobbyist, Banks believed in influence. Banks believed that his bank roll was his greatest influence and he worked it to the limit as far as the Liberals were concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The old character assassin.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister talked this afternoon about the charges made by the hon. member for Yukon and the charges made by myself. I would remind him of what Rousseau said: "Man is born free, but everywhere you find him in chains". But under the kind of law we have now, under Liberal law, Banks, the lobbyist with the bank roll, enjoys impunity and immunity although his violence and terrorism are well known throughout the land, while all within his jurisdiction and touch tremble in fear of their lives, particularly those members of his own gang. I say to the minister, and he knows this, that Banks has been violent before and he will be violent again. Banks has been silent before and Banks will speak again. That is what they are afraid of.
What has gone on so far as the administration of justice is concerned? A radio commentator has been threatened not only by Banks' men but by those men of government influence whose decency and principles have been eroded by fear. If the truth is known, the power of these men with eroded principles shall fall and smash just as if the clock fell out of the peace tower.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Trained seals over there.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair, as I am sure it is for other members, to hear the remarks now being made by the hon. member for Bow River, and I would ask the co-operation of members in listening quietly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not going to get into any argument and I appreciate that we should have some decorum in the house. Surely the hon. member who is so fond of royalty that he will not even stand when God Save the Queen is being sung should have enough courtesy and decency to listen to an argument. I say to him that if I am silenced tonight in the 30 minutes allotted to me you can rest assured that the estimates of justice will never pass until I have had my say so far as the Banks case is concerned, and so far as the other case is concerned. If this be a new kind of closure, the kind of closure where you are howled down, then I intend to stand in my place and talk until I have made my point.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Perhaps at this time the hon. member for Bow River might return to the consideration of the estimates.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say that the law in
Canada in its majestic equality means equality for all, not for some good friends of the government. It means equality for every Canadian as he runs, equality for every Canadian as he walks, equality for every Canadian as he sleeps, equality for every Canadian who obeys the law, and equality for every Canadian who disobeys the law. It means equality for all foreigners who visit Canada as if they were Canadians and even equality for those people who were admitted to Canada by special privilege, and maybe illegally. The administration implements inequality so far as their pet Banks is concerned.
Let us have a look at that case for a few moments. For months, we on this side of the house asked that Mr. Banks be charged. At one stage, he was charged but not arrested. Then, he was convicted but not imprisoned. Then, he stood in contempt of the Supreme Court of Canada with no imprisonment. The Minister of Justice has said that the Conservatives are not irreproachable so far as the Banks case is concerned because we did not prosecute him. I want to answer that charge right now. The minister wants people to believe we were irresolute at a time when
Supply-Justice
witnesses feared for their lives. They were being terrorized until after the Norris commission. In other words, the minister knows quite well, I think that witnesses were afraid to come forward before the Norris commission, and that is well known because of the position he held when Hon. Davie Fulton was minister of justice. At that time he held the position of assistant deputy minister of justice of this country. Anything could be done to silence witnesses, and they were afraid to come forward.
What happened in that regard? I would remind him when he challenges some of us to silence, when he challenges us on this point-


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Again?


Guy Favreau: Yes, again. We must function with the truth, at least in part. The hon. gentleman for Bow River implies that I have been consulted during the term of office of the Conservative minister of justice, that is between 1958 and 1980 when I left the Department of Justice, with respect to the Banks affair. I must state, and this can be checked easily by the whole of the Conservative party, that I have never been consulted directly or indirectly with respect to the Banks affair, in relation to which none of the reports was ever sent to the legal officers of the crown.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, there is one thing he will admit, Mr. Chairman, I do bring life to the house. I would say this to the minister:
I was rather surprised at that answer in view of the position he held and the oath he took when he became assistant deputy minister of justice. I am surprised he has made the kind of disclosure he has today. I am surprised he can be so critical of the Conservatives because when he is critical so far as Banks is concerned he is criticizing Davie Fulton and criticizing the Department of Justice of that time.
Let us take a look at it. The minister asks, why did we not prosecute? There are two simple answers to that. Until we had a royal commission, until the witnesses came forward voluntarily before the Norris commission, it was impossible to get the evidence. The minister is a good lawyer. This afternoon he said that you cannot prosecute without the evidence.
Now, what happened? Only one man came forward until the beginning of the Norris commission hearings.

Supply-Justice


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I have not much time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman afraid of a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down; you know the rules.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman afraid to hear the question?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; the hon. member for Bow River has the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will grant me the appropriate amount of time in order to finish my remarks. I was saying that the minister knows the reign of terror which existed on the great lakes and the seaway when it was all a man's life was worth to oppose Banks. Does anybody deny that it was all a man's life was worth to oppose Banks? Of course they would not. One man came forward. I see the Minister of Transport is listening, and he knows what I say is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One man did come forward in 1954 and he has not been heard of since.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman has asserted that I knew something.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would never do that; obviously I was in error.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He asserted that I knew that only one man would come forward. I do not know how many men would come forward. I know one man who did not come forward and did not take the Banks case into the courts and that was the minister of justice under the previous administration of the right hon. gentleman who complains about what we did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you calm down the hon. gentleman because his state of excitement is dangerous to his health.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I assert that the regime headed by the right hon. gentleman opposite did not have the courage to prosecute Banks and they hid behind a royal commission for six years so they would not have to do it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps I could suggest to hon. members that there did not appear to be a prima facie case of privilege. I recognize the hon. member for Bow River.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If I may just continue with the point I was mentioning before the Minister of Transport got up on a point of privilege and tried to prove to the house that he knew something, I should like to apologize to him for ever suggesting that he knew anything. I would say if he does not know I would remind him that only one did come forward before the commission and his name was Droeger. This man came forward back in 1954 and then disappeared. This is an example of the kind of terrorism, the kind of conduct of the hoodlums that were running things then.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you clean them up?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If you will give me just a little silence here I will tell you why we did not clean them up. There was only one man came forward until 1961 and then two men came forward. Who were those men? Let us put it on the record. They were Michael Sheehan and John Wood. Until they came forward it was impossible to convict Mr. Banks. They had that evidence and the report was filed when the Liberals were in office. They laid their charge and he was convicted and sentenced to a five year term. Then, they failed to instruct their counsel so far as the courts were concerned and this man is now a fugitive from justice.
I ask this question. Why is he a fugitive from justice? I ask the press this question tonight, why is there all this uproar when I dare to raise my voice in connection with this matter? It is because the Liberals are frightened. The Liberals know they have a skeleton in their closet just as they have in connection with the Denis case. They know, Mr. Chairman, that if the full truth were found out and the press printed the truth tonight, the Canadian people would know there is a mess in the Department of Justice so far as many matters are concerned, and so far as the erosion of the rule of law is concerned.
What has happened to the Department of Justice in 15 or 16 months? We heard the Minister of Transport tonight say something about Davie Fulton. It is only a week ago that he got up in his pious way, as only Pickersgill can do, and said that Davie Fulton was a great fellow; he was honest and he was everything. As soon as the heat of debate

is on, he will throw his friends over very quickly, especially if they happen to be Conservative friends.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that until we get some inquiry on this matter, until we find out why Banks was allowed to break the law, until we find out why, though he was charged, he was not arrested, until we find out the facts with regard to the application for bail, we will always believe there is a skeleton in the closet. This is why I say there should be an inquiry, a royal commission to look into the whole mess so far as this matter is concerned.


Guy Favreau: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will the hon. member take the word of the chief justice of Quebec when he said that he knew none of the offences for which he put Banks on bail were extraditable offences?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, you concealed the fact.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: So far as I am concerned there should be an inquiry into these questions, and such an inquiry might answer them. The reasons for it are, what part did the former minister, Milton Gregg, play so far as Banks is concerned? Maybe this famous tape recording which we have heard about, if it were brought before an inquiry, would disclose what part he played.
Then what about this famous landing permit firm, Harris and Pickersgill incorporated, that brought this man in illegally? I would like to get behind the answer to that. They said it was in order to clean up communists. Well, if it was, the cure was worse than the evil. Did members of the Liberal party receive money from Banks and the S.I.U.? Maybe that tape recording would tell that.
Did the Liberal party, its organizers or even its American advisers organize the S.I.U. to help break up a Conservative meeting, Mr. Diefenbaker's meeting, in Vancouver in 1962? The same S.I.U. members, 60 of them, helped to keep order so far as Mr. Pearson's meeting was concerned. Those are things we want to know and until we get those facts we on this side of the chamber do not intend to stop talking. We are going to find out what scandal is here, where the skeletons are, and the whole facts of this sordid mess.
Many people believe that the Banks affair is a dead issue, but Banks today is stretching out into the S.I.U. I predict that McLaughlin will be the next president of the S.I.U. He is the close friend and henchman of Banks, and if that happens Banks will be still running the S.I.U. The Liberals have done nothing to clean up the mess except allow their friend to 20220-658
Supply-Justice
return from whence he came. They are the ones who brought him into the country illegally, yet they dare challenge us so far as the administration of justice is concerned.
Today we heard the hon. member for Yukon talking about the Denis case, and all the Minister of Justice said was that you must not charge innocent people. Why did he not refer this matter to the officials of his department? It was because he knew some of his Liberal friends were mixed up in the whole sordid mess, the same as Banks. That is the reason he did not refer it to the law officers. Now he says there is going to be a judicial inquiry but nobody is going to be allowed to know the results. What kind of inquiry is that going to be? Is it going to be held in camera so that no one will ever hear the bad news and be able to look into the cupboards and see the skeletons.
So long as we have affairs like the Banks case and like what the hon. member for Yukon brought up this afternoon, the rule of law will be eroded until we have a rule of hoodlums in this country. I say to the minister: Clean up the department; clean up the administration of justice and then good Canadians will be able to look once again with pride on the kind of administration of justice that we had under the former Conservative government.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I thought I might take just a few quiet moments of the committee's time to speak about the subject that has been raised by the hon. member for Bow River and which we have heard many times in this chamber during the past months, and the past year or two.
I am quite surprised at the manner in which the hon. member for Bow River states his case regarding Hal Banks. The excitement that characterized the latter portion of his speech tonight reminded me immediately that in the west the hon. gentleman had a reputation of being an outstanding jury lawyer. I am sure many members of the committee are familiar with the fact that a good jury lawyer talks the loudest when his case is the weakest, and that he waves his arms the most and gets worked up to a frenzy when his case is hopeless.
First of all I would like to say that I feel what has been attempted this evening is a gratuitous smear upon the reputation of the Minister of Justice, and I am very upset that the hon. member for Bow River would do such a thing. He is suggesting very strongly that the Minister of Justice personally was responsible, or wanted the courts to act easy

Supply-Justice
in the case of Banks, and wanted Banks to escape from the country, a type of charge which he would not dare repeat outside the house but which he takes advantage of his parliamentary immunity to repeat, and give it widespread circulation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member said I would not dare say outside the house what I said tonight. If he had listened to a certain T.V. program he would know I repeated the exact same thing over a Canadian network. Further, I will repeat it outside the house. I say there are some skeletons in the cupboard and the Liberals had better clean this up. I will repeat outside the house any time what I have said in the house.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Quite on the contrary, instead of the Liberal administration and the present Minister of Justice-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: What about that false charge you made?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I have to talk quite loudly to be heard over the parrots and trained seals on the other side of the chamber.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Withdraw that charge.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Quite on the contrary to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River, may I pass very quickly over the years the Conservatives were in power, six long years which the Canadian people will not quickly forget. During that parade of procrastination the administration of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition did absolutely nothing about the question of Hal Banks. Results are what count. Even my hon. friend would agree that one of the results of the Liberal administration is that Hal Banks sulks in Brooklyn harbour. Under a Conservative government he swaggered in a Montreal penthouse.
Under a Liberal government we have law and order on the great lakes. Under the former Conservative government outlaw tactics and gangsterism were the order of the day on the great lakes. Under this Liberal government Hal C. Banks faced prosecution and judgment, but under a Conservative government he lived here in immunity.
What is more important from the point of view of the interests of the Canadian people is that under a Liberal government the S.I.U. has been brought back to the control of its members. The board of trustees was established and once again it is a lawful union. Under the Conservative government the out-

law S.I.U., under Banks, spread its tentacles into every part of Canada.
It was a Liberal government which brought back law and order to trade unionism in Canada, and which established once and for all that there is no room in Canada for any James Hoffas, for any Hal Banks. We want law and order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. member permit a question-just one little question, one small question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: When I am finished I shall be glad to deal with the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Halifax has the floor.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Just one question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the conclusion of my very brief remarks I will be very happy to deal with any questions.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Tardif:: Oh, not again.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Well, look at Charlotte's buddy over there.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May we please have order in the committee. The hon. member for Cape Breton South is rising on a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Again?


Malcolm MacInnis: If you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, I will wait until laughing boy finishes.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I presume I may continue my remarks, Mr. Chairman, because I hear nothing from the other side of the chamber.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I ask the assistance and co-operation of all members of the committee. There is a question of privilege being raised by the hon. member, and he should be given an opportunity to submit it.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Halifax challenged the hon. member for Bow River to make a statement outside the house about interference. I have made that statement outside the house, and I will set out-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Obviously this is not a question of privilege; it is a matter of debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Those Pickersgill ones were not questions of privilege either.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The suggestion has been made that the questions of privilege raised by other hon. members were not questions of privilege, and they were not-


Gilles Grégoire: And you allowed them.


Lucien Lamoureux: any more than the one that is now being raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. It seems to me the point he is making now is really a matter of debate, which he will have the opportunity to make by participating in the debate. I would invite again the assistance of hon. members to let the hon. gentleman who now has the floor continue with and complete his remarks.


Malcolm MacInnis: With regard to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I maintain that I have a question of privilege in that the member for Halifax threw out a challenge to members on this side of the chamber, and unless that challenge is taken up immediately or at the first opportunity-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: -his challenge will go unanswered.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. This is not a question of privilege, and that is the ruling of the Chair. The hon. member for Halifax.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, of course, that is not what I said, at any rate; but I am not going to interrupt my remarks to deal with challenges thrown out by every obscure backbencher on the other side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: They have been backbenchers much longer than you.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Since the subject of backbenchers has come up, however, I want to talk about one other thing that happened with reference to Hal Banks during the six years the Conservatives were in power under the now right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I notice that quite a number of the backbenchers on the Conservative side are very talkative in this parliament and that they talked very briefly when they were in power.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You aren't doing badly.


Gerald Augustine Regan: That is right; thank you. I am talking now, despite the fact that I am on the government side of the house. But I
20220-658J
Supply-Justice
would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the trained seals opposite had nothing to say during those six years on this subject; not one backbencher had anything to say about Hal Banks.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I do now have a question of privilege with regard to the remarks made by the hon. member representing Halifax.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: I do now have a question of privilege with regard to the remarks made by the member representing Halifax.


Robert Simpson: The junior member.


Malcolm MacInnis: My question of privilege arises from a remark he has now made that is far removed from the truth. He does not know what he is talking about, because I and other members of this side of the house, along with the hon. member for Kootenay East-


Some hon. Members:: "West".


Malcolm MacInnis: -brought this very question up. I would not only point out the question of privilege but I would ask that the member representing Halifax withdraw his remark.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Halifax has the floor.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am very pleased to know that I have the floor, Mr. Chairman, and I will now complete what I was saying with reference to the backbenchers opposite during the years of the Conservative administration.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. If the hon. member wants me to rule on the question of privilege, I rule that it is not a question of privilege. The hon. member can disagree with what another hon. member says; he can disbelieve what he has said-but that does not make the matter a question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: The hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Malcolm MacInnis: If the hon. member makes an assertion that is false, and that includes myself, the member for Kootenay West and many other hon. members on this side of the house, then I feel I do have a question of

Supply-Justice
personal privilege and one on which the hon. member should withdraw his remarks.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps the hon. member would like to quote an authority for that statement. Certainly it is contrary to what the Chair believes to be the rules of this house. The hon. member for Halifax.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would not want to cause anyone to misunderstand what I have been saying, or offend anyone's feelings in the house; therefore I should be very careful and exact in what I am saying. I am saying that during the years the Conservative administration was in office-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. We are now discussing certain estimates for fiscal year 1964-65, and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) refers to six years previously. My point of order, and it is also a question of privilege, is this. The opposition has agreed that the discussion of the estimates would be concluded by next Friday. But if the Liberal members keep talking out of order, we will not be able to discuss the estimates which are before us, and thus the members on the government side will prevent us from examining the estimates for fiscal year 1964-65.
I would therefore ask the hon. member for Halifax to restrict his comments to this year's estimates, and not revert to six years previous; otherwise, the agreement we have entered into to limit the debate to six or seven days will not be carried out, because this obstruction from the government members will prevent us from knowing the truth respecting the estimates for the current year.
The hon. member for Halifax should limit his remarks to the estimates now before us.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Maurice John Moreau: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: No. Perhaps to simplify things I would mention that in the opinion of the Chair the point raised by the hon. member for Lapointe is well taken. Certainly the matter before the committee now is the estimates of the Department of Justice for the year 1964-65. There is one particular item, which is vote No. 1, concerning administration, including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, etc., for one specific year; and

this has nothing to do with the year 1960 or previous years. I must say, in justice to the hon. member who has the floor, that the previous speaker did go beyond the limitations of this vote and I would ask for the hon. member's co-operation in restricting his remarks to the vote now before the committee.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would certainly be very happy to co-operate with the Chair in this matter, and I would assure my hon. friend for Lapointe that at no time did I have any intention of taking anything but a very few moments of the time of the committee, but unfortunately there have been so many interruptions from the Conservative benches, who do not want to hear the truth, that it makes it very difficult for me to complete my remarks.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Give us some hope of that, will you?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I will conclude by pointing out that if the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River were in order, then surely a brief comment on what he has said, pointing out the inaccuracies, is proper debate at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald Augustine Regan: What I was saying was that the backbenchers on the other side of the house during the six years a Conservative government was in power did nothing about Hal Banks, said nothing that was constructive and produced results.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I suggest that remark was out of order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Is the hon. member ready for my question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Let me say, then, Mr. Chairman, one word about contributions.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: That will be the first one you have made.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Under our system of government as it works in this country at the present time, as I understand it contributions to political parties come from individuals, companies and trade unions. For the hon. member to suggest-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member again but it seems to me that what he is trying to do now is to discuss the general question of contributions to political parties, which to my mind is not germane to the item before the committee.


George James McIlraith: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you are ruling that the question of contributions is not relevant to the discussion?


Lucien Lamoureux: I might point out that I did not hear the whole argument proposed by the hon. member but I took it upon myself to surmise that when he referred to the word "contributions" he was going to go into a consideration of contributions to political parties; and to my mind, in the opinion of the Chair, contributions by unions or by the S.I.U. to a political party are beyond the terms of the item before us.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, if it is to be the ruling of the Chair that no other hon. member can speak on this subject of contributions made by the S.I.U., I would be very happy-I seem to hear a noise from the back.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, or. a point of order.
The hon member for Halifax wants to know if your ruling applies to all election contributions.
In my opinion, election contributions made by Hal Banks, those particular ones, must be dealt with when considering the estimates of the Department of Justice because we assert that there might be a link between those contributions to Liberal members elected thanks to Hal Banks' money and the fact that he escaped Canadian justice.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax has the floor.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman-


Gerald Augustine Regan: I presume I have the floor.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am rising on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka on a point of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear about the ruling you have just made. If an hon. member directs his remarks to the Department of Justice, am I correct in saying that the mere fact that contributions are involved would rule such debate out of order?
I want to be sure that your ruling is not a broad ruling which would exclude anything directed at the Department of Justice which I feel would be relevant.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for
Parry Sound-Muskoka knows that the Chair cannot rule in anticipation. The ruling which
Supply-Justice
was made applies particularly to what the hon. member who now has the floor is saying at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could have an understanding on this point. The hon. member for Bow River was allowed to rant and rave for hours, and now when my hon. friend for Halifax attempts to reply within the same scope a point of order is raised-and I am not objecting to the point of order. If it is clearly understood that anything that happened before 1964 is excluded from our consideration then we on this side of the house have no objection as long as that ruling is applied uniformly to all members. But we would object if the kind of latitude taken by the hon. member for Bow River is not allowed to apply to an hon. member on this side of the house who has introduced no new matter but is specifically replying to the hon. member's specious and really-well, I will leave it at specious- arguments.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I am certain most of us found your ruling a little surprising, although I realize that perhaps when we refer to these ancient matters the house can get a little riled. However, I am sure all of us are willing and anxious to hear the hon. member for Halifax make some defence of the government's position in years past. In particular, we do not want to see any debate excluded touching the actions of the government at the time Hal Banks was brought in and allowed to remain in this country so mysteriously. I hope that that will not be your ruling.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh no.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, further to the point of order, the Minister of Transport rose and objected to the way the procedure has developed and said that because the hon. member who represents Halifax was answering the hon. member for Bow River a point of order was raised. I would point out to you, sir, that no point of order was raised on this side of the house. We are only too anxious to let the hon. member continue. The point of order was not one as such but was really a ruling made by the chairman himself which the Minister of Transport is now criticising.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, if I might continue my few remarks on this matter, with specific reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River concerning contributions and with specific application to what

Supply-Justice
he said and that alone, I want to point out that when he suggests that the S.I.U. or some other individual member may have contributed some money to several Liberal candidates for office I am sure the hon. member would realize that under our system of western democracy at the present time political parties receive, to finance their campaigns and enable them to carry on their work, contributions from individuals, from companies and from trade unions. If one adopts the reasoning used by the hon. member for Bow River, then whatever companies or individuals made contributions to his campaign-perhaps they were misadvised, but whoever they were -are in the position that they could control him, and therefore he would do exactly what they wanted. I do not believe that of the hon. member for Bow River for a moment. I think that all of us in this house and the people in the country know that the same situation applies to the Liberal party, and the Minister of Justice. He acts independently and in good faith regardless of any other consideration.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald Augustine Regan: When I finish; you have interrupted me enough.
Let me conclude by saying this, Mr. Chairman. At least today if Hal Chamberlain Banks comes into Canada, if he ever shows his face in this country, he will be locked up in jail for five years. But as long as the Conservatives were in power he swaggered around in his penthouse in Montreal, caused laws to be broken across the country, and lived in immunity because the former prime minister did not have the courage or willingness to take action, or for some reason did not take any action, against Mr. Banks. Year after year passed and Banks continued to put his tentacles further out into the-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Into the Liberal party.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -into the shipping unions of Canada. Well, the Conservatives were in office, at a time when the hon. member opposite who is now making so much noise was in the House of Commons to object to Banks' tactics. There is no doubt that it has only been since the government changed that these people have found their voices. I am glad to say that this parliament has brought forward on the Liberal side a new type of backbencher, one willing to contribute and be prepared to state his position on a matter, and not act like a trained seal. Since the days of sweetheart contracts and Hal Banks' protection by the government in office we have

come a long, long way; to the point where the S.I.U. is again a lawful union; to the day when we once more have peace, law and order on the great lakes and in the unions of Canada; to the day when Hal Banks can no longer enter this country but must sulk in Brooklyn harbour wishing that the Conservative government were still in office so that this immunity would be restored.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, the junior member for Halifax has invited questions, and I should like to ask him one.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. Does the hon. member intend to ask a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I should be very pleased to deal with any question asked by the hon. gentleman.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I must preface my question, but I shall do so briefly. My question relates to the suggestion made by the hon. member during the course of his heated remarks in reference to the lack of desire on this side of the house for the facts. He said that if Mr. Banks ever came into the country again he would go to jail for five years. Is the hon. member aware of the method by which Mr. Banks was allowed into the country? Is he aware of the article which appeared in the Toronto Star a few weeks ago in relation to the former minister of citizenship and immigration, Hon. Walter Harris, in reference to the countermanding of his deportation order?


An hon. Member:: What is your question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Just one moment. Is the hon. member aware of the countermanding of the order of the former minister of citizenship and immigration of June 1954 by his cabinet colleagues, some of whom now enjoy the front benches on the government side of this house?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the hon. member for Grey-Bruce who, with his usual courtesy, has directed this question to me tonight, in this way. He is a member for whom I have great respect. I have read, as have other members, about the conditions under which Mr. Hal Banks came into this country, and feel that if there was impropriety in the manner in which he came to Canada, and remained during the years the Liberals were in power, I am sure the Conservative government during its years in power would have taken some action because

of that impropriety. They did not do so, which indicates to me that perhaps there was no impropriety, or they compounded it because they wanted him to stay here for their own particular reasons.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have one further question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Do you know who appointed the Norris commission?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to exercise my rights under the rules.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: What rights, and what rules?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on a point of order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Has the minister been recognized as a speaker? I should like to know what rule gives him the right to speak now. Has he been recognized?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a rule of this house, sir, that if an hon. member makes a misstatement another member can speak to a question of privilege, if not at the time then when the member has completed his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where do you find that rule?


John Whitney Pickersgill: You will find it in the rules Mr. Chairman, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is well aware of it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I have risen on a point of order, and I should like to know on what ground the hon. member is attempting-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In any event, Mr. Chairman, I happen also to be a member of this committee and should be allowed to speak.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I am wondering whether the hon. member has reference to the rule which would allow him to speak a second time to correct a previous statement that has been misinterpreted. In any event, that rule does not allow him necessarily to speak immediately. He may rise a second time later on to correct a misinterpretation.
Supply-Justice


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Halifax indicated that he would accept questions.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. My suggestion is that in view of the fact we have already entertained several questions-


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to deal with all questions.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The hon. member may be prepared, and is probably anxious to answer all questions, but I would remind him that other members of this committee wish to take part in the debate and should be given an opportunity to do so.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think that there would be no point for my Conservative colleagues to put questions to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) because he will keep on repeating the same story and giving the same answer, namely: What did the Conservatives do during six years? That is what he said again and again during his speech and no other valid argument came out of his contribution to the discussion tonight. It was simply a meaningless continuous repetition.
We are discussing a very serious case; the case of an individual found guilty by our Canadian courts and who managed to escape the arm of our Canadian law with an unequalled easiness and facility.
This is connected also with the fact-and I am not afraid to assert it-that considerable pressure must have been brought to bear upon the Department of Justice to make it that easy for Hal Banks to get out of Canada.
Recently, we heard that Liberal members, particularly on Montreal island, benefited from $1,000 election subscriptions or contributions during the last general election.
We should like to know the names of those Liberal members sitting in this house who received $1,000 contributions from the S.I.U. or from Hal Banks.
Second, I should like the Minister of Justice -this concerns his department and I hope he will listen to what I am asking him now- to make a review of the statements made under oath by all hon. members after the election concerning the sources of their election funds, and I should like him to check whether hon. members who received $1,000 from Hal Banks or from the S.I.U. did state in their affidavit that they had received $1,000 from the S.I.U. or from Hal Banks.

Supply-Justice
I think this comes under the Department of Justice and that it is up to the minister to investigate the matter.
The statements tabled in the house by hon. members, after the last election, concerning their expenses and the sources of their campaign funds, are forms duly signed by them and sent to the chief electoral officer 30 days or six months after their election, I believe. Now, the Prime Minister stated that he would table documents showing the names of those who received such contributions.
Whether those documents are in the hands of the Minister of Justice, the Norris commission or the S.I.U. board of trustees, after they have been tabled, it will be the duty of the Minister of Justice to compare them with the statements submitted by the hon. members concerning the sources of their campaign funds to determine whether such contributions were reported in the statements under the signature of hon. members or that of their campaign managers. That is most important since it will enable us to find out whether Liberal members of parliament accepted contributions from Hal Banks and were shy of admitting it. If they did, they could benefit from such contributions and, after the election, use their influence on behalf of their contributor.


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Gilles Grégoire: No. I am quite familiar with that kind of question.


Auguste Choquette: Does the hon. member feel that it is a more serious matter to accept contributions from the S.I.U. than to work for Jos. Begin who is a notorious criminal and who has been charged before the courts?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I will say to the hon. member that he clearly and royally lied. It is clear. If he can prove that, he should do it outside the house instead of relying on his parliamentary immunity. The hon. member for Lotbiniere is brave here, but he is not so brave when he hides behind his parliamentary immunity. I am not afraid of telling him that he lied.
The Liberals always succeeded in being elected by lying during the electoral campaigns, and by accepting money from gangsters like Hal Banks and from big capitalists and financiers. And once elected, they protect their interests, they crawl on all fours before these gangsters who were convicted, and before these financiers. This is not the first time the Liberal members have acted

this way, and the electors of Lotbiniere know it very well.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice asked this afternoon if we could prove that there existed a connection between the escape of Hal Banks and the electoral subscriptions. Is there a relation between the two? After all, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to give us the details, the information and the names we are requesting. Then we may ask the R.C.M.P. to investigate into this matter.
Would this not be a bribery attempt? When a certain amount is offered to six members and at the same time another amount is offered another political party-it cannot be claimed that Hal Banks gave $6,000 or $7,000 to the Liberal party and that at the same time he gave a certain amount of money to the New Democratic party because he supports both parties. He certainly does not belong to both parties. All the same, one thing is evident: he wanted to get a favour. Everyone knows that most of the subscribers are doing it to obtain favours in return. Once more the same thing occurs in that case as in many others.
What are the names of those who have received money? That is an important question.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I maintain, with regard to Hal Banks, that the Minister of Justice would be able to take the necessary steps to obtain his extradiction to Canada, if he chose to do so. I am convinced that if the minister takes the action we already suggested to him in this house, he will be able to obtain that extradition.
We have discussed that before and I suggested to him a procedure taken from a legal text. Any individual who is a director, trustee or holder of money or funds belonging to a union, a bank, a trust company, a finance company and who plays with the funds of that union, that trust company-I am convinced that he played with the funds of that union, everyone knows that-is liable to deportation under the law. Well, in his report Mr. Justice Norris blames Banks directly and categorically for having played with the funds of his union. Mr. Justice Norris admitted categorically and plainly that Banks played with the funds of the seafarers' international union. If he did that-and that was reported by Mr. Justice Norris-then it is a crime or simply a charge made against Banks for having done that. That is something which makes him liable to extradition. That is a striking, concluding reason why the minister, if he really wanted to, might

ask the American government to send Hal Banks back to Canada. Hal Banks is liable to extradition.
But the government does nothing, they do not ask the American government. The Minister of Justice did say, one day, that the R.C.M.P. was looking for Hal Banks and had not found him; yet, a mere newspaperman found him in two hours. The Canadian government would be in a position to ask for his extradition under the charges mentioned previously; but the Minister of Justice does nothing; he takes no action. That is what seems strange to us and gives rise to our suspicions.
I always had confidence in the honesty and sincerity of the Minister of Justice, but when the time comes to act, he takes no action. I have been suggesting this means of obtaining Hal Banks' extradition for two months, and he never acted. I ask him to read the Norris report where he will find the charges against Hal Banks under which he can obtain his extradition. When I asked him whether such a search has been made, he answered: Nothing was found. He did not look far, for he would have found out.
Why does the Minister of Justice not act? Why does the Department of Justice not act? Why in the case of Hal Banks is the same justice not applied as for anybody else?
With all the hesitations, delays and roundabout ways of the Liberals, I rather feel that there is more than that, that the Liberal party is afraid to have Hal Banks come back to Canada, afraid of his statements, which might perhaps compromise members who now sit in this house.
Is that the right way to have the law enforced in Canada? When we make accusations, we are told: Look at what the Conservatives did for six years. But that is not an argument, Mr. Chairman. If others did wrong, that is no reason to continue along the same lines. Instead of blaming others for their lack of action, why not take the means to correct the present situation?
Mr. Chairman, there are means to force the extradition of Hal Banks. It is possible to find means, but the Minister of Justice does not do so. Then, since we get no answers to our questions, since the minister does not give straight and direct answers and does not tell us that he is ready to apply the means suggested to him, since he cannot give us the names of those who received those $6,000, the opposition must-


Guy Favreau: Am I to understand that in all fairness the hon. member for Lapointe 20220-659
Supply-Justice
has asked a question in order to know whether I tried to get an opinion respecting the fraudulent use of funds of the seafarers' union?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, on March 6, 1964, counsel appointed to advise the government on the charges that had been laid, gave us the following opinion. I quote from the letter that was sent to us by Mr. John J. Robinette on March 6, 1964:

We have also considered whether there is sufficient evidence to Justify prosecution against Banks arising out of the alleged misuse by him of union funds. As stated in our letter of September 27, 1963, it is our opinion that, although there were irregularities, we do not think that the evidence is sufficient to justify a criminal charge of theft or embezzlement, principally because Banks had a colour of right arising out of approval of his financial dealings by committees of the union.

Mr. Chairman, this is not all-


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Guy Favreau: Ah, you do not like this.


Erik Nielsen: -now that the minister has read from this document I believe that by the rules of the house he is required to table it and I would request that he do so now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He has not finished reading from it.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Transport interjects that the Minister of Justice has not finished reading from the document. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister quotes in part from the document he must table the document itself. He has obviously quoted at length from it, and I suggest to you he is now required by the rules to table the whole of it.


Maurice John Moreau: May I ask the hon. member for Bow River to table the Fulton memorandum?


Guy Favreau: I have been quoting from that part of the opinion which referred to the matter raised by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On the point of order concerning the tabling of the document, could we have a ruling from the Chair when the minister has completed his quotation? Is it not according to the rule that he must table the whole document?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am quite sure the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona realizes that documents cannot be tabled in committee. They have to be tabled when the Speaker is in the chair if they are to be tabled.
Supply-Justice


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the matter was carried further, and following the remarks made by the hon. member, I recall having asked for the opinions given by counsel and, of course, the answers can be found in the two documents I have here.
I have just quoted from the one dated March 6, 1964 having to do with the opinion of September 27, 1964, where this was said: [Text]


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Again on a point of order, I say let us have a ruling from the Chair.


An hon. Member:: There was a ruling.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The Chair has said that a document can only be tabled when the Speaker is in the chair. Am I wrong in my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of committees will not allow anybody to read from a document unless he is willing to table the whole of it? It can be tabled while the Speaker is in the chair. If he indicates his willingness to table the whole document, then of course we have no argument.


Guy Favreau: I am merely asserting-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Before he reads, I want a ruling.


Guy Favreau: I am merely asserting that twice an opinion has been asked and given on this particular matter. I am satisfied, after reading the opinion of counsel that the point raised by the hon. member for Lapointe, although it is one which is quite interesting, would be legally achieved for the purpose he seeks if the opinion were in the affirmative.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Justice is speaking to the point of order or is going to recognize the point of order as being correct, then he will not pretend he is reading from the document and I can resume my seat. I should like to have a ruling from the Chair as to whether he can pretend to this committee to be quoting from a document which he is now unwilling to table. He certainly has a duty to this house to make his position clear. Is he purporting to give the committee his idea that he says is backed up by the document he will not table, or does he wish to read from it and indicate his willingness to table it later? I certainly think before the minister goes any farther he should tell us which is the case. If he wants to read from this document he has, then he has to tell us he is willing to table it when the Speaker is in the chair.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Guy Favreau: This is one matter we shall attend to when the Speaker is in the chair.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On the contrary, the minister has already read from one of the documents and he now must table it when the Speaker is in the chair. If he attempts to read further, then before he receives the Chair's permission to read further, he should indicate he will abide by the rules and will subsequently be tabling the document. I certainly believe that he cannot now slough it off by saying that when the Speaker is in the chair we shall talk about it further. The rule is the rule, and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, now to give us your ruling.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; I should like to refer the members of the committee to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 159, paragraph (3), which reads as follows:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public Interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.
This is the point which I believe has to be decided, whether or not it is a public document. If it is to be tabled it has to be tabled not in the committee but in the house when the Speaker is in the chair.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am not quite clear about your ruling. The document has been cited. I am not criticizing the Chair for not stopping him reading from it immediately, but I am sure the rule is that if he is going to quote from a document he must be willing to table it. If he is not willing to table it, then he cannot read from it. If the minister is going to say it is not in the public interest to table this document, he should tell us. Otherwise, he should now assure us that having read from it he is willing to table it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The rule which the hon. member has cited applies to public documents. I am sure the member is not going to expect the chairman to decide whether or not this is a public document.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Justice-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order please. It is possible there is machinery in the house for the hon. member to obtain the information, and I am sure he knows what that machinery is. It is not the business of the chairman to decide whether a document is public or is not. If it is a public document and it is

quoted, then the general rule is that it has to be tabled.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: I will hear the hon. member lor Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: May I respectfully draw your attention to paragraph (4) of citation 159 which also has a bearing on the point of order raised? I should like particularly to draw your attention to paragraph (5) of citation 159 which is directly on the point of order and reads as follows:
The point of order, that a member should lay on the table a document which he quotes, should be taken when reference is made to the document.
The point of order has been taken here according to the ruling under paragraph (5) of citation 159, at the proper time. I am sure the minister can clear up all the difficulties. I am assuming this is a public document from which he is speaking, since it is an opinion from which he is quoting. The minister could clear up all the difficulties very quickly by agreeing to table it when the Speaker is back in the chair.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In the same vein, Mr. Chairman, paragraph (2) of citation 159 is completely on the point:
A minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table.
The citation goes on to say that this principle is so self-evident it has never been challenged. I think the minister, by quoting the document has made it a public document and therefore he is in duty bound to at least indicate he will table it when the Speaker is in the chair.


Mr. Macdonald:: I should like to speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman. The question is really not so much what appears in citation 159 but whether or not this particular document is a dispatch or a state paper. In other words, is this a public document? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it may be well for the Speaker to take this matter under advisement and to refer to the debate which occurred in this house during the twenty fifth parliament when hon. gentlemen opposite were strenuously opposing the tabling of a particular legal opinion. I would say that legal opinion in this case is on the same basis and that the arguments raised by hon. gentlemen at that time would apply with equal force to this particular opinion. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, furthermore, that this question be put 20220-659J
Supply-Justice
over for consideration so that it may be determined whether it is in fact a public document, and therefore whether it is capable of being tabled under the rules.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Obviously the parliamentary secretary misunderstood the arguments because the rule just quoted by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue did not make any reference to a public document. The minister cannot quote from anything unless he is prepared to table it. He has already quoted from this document, and to suggest now it is a public document and that one rule cancels out the other is just nonsense.
If he purports to have a document in support of his argument and has the effrontery to quote from it, then this is what the rule of the house is designed for, to protect the house so that we cannot be given little quotations out of something, by a minister or someone else saying, "I have here a document which supports me and I will give you a little bit of it."


Guy Favreau: On a point of privilege-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: He must table the whole document.


Guy Favreau: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, this is distorting the facts, as no one but certain people on the other side can. The hon. member for Lapointe will remember that the question which he asked me was whether I had considered-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Is the minister alleging I distorted the facts?


Guy Favreau: I said that this must be read in relation with the question which I was asked, and the question was whether or not the matter of embezzlement of public funds had been considered. I replied yes, because I had had an opinion on it; and the fact that I read part of a letter of opinion was only in support of the fact that I had been asked for an opinion on it and had considered it. I was not depositing the document or referring to the document as a statement of the law on the matter.


Paul Raymond Martineau: If the minister were in a court of law and his opponent were to quote from a document would he insist on that document being produced? Would that not be his right?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would like to make an explanatory statement with reference to what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona said. I pointed out the documents which are specifically referred to under citation 159

Supply-Justice
in Beauchesne, and it specifically refers to a dispatch or a state document. The question which should be put for the Chair's consideration is whether or not a legal opinion of this nature is a state paper or dispatch. As to the observations of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, it is all very well for him to refer to the rules in a court of law, but we are covered by the rules of the house, and in particular by the rule set out in citation 159.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Just to answer the parliamentary secretary about whether there is any pertinence between what is done here and in a court of law, I again cite from Beauchesne:
This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.
I think that is final and comes within the exact authority that the parliamentary secretary has cited. Therefore he should advise his minister to produce the document.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I just point out again that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue has missed the point. The rule may well apply in the case of a dispatch or state document but it does not apply to anything which is not a state document.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: To any document.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before we go any further with this point I think members should stop trying to rely on the words "public document," "dispatch," "state paper" and so on. The citation which you yourself read simply says this:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
Now there is nothing-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the rest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will, don't worry. There is nothing in that sentence which refers to state documents or official documents. And immediately in the next sentence, which hon. members want me to read there is the one exception:
The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.

If the minister can somehow allege that the item from which he is reading is a private letter or memorandum, then of course it comes under this exception; but if it is not, then it seems to me it is covered by the first sentence in citation 159(3). May I also point out that 159(4) goes on to say, and is very precise:
Official papers quoted during a debate should be laid on the table of the house.
The whole basis of that ruling is given. It is a Canadian decision with the ruling at the end "That the point of order was well taken, and that the paper cited . . . should be placed in the possession of the house."
What the minister is quoting from is either a private letter or a private memorandum which is of no value to the debate, or it is a document that concerns the debate, and if it is cited as such, then clearly the rule states that it has to be produced or the minister has to desist from making reference to it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would just refer in return to citation 159(3) and to the fact that there is no limitation with respect to a memorandum of law, such as this one, indicating whether it is private or public. I would point out specifically that in the following sentence there is a reference to legal documents tabled in the British house of commons, and in that case it was ruled by the speaker that they should not have been tabled.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Was that when the documents had been read from?


George James McIlraith: Might I ask the indulgence of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to ask you not to see the clock for, say, another hour if that would be agreeable?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Nonsense.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would like to point out that the minister promised to answer some questions which I asked him, at eight o'clock, and he did not. Since we may not be continuing with the estimates of the Department of Justice tomorrow I want to know if he is prepared to answer these questions now?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think I had the floor and I was interrupted by the Minister of Justice himself. Now that he has quoted from a document I think we should first have your ruling as to whether or not he should deposit the document from which he was quoting. That is the first thing that should be done tonight because I can see by the reaction of the parliamentary secretary that they

are afraid to produce that document and are afraid to shed light on what is taking place. It is when somebody is afraid, that we want to know more about why they are afraid. Is that document condemning you? If it is, just say so and keep it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The general rule adopted by the house is that if a paper is an official paper and is quoted from in the house, then it should be tabled. If it is an ordinary letter or memorandum it is not usual to table it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It should not be quoted.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes, it can be quoted but not tabled. When the committee demands a ruling from the chairman in this regard it is asking the Chair to decide whether or not this document is an official document, which is not within the knowledge of the chairman. If the committee want the minister to table this document, they can request that he do so. If he refuses to do so, then of course there is machinery in the hands of the house to still have the document tabled.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What is he hiding?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I maintain that this document has now become an official one. It might remain a private document as long as it remains in the hands of the minister or his departmental officials; but I saw the minister show the document to the Minister of Transport and it is not a private document any more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: It is not a Department of Justice private document; it has become a public document because the minister has shown it to the Minister of Transport-and I saw the Minister of Transport's reaction. Moreover, since the Minister of Justice started to read one line of this document, the whole document has become an official one. It is now a public document because the minister has given the public notice that such a document exists, and started to read from it. Therefore it has now become an official document and I maintain it should be tabled when the Speaker is in the chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of privilege in regard to this matter, since the hon. gentleman made certain-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Supply-Justice


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely hon. gentlemen will not mind listening. The hon. gentleman-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We do not want phony ones.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -made a statement that I had done such and such things after I had been shown this document. I did not do what the hon. gentleman suggested at all. Moreover, I, like my colleague the Minister of Justice, have taken the privy councillor's oath, and the fact that I read a document does not make it a public document; or the fact that any minister-


An hon. Member:: This is no question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were certain allegations made.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely, Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of privilege. May I ask the minister one simple question. Was the legal opinion from which he quoted tonight paid for out of the public treasury?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I had risen before the hon. member-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want an answer to that. This would decide whether or not it is a public document.


Guy Favreau: I had risen before-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Answer the question.


Gilles Grégoire: Answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That will determine whether or not it is a private document or a public document.


William Arnold Peters: What are you hiding?


An hon. Member:: The minister of injustice.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked a simple question, Mr. Chairman, namely was the legal opinion from which the Minister of Justice quoted paid for out of the public treasury? If it was paid for out of the public treasury, then it is an official document in the possession of the Minister of Justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That does not mean, of course, that the house has the right to ask for it-it is a privileged document-unless the minister himself quotes from it. But the moment the minister quotes from it, he himself makes it a document that is no longer

Supply-Justice
privileged, because he has no right to quote from a document and therefore place a certain interpretation on a given sentence or paragraph unless those whom he is addressing have the opportunity to see the rest of the document to ascertain whether or not the statement is out of context. Therefore, having quoted from this document, which I presume was paid for out of the public treasury, it seems to me the minister has no alternative but as soon as the Speaker is in the chair to table that legal opinion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Guy Favreau: No, please. I want to repeat, in due deference to you, Mr. Chairman, because you had not noticed that I had risen and I do agree on your calling on the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that I had risen at least at the same time as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to speak on this point. I have waited for some time listening to the discussion which has taken place here. It is precisely the type of remark from members on the other side that makes for destroying reputations by innuendoes and insinuations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You can't take it.


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


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


Guy Favreau: What do they have to hide?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman-


Guy Favreau: Whether the letter be a public document or not I shall table the letter.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think the regulations are addressed to you as well as all members of the house. There is an article in this book which says that as soon as somebody raises a question of privilege you must recognize him before going any further. I stood up to raise a question of privilege. You heard me because I speak loudly but you did not recognize me. I think you should stand by the rules first if you want the rest of the house to stand by them.
My question of privilege is that the minister made some remarks concerning some people on this side of the house which he might very well have addressed to those on
IMr. Douglas.]
the other side of the house who interrupted to make the same sort of insinuations he talked about.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Don't be so touchy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it the minister is tabling the memorandum, so that matter is closed. I would ask the minister whether he would be kind enough, as he promised, to answer the questions I asked him earlier today, the one on orders of the day and the one I asked later which he said he would answer at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think I have the floor. I would like to remind you that I started at about 25 minutes after nine and was interrupted by the Minister of Justice at 20 to ten, so I have only had 15 minutes. I did not even hear the whole answer given by the minister concerning the suggestions we had made to him. So perhaps the first matter would be to receive an explanation from the Minister of Justice, an explanation which he had just started to give me.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, as I said the deposition is a very considerable one and I wish to make a statement tomorrow on the question that has been put to me by the hon. member fer Burnaby-Coquitlam. I think he will agree that in view of the type of statement involved this would be much fairer to both the minister and to himself as well as to all hon. members. If that is agreeable, whether or not my estimates are called tomorrow I undertake to make a statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister, if the estimates are not called, whether he will make the statement either on orders of the day or on motions?


Guy Favreau: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it the questions the minister will answer are the two main questions I asked having to do with-


Guy Favreau: Well, I have asked for the blues so I can check the exact questions which have been put, and I will make a statement tomorrow. If my estimates are not called for complete discussion we can either call them for that purpose or I can make a statement on motions, or orders of the day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps the minister would do it on orders of the day if the estimates are not called. May I remind him that there

is not only the question I asked him in committee here. I refer to the question which I asked on orders of the day in reference to the whereabouts of Mr. Leo Rivard and the others arrested on April 29. Are they still in jail, are they out of jail, or have they been extradited?


Guy Favreau: I tried to reply to the last question when the hon. member for Yukon was speaking, but he thought I was out of order and would not allow me to do so. Perhaps I was out of order at that time.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is that they are presently in jail at Bordeaux awaiting deportation. However, they have launched proceedings by way of habeas corpus, which at the moment has brought about a stay of proceedings.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I see that the Minister of Justice does not intend to pursue the explanation he started to give concerning the suggestion I made to him about the document from which he was quoting, or at least part of the answer he gave. He stated that a memorandum or an opinion had been isued by his department to the effect that there was insufficient evidence of theft or misuse of union funds by Hal Banks, but that there were irregularities, and the minister went no further.
Therefore, I wonder, before going on with what I was saying when the minister himself interrupted me, whether the minister would prefer to continue with his answer.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I was saying that the legal counsel of the department, after considering all the facts, even if he came to the conclusion that there were some irregularities in the handling of union funds by Hal Banks, did consider all the evidence, taking these irregularities into account, and came to the conclusion that, considering the whole evidence, a charge could not be laid successfully against Hal Banks on the allegation of misuse of funds.
But I say, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of the remarks which may have been made- normally I should ask myself whether this is a simple memorandum or an official document-I have no objection whatsoever, quite the contrary, to tabling this opinion which confirms exactly what I said tonight.
Therefore, if it is in order that I table a copy of the opinion to which I have referred, that of March 6, 1964, signed by Mr. John Robinette, I will gladly do so. But a ruling
Supply-Justice
was made that I could not do this. However, if the house agrees to overrule that decision and allow me to table this document, I will table it immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Chair can suggest to the committee-

The suggestion made by the chairman is that when the committee rises the hon. member table the document. Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the answer just given by the Minister of Justice, I can only come to the conclusion, once again, that the minister, his department and his advisers have really no desire to proceed with that investigation concerning Hal Banks and to take the necessary steps to obtain his extradition.
Here is what the minister said. He stated that there may not have been any thefts but that there were irregularities, that according to the report, there was a manipulation of union funds, but that on the whole evidence concerning such manipulation, the proceedings could not be instituted with success.
Now, let us take a look at the facts. Let us suppose that the Minister of Justice does lay a complaint-before getting to that point, let us mention that it is also the minister, as he explained this afternoon, in the case of the young people referred to by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who decides himself whether or not there is sufficient evidence for a preliminary investigation, while the minister should leave it to the judge who will preside over the preliminary investigation to decide whether or not there is enough evidence for trial.
This is the second time today that the minister and his officials have assumed judicial capacities. The first time was in the case indicated by the hon. member for Yukon and now, he assumes once again judicial capacities and decides whether or not there should be proceedings against Hal Banks for dishonest manipulation of funds, since the investigation by Mr. Justice Norris had unearthed irregularities on that matter.
The Minister of Justice, therefore, is playing a part which he is not entitled to play. He is assuming the rights and privileges of a judge.

Supply-Justice
Now, please note what will happen. Suppose the Minister of Justice takes proceedings against Hal Banks. Should Banks decide to remain in the United States, he would lose his trial by default. He would not be there to appear before the court and plead his case, so he would lose his trial by default. Then, he would be found guilty by default and his extradition could be obtained. And if he comes to Canada to defend himself, all you have to do is grab hold of him and throw him in jail for five years.
That is all there is to it. But the Minister of Justice is not taking any action. Why not bring at least a charge of embezzlement of union funds against Hal Banks? Then, you could see whether Banks comes to Canada and, if so, you could put him in jail the moment he sets foot in this country. If he does not appear, what plea can he put forward? He would then be sentenced in absentia.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word concerning the remarks just made by the hon. member for Lapointe. I know that he is not an expert in criminal law any more than I am with regard to some other legal aspects. But I think that he will agree with me that proceedings in absentia exist neither in Canada nor in any British country. In criminal law, it is impossible to have somebody sentenced or even tried in his absence, except in minor cases by summary proceedings.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice will also admit that it is sometimes possible to obtain extradition, more particularly with regard to manipulation of funds, not only when the man has already been convicted, but as soon as prosecution has started against him.
Therefore, the simple fact of starting proceedings in a case like that would make Hal Banks' extradition possible.
In my opinion, the minister should carry out a more detailed investigation in that field.
But the way some Liberals interject and the way the minister talks about Banks, keep bringing back to our minds the following question: Have the thousands of dollars the Liberal members received for their election campaign managed to influence the decisions taken in the Hal Banks case? That money was received from Hal Banks and the S.I.U. by some Liberal members.
The right hon. Prime Minister said this afternoon that he would table the documents

as soon as possible; but they have not been tabled and we do not have the names yet.
Truth about the matter is kept from us; we are kept in the dark.
Obviously, the minister does not take the necessary means. Why? This raises some doubts about the reasons which make him act in this way. Maybe they are influenced by election contributions which prevent them from prosecuting Hal Banks fully because they are afraid of the statements he might make once in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, an understanding was agreed upon between the different parties. We have accepted it openly and honestly, in the belief that during the discussion of the estimates of the various departments, we would be given at least the necessary information as well as the required documents, so that we could vote conscientiously on the estimates before us.
We have but a few days to discuss them; and now the Liberals, in turn, take advantage of this to delay the debate by refusing either to provide us with the requested documents or to answer our questions. In short, they are refusing to answer such a simple question as this: give us the names and the documents showing that some Liberal members received money from Hal Banks for their election funds.
We have only a few days to study the estimates. In fact, their study will be terminated Friday evening, and members on the government side are taking advantage of the fact that we made an agreement, in good faith, believing sincerely it would be respected, to attempt to hide, not only the documents we are requesting, but also the truth about certain questions we are asking.
Mr. Chairman, I have often agreed to limit the debate at house leaders meetings, but this time I feel that I was probably hoodwinked, as well as the members of my party, for the time spent on the estimates will have been limited strictly to hiding the truth. In the future we will be more circumspect, and we will attempt to have all the time required to discuss the estimates in order that we might ask him and demand that the minister produce the documents requested, to which we are entitled.
If the minister is able to produce them, if he does not fear to tell the truth, let him produce the documents establishing who are the people who were financed by Mr. Hal Banks, during the last electoral campaign, those who have repeated all kinds of things and deceived the Canadian people, with a

propaganda which had never been seen before in the province of Quebec. Thousands of dollars were spent in advertisements in the newspapers and over the radio, and today, people know where the money originated, know who paid for this propaganda. We wish to have that information, and the population will know it was deceived with electoral funds which were supplied by Mr. Hal Banks and other individuals of the same category.
Mr. Chairman, I see that this hurts several members on the other side of the house, but we are entitled to know those names. The population will then be in a position to establish the connection, not only with the present debate, but also with the position taken by the minister as regards Hal Banks. Such position is not clear in my mind-it is even fuzzy-but when the names are known, we may even request an inquiry, and above all check the electoral expenses appearing in the statements made and signed by some Liberal members.
It may also be possible to inquire of the chief electoral officer, who has in hand the statement of expenses forms, in order to decide whether such donations or subscriptions from Mr. Banks were entered. Some Liberal members may be caught at fault, especially those who declared only half the amounts of money they spent for electoral purposes.
We therefore request these documents and hope that the Minister of Justice will tell us-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you may see that this hurts to some extent certain Liberal members, and I understand that.


Some hon. Members:: Especially those from Montreal.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, since today was spent on the estimates of the Department of Justice, I feel that the minister should give us those documents and tell us the names of those who received money.


Mr. Pilon:: May I call it ten o'clock. Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, with the unanimous consent of the house, could I be
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion allowed to table a document dated March 6, 1964 which is a legal opinion addressed to the Department of Justice and signed by Mr. John J. Robinette?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to the tabling of the document referred to by the Minister of Justice?


Mr. Bell:: May we have the minister's assurance, and I ask this merely for the record, that that is the entire legal opinion given by Mr. Robinette in this case?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the Minister of Justice if he intends to table the documents containing the names of those who received $1,000?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we propose to call the estimates of the department of secretary of state, forestry, the Indian affairs branch, and if those three are finished, trade and commerce or finance, but not necessarily in that order.


William Arnold Peters: What happens to justice, now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock-


William Arnold Peters: May I ask what happens to the Department of Justice?


George James McIlraith: The arrangement was that certain departments would be called on certain days. That involved external affairs on Thursday of last week and the justice department today, with the other two departments I indicated for tomorrow. This is as far as I can go at the moment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I regret that it is so late. 1 know that maritime unions are important, but so are maritime provinces.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Public Works today was with regard to
10420	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the construction of the Prince Edward Island causeway, a matter upon which there is confusion and uncertainty resulting from diverse and differing statements from ministers of the crown.
According to Time magazine of October 9 the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) said that it-
-is certain that construction will start by 1966. There's nothing in the reports to indicate any delay or any discouragement. We have a schedule and I am completely confident it will be met.
One has to read the papers regularly to hear progress of this undertaking, since one finds little on the records of parliament. On November 21 the Charlottetown Guardian had a headline "Causeway Construction Slated for 1965 Start?" The story is more interesting, if less revealing, than the headline. It is an account of a Liberal meeting in Kings county where the guest speaker was the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). I quote from the newspaper account:
Mr. Pickersgill did not make a long reference to the causeway. He said there was absolutely no question now about the causeway being built. He said he hoped to see the project actually under way next year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't you?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hope so; my colleague hopes so; a hundred thousand islanders hope so. But we would like a little more than hopes.
It is significant that the minister who has departmental responsibility, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) has not said 1965, like the Minister of Transport, or 1966 like the Solicitor General. He has made a consistent and sustained contribution of silence to this vital question.
Throughout the years when our party was in power the present Minister of Transport was frequent and constant in his interrogation of the government. He used to rise and ask about the feasibility report, and when it was going to be tabled. Frequently he would ask if the causeway was under construction. He was fortunate that he was never asked to put these questions on the order paper, like I have been. But now, after being 19 months a member of the government I would have thought that more than hope would have been voiced by him. I would have thought a definite statement, not of hope but of policy and of plans would have been made-a firm announcement; the kind of statement the former prime minister made in the house when


he rose and pledged his government to build the causeway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What happened to that?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I hope the minister will contain himself. I have listened to many things from him for many years and I was able to restrain myself from interruptions, which were very easily prompted.
The former government was often criticized for not producing reports fast enough. Now we have a situation where this report has been available for months, but it is not being revealed. It is not being released, nor is the government indicating what plans it has, based upon the information which it admits it has had for a long time. We have had no information as to what type of work will be done and when it will begin. There is nothing about the interesting suggestions of a very reputable organization headed by Mr. Margison. There is nothing about the possible effect upon rail travel.
Except for newspaper releases and short statements at political meetings, all is silence on this great subject, one of the greatest things as far as the maritime economy in the region is concerned. With regard to a place where transportation problems have always been of the most compelling urgency we find a dreadful lack of official assurance, of official statements from the government by the minister who has the responsibility for this vast project, about which so much was done by the preceding government. I invite the minister to lift tonight a little of the veil of secrecy and state in this house officially where the project stands.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to make a statement on the Northumberland causeway project on my estimates, but since the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) has raised this matter, may I be permitted to say this. The first phase of preliminary studies has been completed; a detailed report has been turned in, and also two sets of designs have been submitted by the consultant engineers. This report establishes without any shadow of a doubt the feasibility of this project both as regards the engineering and economic aspects. This report and the designs are now before the government. I have said several times, and I repeat tonight, that this project is under very active consideration by the government. Having said that, I do not want to comment any further on the matter except to say that I have read the statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) as re-

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
ported on Saturday in the Charlottetown Guardian, where he said, and I quote, that he hoped to see the project actually under way next year-meaning, of course, in 1965. I think all hon. members will agree that the Minister of Transport is not only a great
thinker but is also a great prophet. Let us hope that, as usual, he will be right.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Another hope.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Tuesday, November 24, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
In view of the statements made in the house yesterday, and in view of the fact that I have already made a voluntary statement to the R.C.M.P., I wish to state as follows:
1.	It was as a member of parliament that I made representations in the case of one Mr. Rivard. In the course of those representations I am convinced that I did not exercise or attempt to exercise any undue influence, nor did I do anything reprehensible;
2.	In view of that statement given to the R.C.M.P., I am sure that my name is mentioned in the report of the R.C.M.P.
If a judicial inquiry is held in this matter, as was inferred yesterday, I request that I be granted every opportunity of appearing before the investigating commissioner;
3.	I wish to state and insist upon the fact that, right or wrong, I never thought that I should inform the Prime Minister about this matter, and it was only this morning that I told him about it;
4.	Until an inquiry has established the whole truth about this matter, and until a decision is rendered, I am asking the Prime Minister to relieve me of my duties as parliamentary secretary.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) presented the first report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Canada pension plan, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the house last evening, I now intend to make the statement which I undertook to make today.
The government on my recommendation has decided to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that a judicial inquiry should be held. The commissioner will be asked to deal with the following questions:
1.	Whether, on the basis of the reports submitted to the Minister of Justice by the R.C.M. Police, and the evidence laid before him in connection therewith, it was a reasonable decision on the part of the minister that there was not sufficient evidence to support a successful prosecution.
2.	Whether any further evidence that may be laid before the commissioner, taken in conjunction with the evidence that was before the minister, would justify prosecution.
To deal specifically with the question raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I may say that apart from the persons mentioned by the member for Yukon, the only other person besides myself associated with the government and referred to in the report is the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau).


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister that a judicial inquiry will take place in connection with the matters raised by the hon. member for Yukon will naturally be accepted provided it is made clear that the suggestion of the minister yesterday that such a commission should meet in secret-


Guy Favreau: No, Mr. Speaker; I am sorry, but the contrary is clear. It will be an open inquiry.


John George Diefenbaker: That is welcome. That indicates there has been a great change overnight in the attitude of the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: It bears out what has been said in description of oppositions, that

Judicial Inquiry Established oppositions cleanse and purify those in office and that we in the opposition are in fact the "detergents of democracy."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see the
reception given those words by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who ridicules them-


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not ridiculing them. I am just thinking of how they might apply to the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: -as does the Minister of Transport, but I am quoting the present leader of the Liberal party when he spoke in Washington in 1960. I am very happy to find there is the same division among members of the cabinet today as has been so apparent in the last few days.
Canadians will not be satisfied by anything short of a complete investigation into this matter. The questions that have been suggested as the basis for the examination by the judge are too limited. There should be a general provision so the judge will be able to make the fullest and most careful examination of this matter, and so that no hidden recess will remain concealed from the searchlight of full examination and scrutiny.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They laugh, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday they ridiculed the hon. member for Yukon when he brought this matter before the house. I want to say, too, that there are apparently other matters that will come up when the estimates of the Department of Justice are again considered by the house, and we in Her Majesty's loyal opposition do not intend that we shall be curtailed in any way in bringing before the house additional matters over and above those that were dealt with yesterday regardless of whether or not a commission is set up.
I would have thought that the minister would have immediately given the house certain information which the Canadian people have the right to know. Was Mr. Denis dismissed from office? If so, for what reason? Did he admit any wrongdoing? If so, why was that wrongdoing so carefully concealed until brought forth in the house by the hon. member for Yukon? What statements were made by Mr. Lord? Did he admit that he had indulged in any way in threats? Did Denis admit that he had indulged in attempted bribery? The minister could have told the house, without in any way interfering with

the course of justice, whether the counsel for the United States gave to the Department of Justice any information regarding alleged bribes or threats. We have not any of this at all.
It is a strange thing that before the commission is set up the minister has not seen fit to clear up these questions. Today there has been another step. I am not going to refer to the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister or the statement he made as a question of privilege, but certainly that statement on his part today indicates that in the last 24 hours there has been a lot of soul searching across the way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the government could have done other than it has done, namely to offer a judicial inquiry into this matter which was raised in the house yesterday. The surprising thing to me is that it should have been necessary to bring this to the attention of the house before the government decided to initiate the inquiry.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the terms of reference which the minister has suggested are far too limited. As I took them down in rather scratchy notes, the minister said there would be two items in the terms of reference, namely whether or not there was sufficient information available to the minister when he received the R.C.M.P. report to warrant the laying of a criminal charge; and second, whether there is any further evidence at the time of the judicial inquiry which would warrant a prosecution.
It seems to me there is a much wider aspect of this case which ought to be looked into now, and that is the whole procedure which was followed by the minister and the government in dealing with this matter. Here was a minister of justice who, if I remember the dates he mentioned yesterday, around August 14 was told by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. that a counsel had been faced, in one instance personally and in another case by telephone, by two executive assistants to two cabinet ministers. In the one case he was offered a bribe and in the second he had been subjected to intimidation in order to go easy on an application for bail by two men who were subject to extradition proceedings on behalf of the United States in connection with a narcotics charge. Now it is also apparent from the statement that has been made today that this allegation by a prominent counsel of

the city of Montreal involved a member of this house, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.
When the minister received the report on September 18 he had all this information before him. The minister decided, on his own, that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution. I say, Mr. Speaker, being as charitable as it is possible to be, that here was an allegation by a highly respected lawyer, a member of a reputable legal firm in the city of Montreal who had nothing to gain by making this allegation and, on the contrary, was only doing so to safeguard his own good name, and who must have known that in making this allegation he would be dragged through an investigation. Certainly there was every reason to believe that his allegations were true.
From the minister's statement yesterday it is perfectly clear that this matter was not referred either to the law officers of the crown in his department or to the crown attorney of the area to see whether they thought there were grounds for prosecution. Instead the matter was dropped, and would not have been raised again if it had not been raised in the house yesterday.
I think we are entitled to some explanations, and certainly a judicial inquiry ought to bring out some of the facts. For instance, the secretary or executive assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration left the employ of the minister around October 1, two weeks after this report was given to the Minister of Justice. Was he fired? If he was fired and if there were sufficient grounds for firing him, surely there were sufficient grounds for prosecuting him.
Yesterday the minister did not give us any further information, although we pressed him, regarding whether or not there was any person higher up involved. Now it it admitted that the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister was involved in this investigation. Surely the house has a right to know, and the country will want to know, whether the Minister of Justice transmitted the contents of the report he received from the R.C.M.P. on September 18 to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister knew, and has known since September 18, that the parliamentary secretary was involved in this investigation, why is it that only today, on November 24-


Guy Favreau: On a point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -is the hon. member submitting his resignation?
Judicial Inquiry Established


Guy Favreau: On a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Guy Favreau: -the Prime Minister was not apprised until yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Why not?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sorry; I could not hear the minister.


Guy Favreau: I said the Prime Minister had not been advised.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, he should have been.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why wasn't he?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says the Prime Minister was not informed of the contents of this report which he, the minister, received on the 18th day of September. Of course that is a matter for the Prime Minister to deal with, but I want to say that I would think any prime minister would take a dim view of an R.C.M.P. report lying on the desk of his Minister of Justice, involving his own parliamentary secretary, not being transmitted to him.
It seems to me this is a very serious matter indeed. I would therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that if the judicial investigation is to be ordered its terms of inquiry will be expanded to deal not only with whether there is now sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution against those concerning whom allegations have been made, but I would think the judicial inquiry should also include an examination of all the procedures that were followed, in order that the Canadian people may know whether the Minister of Justice, and other ministers who were involved, carried out their responsibilities properly, or whether there was an attempt to conceal this matter and sweep it under the rug in order to prevent the facts from becoming known.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that since the Prime Minister must accept the major responsibility for any actions of the government, he would insist that the terms of reference be widened to look into the propriety of the manner in which this whole question has been handled by the Department of Justice. [Translation]


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, in view of all that has taken place I think we can only regret that it is difficult to find complete honesty in politics.
I think that the announcement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) of his decision to hold an inquiry in that matter is certainly a sound one. I can only urge the

Judicial Inquiry Established minister to carry out a complete inquiry into that matter so that no doubt can subsist in the minds of the members of the House of Commons and of the whole Canadian people as to the implications that could spring from the allegation made yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
It seems to me, after listening to the discussion yesterday, that there is definitely grounds for an inquiry, and a very serious inquiry, since confidence in politics is involved and since that confidence has been quite seriously shaken by the policy followed by this government since they came to office. I think we could have done without this new ordeal. Since the facts are already before us, it is imperative to throw some light on that matter so that all facts will be known by each and every one. And if someone is guilty, let him be punished.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, following the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) I must state that we are far from being satisfied with the terms of reference of this inquiry.
The inquiry will be, especially under the terms of reference announced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), entirely contrary to the principles of impartial justice.
The minister states that the purpose of the inquiry will be to determine whether the department was right or not in not lodging a complaint when the report from the R.C.M.P. was received.
The inquiry will hence determine the action of the minister on receipt of that report from the R.C.M.P. Now, on receiving the report the minister decided not to lodge a complaint immediately. What happens to the role of the Minister of Justice? His efforts will tend to prove that he was right in not lodging a complaint and that there is not sufficient evidence. By the same token, it can be seen that apart from this role he will have another more serious part to play, which will be to try and justify the innocence of those against whom charges were laid, so that his own role, which was not to take action, will be justified.
In that inquiry the minister will attempt to justify his refusal to prosecute or lay charges against those presumed responsible.
Obviously the role of the Minister of Justice will be then quite contrary to that he usually assumes in the normal discharge of his duties. The duty of the Minister of Justice is to set up inquiries, to lay charges against those
[Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John) .1
presumed guilty, but in that inquiry, if the Minister of Justice wants to justify his action not to prosecute those individuals, he will definitely have to try to prove their innocence. Under the terms of reference the minister did set out himself, his duty and his role will be to prove that two individuals are innocent which is not his role but rather an opposite role to that he has to play.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that the terms of reference of the judicial commission whose establishment has just been announced is nothing but a smokescreen set up by the Minister of Justice who is trying to hide the facts and play a role which is not his, that is to exonerate the accused.
The matter raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is a serious one; in fact, it is much more serious than it would seem on the face of it. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out, two executive secretaries to ministers are involved. One of the parliamentary secretaries to the Prime Minister even felt compelled to resign. We do not ask for that much, since he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, he felt he had to resign and it is reported today that one of the two executive secretaries has been fired. The minister announced an investigation on the actions of those individuals, but not on the question of whether he was right in not bringing the matter before the court.
So, that is what I think of the announcement made by the Minister of Justice. The terms of reference that he formulated are absolutely contrary to the impartial application of justice. In my opinion the minister should ask instead for a complete investigation on everything that took place in this matter, including the telephone calls as well as the threats and the amounts of money involved. That is what he is there for, in any case, as he just stated.



On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the announcement made a moment ago regarding the setting up of a judicial commission, we in the opposition might want the opportunity of discussing further ramifications in connection with this matter which I am informed will be brought before the house. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister whether he is in agreement that no objection

would be raised on the part of the government, should the commission be appointed, to having further discussion of the matter in the house when the estimates of the Department of Justice come back to the committee of supply. To that end I suggest to the Prime Minister that they be called again tomorrow and that the order in council, if it has not already been issued, be held back so as to permit further disclosures to be made. The hon. member for Yukon has additional matters that the house and the country should have, and in the interests of the Canadian people I ask the Prime Minister whether he will accede to this request.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon made certain charges, allegations and statements in the house yesterday and had, of course, ample opportunity to do so and he had the right to that opportunity. As soon as those statements and allegations were made the government acted to set up an inquiry as was requested, quite reasonably. That inquiry has terms of reference to deal with what was stated yesterday. I am quite certain that the terms will be wide enough that all relevant factors and the statements and allegations made will be covered by the inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: What are you afraid of?


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Prime Minister, has the order in council been passed yet?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, not yet.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I would ask the Prime Minister to hold it and bring back the estimates, because there are other matters, which might cause further interest even than those already revealed, to be brought before the house in connection with this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are other matters which will be revealed. Perhaps there are further matters to be revealed on this side, too; but we were asked to institute an inquiry with respect to those matters, and we have done so in terms which will permit the widest possible inquiry into them.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the terms were so worded that I suggest to the Prime Minister that it could not be anything other than a whitewash proceeding. Will he put a
Judicial Inquiry Established general term in the reference so the whole field in this connection may be looked into; because there are other matters in which the Prime Minister may be interested. He was not informed what his parliamentary secretary was doing. There may be other matters that the Minister of Justice did not inform him about.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If there are other matters, those matters can be dealt with when the charges are made.


John George Diefenbaker: The House of Commons is the place.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether he got advice from the law officers of the crown in the preparation of the terms of reference for the judicial inquiry, or were they drafted on his own initiative? Because we have had examples of his initiative before.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as usual the opposition feels that the civil service ought to be dragged into this matter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: -but I have to assert now that I have had advice from the law officers of the crown.


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to what?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. He spoke of the terms of reference having the widest possible application. I cannot reconcile this with the statement made by the Minister of Justice, which revealed two very narrow terms of reference. May I ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to see that in the order in council containing the terms of reference there is provision for an investigation into the propriety of the procedure followed by the Department of Justice following the reception of the R.C.M.P. report on September 18.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference were not, in my view, as narrow as my hon. friend suggests. The evidence that has been referred to will be before the commissioner. Any other evidence bearing on what was mentioned and alleged yesterday will be before the commissioner. I am perfectly certain that the commissioner will undoubtedly, in considering the evidence, inquire into the propriety of any action which has been taken.

Judicial Inquiry Established


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question. It is not what I say about the terms of reference; I am simply stating what the Minister of Justice said they were. He referred to only two items; 1, whether or not there had been sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution; and 2, whether in the meantime other evidence had arisen. If these are the two items in the terms of reference they are not wide enough to give the commission the latitude which is required to look into the propriety of the whole procedure which has been followed by the Department of Justice. I ask the Prime Minister whether such a clause will be inserted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the terms of reference are wide enough to deal with the matter referred to by my hon. friend, but of course there is no desire on the part of the government to hold back anything from this inquiry. We want to make this inquiry both full and fair, and I will look at the terms of reference with that in mind.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One further supplementary question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Labour. Can he indicate whether in preparing his material for submission to this commission, providing he has in his possession the documents and exhibits of the Norris commission, as I believe he does, he will undertake to have those documents searched to see whether there was a voucher presented by Mr. Harold C. Banks for the payment of a sum of money-I believe some $1,500, but the amount is not important-to one Raymond Denis? Will the minister undertake to see whether this voucher is among the exhibits and documents of the Norris commission and, if it is, to have it submitted to the commission?


Mr. MacEachen:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question which is closely related to those which were asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic party.
Yesterday the Prime Minister intimated that he would reveal, as soon as he was in a position to do so, the names of the Liberal members or organizers for the city of Montreal who received $1,000 gifts from the organization of Mr. Hal C. Banks.
Knowing that the Prime Minister is perfectly aware of what happened in Mont-


real at the time of the last election, is he in a position to give us the names of the federal Liberal members who received $1,000 each from the organization of Mr. Hal C. Banks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion for the production of papers on the order paper dealing with this matter.


An hon. Member:: It has been passed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That motion has been passed and the information is being produced as quickly as possible. This will take a little time, because the motion related not only to government departments-that information could have been produced at once-but also to other agencies under government control. To provide the information in that respect will require making contact with a great many agencies throughout Canada, and that is being done.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Prime Minister has said about his intention in respect of the terms of reference, will he undertake before the order in council is passed to come before this house again and disclose whether he then intends to widen the terms of reference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I am satisfied the terms are wide enough for an investigation. I have also said, I believe, that the question of widening them will be considered.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will you disclose the
circumstances to the house before passing the order in council? That is my supplementary question.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in order to clear up what appears to me to be an ambiguity, as I am sure it appears to other hon. members, consequent upon some of the answers given to questions today. Was the Prime Minister informed by the Minister of Justice of any of the circumstances of this case, which is now going to be investigated, prior to those circumstances being brought out in this house yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the Minister of Justice has dealt with this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked the question is that it appeared from questions and answers that the Prime Minister had not been informed about his parliamentary secretary. It was not clear whether he had been informed about any of the other circumstances, and my question is this. Was he informed by the Minister of Justice in regard to any of the other circumstances of this case prior to those circumstances being brought to the attention of this house yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was informed by the Minister of Justice of some of the circumstances shortly before his estimates came before the house. He told me this matter would be before the house during the consideration of his estimates. He told me the facts of the matter. My parliamentary secretary, who has just resigned, has already indicated in his statement that he had not informed me of this matter until this morning.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer touched upon the ambiguity I mentioned, which was the reason for my question. When the Prime Minister said he was informed before the minister's estimates were put before the house, does he mean he was informed yesterday or a week ago? When was he informed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I was informed on the day before his estimates were brought before the house.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question in this regard for the Prime Minister. Before the completion of the order in council, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to the suggestion that these terms of reference be broadened; or will he perhaps appoint some other body, such as a royal commission, to investigate not only the matters referred to by the Minister of Justice but other matters specifically related to the possibility of international crime organizations having infiltrated other offices of cabinet ministers of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very different matter, which is far reaching and would involve a great deal of consideration and discussion. If there is any evidence to support the very serious statement made by my hon. friend perhaps he will produce that evidence, and the necessary steps will be taken.
Judicial Inquiry Established


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he will inform the house today why Mr. Raymond Denis was released from employment in his office.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Raymond Denis submitted his resignation in writing and I accepted it immediately.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister include in the terms of reference of this judicial inquiry, authority for the judge or commissioner to thoroughly examine the affairs of the Department of Citizenship and Immi-tion during the employment of Mr. Raymond Denis, in view of the fact that Mr. Denis served in that office for a rather lengthy period of time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is now a commissioner inquiring into certain aspects of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; I refer to Mr. Sedgwick. The particular man in question who worked in the department of immigration most certainly will be under investigation by the commissioner.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Did the executive assistant give reasons for resigning his position and, if so, what reasons did he give for that resignation?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, if I remember rightly, Mr. Denis wanted to take up other activities than those of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a further supplementary question. Is the new field which he wanted to go into the same field he was in while he was employed in the minister's office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Judicial Inquiry Established
When did Mr. Denis hand in his resignation? The minister told us that this official had taken up other activities he preferred, but when he resigned, he surely gave reasons for so doing. Can the minister tell the house if those reasons are somewhat similar to those which induced Mr. Hal Banks to leave Canada and flee to the United States?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would be ready to give all this information to the house, but I believe that the investigating commissioner will be quite glad to obtain all those details. I will also be very glad to supply him with all the information required to clear up this situation.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that we are going rather far afield.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is such a thing as common, ordinary, plain honest justice and I do not believe that-


An hon. Member:: Yes, there is, but where is it? That is what we are looking for.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If any hon. member has a charge to make, surely the right procedure is for him to stand up and make the charge, rather than doing so by indirection. A commission has been set up to investigate this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: No, it has not.


Mr. Speaker:: A commission is in the process of being set up to investigate this matter, and it does seem to me we are going a little far afield from the grounds of common justice to individuals who may or may not be concerned in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs about Mr. Lord, who went to the United Kingdom. Has Mr. Lord been on the payroll of the Canadian government, and in particular since being abroad has he been temporarily on the payroll of the high commissioner's office in London?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if he is I am not aware of it. I will make some inquiries.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration this question arising out of his answer. Having regard to the charges made yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon, was the minister aware of the matter in which his executive assistant was involved at the time he accepted his resignation, and did he discuss it with his executive assistant before accepting his resignation?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said a while ago: I will be glad to make all depositions and give all necessary information to the investigating commissioner, when that inquiry is held. But I do not believe that this is the right time and place to give those details.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister this. Is he defying the House of Commons and refusing to answer the question? Is it or is it not true that he fully discussed this matter with his executive assistant prior to the resignation? Why not answer that? Is it because he is afraid?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Denis sent me his resignation he informed me of the charges that had been laid against him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Did he inform the Prime Minister of the facts concerning the resignation of his executive assistant when the executive assistant resigned; and if he did not inform the Prime Minister, why not?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained this. Mr. Raymond Denis sent me his resignation after having advised me of the charges laid against him. He has always denied those charges. I did accept his resignation. However, I did not feel that I had to advise the Prime Minister that my assistant had decided to resign and leave my office.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Why did the minister not inform the Prime Minister at that time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the
minister is able to reach his own decisions.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell us whether he has looked into a resolution from the Quebec city council and what steps he intends to take so as to cope with the decision of the Canadian National Railways?
This question refers to the one I asked yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely this is a question for the order paper. There is not that pressing urgency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, to be fair to the hon. gentleman I would point out that he asked the question yesterday and I undertook to make some reply today. My parliamentary secretary is ready to do so.


William Heward Grafftey: That does not make the question in order.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, we received representations from Quebec city this morning, and we are now in touch with the management of the Canadian National Railways. The hon. member will be informed of the answer as soon as it has been received from the Canadian National Railways.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister in a position to inform the house as to the safety of the Canadian missionaries and others in that very troubled section of the Congo?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as of two o'clock the latest information we had was that some 65 of these hostages were believed to have been killed and some 55 wounded. Whether there are any Canadians involved
Inquiries of the Ministry I cannot say. There were some conflicting reports, and I would not want to comment on those for fear of creating concern where it may not be warranted.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How many of the hostages have been taken to safety so far? Is the minister in a position to tell us that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the Belgian troops which were prepared to go into Stanleyville actually landed there, and are they now in a position to prevent further slaughter of these hostages?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have been advised that with the prior agreement of the government at Leopoldville, a Belgian paratroop unit of 500 parachuted on Stanleyville this morning, the purpose being to rescue the foreign hostages about whom we have been so much concerned during the past few weeks. The Belgian government has clearly indicated that the landing of these paratroops was not a military operation, but was designed and limited solely to providing for the security and obtaining the freedom of the hostages. The foreign minister of Belgium, Mr. Spaak, indicated at eleven o'clock this morning that he hoped that before the end of the day the operation would be successful; but we are not in a position, as I just told the hon. member, to say to what extent and in what numbers the hostages have been able to obtain their freedom and to escape the terrible situation confronting them.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the release by the dominion bureau of statistics last Friday indicating an increase in unemployment by 40,000 between September and October and a decline of 50,000 in employment, both figures being larger than seasonal, what steps is the government taking to meet this alarming situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret I did not hear the hon. member's question fully. I will be glad to read it in Hansard and reply tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I enlighten the minister by referring to the dominion bureau of statistics release indicating that unemployment in Canada increased by 40,000 between September and October and employment declined by 50,000, both figures being larger than seasonal. What steps is the government taking to meet this alarming situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question tomorrow.



EFFECT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON ATLANTIC PROVINCES SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour of which I have given him notice. Can the minister assure the house that the crews of C.N.R. operated ferries will not suffer a reduction in take home pay due to the operation of the terms of Bill No. C-126, if enacted in its present form? I am thinking chiefly of the C.N.R. ferries in the maritimes and of ships operating to Newfoundland.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, much as I would like to accommodate my hon. friend by giving him a reply to this question, I have already stated that in view of the fact that the bill is in committee stage and listed for consideration later by the house, it would be improper for me to answer such questions; but I am sure the question he has raised is important and will be dealt with by the committee.


John Angus MacLean: As a supplementary question, may I ask the minister if he has received representations from the crews of these vessels, as many of us have, in which they point out that in general they welcome the eight hour day, as it will improve their working conditions, but as one man says,
-if I have to lose wages I would rather continue working the ten hours.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have seen a great number of representations. I shall investigate this particular set of representations and give them every possible consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the large volume

of protests indicating activity on the part of the Irish, and in view of the recommendation of the Suttie report, will the minister say whether the decision to disband the Irish regiments in Toronto and Vancouver has been reconsidered?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As hon. members are aware, similar questions have already been asked, and in reply I have said that representations have been received from many sources, including hon. members from both sides of the house. I have also said that I was keenly aware of the pride felt by those making representations on behalf of great regiments, and that I regretted that the decisions taken with respect to the transfer to the supplementary order of battle of these historic units, including the Irish regiment, must stand.
A suggestion has been put forward, however, which will permit the decisions taken to be implemented and at the same time enable us to perpetuate the great Irish tradition within the active militia. We have already announced the formation of an infantry battalion in Sudbury to replace the 58th field artillery regiment now located there. It has been proposed that this unit be named the 2nd battalion, the Irish Regiment of Canada, (Sudbury).
I am informed that this solution carries the judgment of a representative group of responsible people, and I am pleased to concur in the hope that the action will receive general support. In this way the name and glorious tradition of this great regiment, the Irish Regiment of Canada, will be actively maintained.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister feel that this solution will be at all satisfactory to those who have been active members of the Irish regiments in Toronto and Vancouver; and does he think it wise to pick a fight with the Irish?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second half of the question is in the negative. In respect to the first part of the question, I certainly hope this solution will meet with general approval. The representations I have had were to the effect that the Irish tradition should be preserved in the active militia, and that in particular the Irish Regiment of Canada history should be maintained. This solution is a happy one which will permit that to go forward.

POSSIBLE POLICY CHANGE RESPECTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS On the orders of the day:


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact that the government is considering an about turn in its long term nuclear policy, opting for a continuing nuclear role for Canada in an effort to break the deadlock between France and the United States over the nuclear deterrent?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the government's position with respect to atomic weapons was very clearly set out in the white paper on defence. That will remain the policy of the government until some announcement is made to the contrary.

WHEAT-SUBSIDY ON EXPORTS BY UNITED STATES On the orders of the day:


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It concerns a major policy matter which I raised last Friday, namely the drop in Durum prices from 11 cents to 16 cents. Did the minister receive notification from the Canadian wheat board before this price change was put into effect?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am happy the hon. gentleman has asked me this question because it enables me to answer a charge he made the last time he asked a question on this matter. I should like to say that so far as we can determine the United States has not broken any international agreement by the action it took with respect to the pricing of Durum wheat.
The Canadian wheat board was made aware of the action of the United States government shortly before the United States took that action. I was informed immediately, and by the time I was informed, or shortly thereafter, the price reduction had been made in order to sell the wheat. An order for something around two million bushels was filled, and that was the occasion for the increase in the subsidy and the reduction in price.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My supplementary question bears on the first part of the minister's statement. Is the minister aware that the same sort of thing happened in the fall of 1962?
Inquiries of the Ministry The United States put on the subsidy on a Friday and took if off at nine o'clock on a Wednesday morning because of representations from the minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am a great admirer of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I say this quite sincerely. I think the hon. gentleman did a very good job when he was minister of agriculture. My only regret is that he always reminds us about it.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce not think the reduction in the price of two million bushels of Durum wheat will seriously affect the final price at which we will have to sell our spring wheat under the international wheat agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to add to the answer I gave the other day, and this bears directly on the question which has just been asked. I have been in communication with the department of agriculture of the United States. Unfortunately the secretary of agriculture was absent when I called and I spoke to the under secretary. As I said in the house the other day, I made strong representations concerning this reduction in the price of Durum wheat. I said to the under secretary that I understood the circumstances surrounding Durum wheat and I did not question the right of the United States to set its own prices, any more than the United States questioned our right to set our prices for our wheat.
However, I did say I hoped this did not foreshadow any alteration in United States policy with respect to spring wheat, and that I hoped the United States shared our general desire to maintain as much stability in price as possible. On both these points he gave me his assurance.
Mr. Eric A Winkler (Grey-Bruce): I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question related to the answer he has just given. Is he aware of the reduction in income of those engaged in eastern agriculture, which would give rise to the repeated wish for a return to the state of affairs when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was minister of agriculture?


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope I shall be permitted to reply in kind to this sort of question. I would say to my hon. friend that when we took office, as he well knows, there was a great deal of dissatisfaction in eastern Canada with respect to the condition of agriculture.

Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: And there still is.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My supplementary question of the minister is this. Does he consider that the federal government of the United States, by subsidizing the movement of grain to eastern ports, is not subsidizing grain for export into commercial markets?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. gentleman. It is most undesirable that the United States should subsidize export grain. He has protested and I have protested. When he was in office the United States exported subsidized grain. He is well aware of this. We both have been fighting this same problem, and I think I have fought it with at least as much success.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister protest to the United States government regarding the recent drop in their export price on Durum wheat? If so, to whom were the representations made? What was the nature of the representations, and approximately the time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman was absent when I was answering the question of the hon. member who sits behind him. I made these representations to the under secretary of agriculture, Mr. Murphy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Rosthern.


Edward Nasserden: My supplementary question has been asked.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he comment on the recent decision taken by the governments of Great Britain and the United States to increase the rate of interest or discount in those countries? Can he also comment on what measures he expects will be taken to prevent Canadians from investing Canadian capital in those countries, in view of the fact that the rate of discount was increased yesterday or the day before? [Text]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 
Paul Raymond Martineau: As a supplementary question, was the move taken yesterday by the Bank of Canada to increase the bank rate designed to increase the inflow of United States capital to this country?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker, it was done in the context of the changes to which I have been referring.


Colin Cameron: As a supplementary question, in view of this situation in the international monetary market, in view of the fact that the Canadian dollar is, as the minister will agree, in an entirely different position from the U.S. dollar and sterling, have the minister and his advisers considered the possibility of releasing the Canadian dollar from the pegged rate and adopting either the free floating rate or a wider range of possible fluctuation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker. The government's policy on this matter is well known, and there has been and will be no change in it.
Supply-C.B.C.


Colin Cameron: As a further supplementary question, does the minister consider this policy will be maintained even if the upward pressure on the Canadian dollar, which has been evinced in the U.S. market, continues?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, this question was, of course, taken into account when the decision was taken to increase the Canadian bank rate by one quarter of one per cent, despite the fact that the rate in the United States had been increased by one half of one per cent.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. Yesterday, as reported on page 10410 of Hansard, I put the following question to the hon. member for Lapointe:
Does the hon. member feel that it Is a more serious matter to accept contributions from the S.I.U. than to work for Jos. Bdgin who is a notorious criminal and who has been charged before the courts?
I recognize that I have expressed myself more strongly than I intended to because Mr. Jos. Begin is not a notorious criminal. What I intended to say is that criminal charges have been laid against him, that they are before the courts and that the hon. member for Lapointe worked for this man for $50 a week.



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



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
I.	Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service, $85,900,000.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, mindful of the fact that we have many departmental estimates to pass in a short number of days my few remarks will be fewer than usual. I am sorry my colleague from Digby-Annap-olis-Kings is not able to be here, though I do not suggest I am continuing his remarks. He has enough problems to deal with without bearing the responsibility for anything I might say.
The impressive statement of the minister on Friday, November 13, indicating it is not such an unlucky day as some may think, was
10436

Supply-C.B.C.
full and interesting, and I was impressed at the emphasis he put upon what he chose to call the spiritual side of our Canadian life. We should remind ourselves that for a nation, as for an individual, life is more than meat, and the body more than raiment. While we all know that in our time life is becoming easier, it is our responsibility to give leadership in fields other than material. He said our cultural life was anaemic. Perhaps it is; but I am optimistic enough to believe that it is viable, that after an assiduous search for our identity we have found one. Now it is up to us to nurture and nourish our cultural development.
Much of what the minister said the other day was not new. Much was a recapitulation of plans and projects which have been under consideration or in progress for years. A good deal of it was of a very general nature. Despite this, however, his statement was important, useful and on the whole encouraging, and I congratulate him upon it.
I should like to make a few brief comments on one or two of the subjects he dealt with. I do not intend to spend any time on the affairs of the C.B.C., because on interim supply many of us made our comments with regard to that important body. Had the estimates come before us earlier we would have made them in connection with those estimates. I do hope that at another session of this parliament, if there is one, we may all have an opportunity to deal with this vital subject in a period of time commensurate with its interest and importance.
In the first place, I think putting all the cultural agencies under one roof, as the minister describes it, constitutes a good and useful step. I should like to advocate strongly the establishment of a standing committee on cultural matters. I believe much would come from the establishment of such a body. Third, I believe, and I hope the minister believes, that we Canadians must devote far more of our budget to cultural matters. The minister, with all these agencies under his umbrella, has a tremendous opportunity and an immense responsibility. Fourth, I believe far more use could and should be made of the queen's printer, or perhaps of the queen's publisher, to popularize the cultural activities and aims of our nation.
I believe too that larger budgets and greater programming autonomy should be provided for agencies such as the archives and the others the hon. gentleman mentioned in the latter part of his statement. I only

wish I had more time in which to discuss the public archives, which is the institution I know so very well, but I can pay a tribute here to the wonderful effort which has been made in recent years in encouraging historical research and revitalizing our interest in our past. Sixth, I should like to endorse the intention to proceed with consideration of the establishment of a national research centre for the humanities and the social sciences. I believe this is a most commendable and worth-while field of study. We have the national research council as a splendid example of what the government can do in this area of science. Surely in the social science realm the need is even greater.
With my seventh point my sermonette is at an end. In the words of a great man whose death we mourned and recalled just the other day, a nation is judged not only by the men it produces but by the men it honours. This brings me to a subject I have often raised in this parliament; the failure of Canadians and, I believe, of this government to give proper attention to our history and to the great men of our past. We are heading toward the sesqui-centennial of the birth of our greatest founding father, Sir John A. Macdonald. This event takes place on January 11. We are looking forward to celebrating the centenary of confederation in 1967. Let us take the first step in 1965 by celebrating in a full and fitting way the birth of the leading figure in the confederation movement whose centennial we will soon be marking.
I invite the minister to stimulate the interdepartmental committee which he said the other day has been established. In the process he might get somebody to provide an answer to the very simple question I placed on the order paper on August 18, namely whether the government had any plans-whether it was consulting with the government of Ontario, the city of Kingston, and so on-for participation in ceremonies honouring the anniversary of the birth of our first prime minister. Perhaps he could approach his colleague the Postmaster General about the issue of a commemorative stamp, the first of a series, it may be hoped, by means of which we could honour many men, including George Brown, D'Arcy McGee and others for whom appropriate celebration dates will be arising soon.
As far as I know nothing has been arranged except a dinner at Kingston to honour the birthday of Sir John A. Macdonald. I think the centennial committee is playing some part in that celebration. Perhaps the minister, if

he cannot get me an answer to my question, might get me a ticket to the dinner. This is something on which I would commend him most heartily; but surely the government, this parliament, which itself in such an impressive way commemorates Sir John A. Macdonald, should be giving a lead. Part of our trouble is that we are always so reluctant to enthuse or emote about the things which have made this Canada a good and worthy country.
Regretting that I have not time to say a great deal more, I wish the minister well in his efforts. I think he is a good minister. I hope I will be able to say this with greater enthusiasm as he produces more. In this connection I would urge him to keep in mind this need to pay tribute to our great men and honour our national founders. Let him give leadership in this regard. I shall be interested in what happens on January 11, and I shall expect to see his hand there in celebrations worthy of the man and worthy of our country.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Many hon. members have taken advantage of this opportunity to comment on the affairs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I intend to devote most of my remarks to the activities of the national film board.
First of all, though, I should like to say a word about the minister himself. I had intended to congratulate him on being the man from the Pearson team chosen to drag the wagon of culture. Someone behind the curtain remarked that we should be no longer speaking of "the Pearson team" but of "the Pearson gang". I do not know how the hon. gentleman would fit in with the gang.
I am pleased that he has this job and I hope he will be able to move quickly beyond the statement of policy he presented when the estimates were first brought before the committee. I notice that most people seem to think this statement was a good start, but there have been suggestions that it represented a hazy start. One of the drawbacks is the great hesitancy on the part of the people of Canada to consider a minister of culture. It seems too highfallutin', too fancy, too eggheadish, too corny, even, for Canadians. Nevertheless, in effect that is what the minister is, and the sooner the government sets out to give weight to the whole concept the better it will be.
The C.B.C. has been much in the news lately, largely because of programming. There has been a great deal of discussion in this house about the relationship between parliament and the corporation. We are waiting, as we usually are for some reason or other 20220-660^
Supply-C.B.C.
in connection with the C.B.C. and broadcasting matters generally, for a report, in this case the Fowler committee report. One of the gaps in our thinking as politicians is our inability to come to grips with the whole question of the grey areas of the relationship between the crown corporations and the government. I was reading J. K. Galbraith's analysis the other day of what a public corporation should be and his whole point was that it had to be completely clear of intervention and interference so far as its administration is concerned. But the important thing was to have the objectives of a public corporation open for discussion and perfectly clear, and it seems to me that this is the predicament of the C.B.C. at the present time.
The objectives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are no longer clear, and it seems to me they have been changed partly because of a hardening of the arteries within the C.B.C., which is now a middle aged and rather frumpy institution which has lost a great deal of its zest. Also private industry and the opportunity of watching United States programs has pretty well changed its objectives and indicates one of the main theses supporting the tremendous amount of money which is given to the C.B.C.
The whole concept of the C.B.C. has been that it provided the main bones of the broadcasting service in Canada. The plain fact of the matter is that it now no longer does this. It shares it with the private stations in both radio and television and it shares it also with the 60 to 75 per cent of the people of this country who are able to watch United States programs on television. This it seems to me, has really been the cause of the questions raised in many minds about the scale of financial support which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation gets.
This support has increased tremendously. If you go back to about 1945 or 1946 I believe it had a budget of $5 million or so. Now the budget is more than 20 times that, and the scale of contributions from general revenue is up over the $70 million mark. The situation has changed and the C.B.C. is no longer the main agency through which the majority of people get their radio and television. As a matter of fact radio is now a very minor element, not a major element, in terms of listening hours put in by Canadians. Television seems to get its major audience in most places where the audience is split or the program competes for an audience, or

Supply-C.B.C.
of film with topical and ephemeral characteristics which makes it less valuable for ordinary nontheatrical showing?
4.	What is the "entertainment" concept of national film board policy? Is it primary? If not, is there a trend in film making that way which is overlooking or forgetting the production of films whose subject matter has content that is significant, relevant to important topics, and full of information? Has the glamour of cinema and t.v. been too attractive to national film board directors?
5.	Has the board's experience with the "Dry-landers" and "Nobody Waved Goodbye" been indicative of anything in what not to do in producing feature films?
6.	What is the board's policy towards the field of education in the broadest sense? Perhaps "public service" should be substituted for "education"?
7.	Has the board any research activity to enable them to know what the film needs are in the field of adult education?
8.	What is the recruitment policy and program of the board? Does it get personnel by a regular canvass or exploitation of university graduating classes? What is the present composition of the board's creative people in terms of age, experience and training?
9.	How is the production staff assigned work?
10.	Has the move to Montreal led to the virtual isolation from each other of the English and French personnel of the board?
11.	What duties and interests other than the national film board have been put on or accepted by the head of the board?
I sent that letter to the minister requesting the establishment of a committee. I gather that he felt it best to get the requested information from the head of the national film board, and he forwarded that letter. He did not reply to me in terms indicating that he took my request with any seriousness on his part as the minister. He did send me a reply which was prepared by Mr. Roberge.
I have discussed this personally with the minister and I do not intend to quarrel with him here, but one of my main disappointments is that when someone presents a request, with an analysis, he should reply in something other than the form of an answer from the head of a particular agency. The reason I might have expected a reply from the head of the agency is just that such would be normal; but surely if the minister is in charge of the over-all policy and its operations it is his responsibility to examine the questions put to him and make some comment.
I have heard that the head of the national film board and the minister are very close friends. Perhaps there is such a relationship between them that they speak with one voice, but I suggest to the minister that if he wants to be fair to opposition politicians he should speak or make some comment about the suggestions made.

In any event, Mr. Roberge was kind enough to send me copy of a memorandum to the Secretary of State with respect to a letter from me. This is the answer:
I regret that owing to circumstances beyond my control I have been unable to let you have earlier my comments on Mr. Fisher's letter to you dated September 10, and I trust that both the member for Port Arthur and you will not have been inconvenienced by this delay.
Then he states:
While it is not for me to say whether or not a parliamentary committee should be constituted to look into national film board matters, I do feel that a meeting with the member for Port Arthur could provide him more rapidly with the information necessary to reach a conclusion on the various points he raised, more particularly on page 4 of his letter to you. I would be quite prepared, with my colleagues in the management of the board, to go into these questions at Mr. Fisher's convenience, if he could spare a day or so for that purpose.
This invitation is all very nice, but one of the things I have learned as a politician and opposition member is that the best thing you can do is to keep away from the formal apparatus of a civil service or a department or an agency unless you are dealing with it either in a parliamentary committee or with the minister or the senior political official responsible present. By "political" I mean an elected person. I appreciate the invitation but I am not particularly interested. As a matter of fact, I have received most of the information I present as a critique from members or people who work for the national film board or have a very close relationship with it, and I would not raise these questions if I did not feel they should be considered seriously by the government, not just by the head of the national film board. But Mr. Roberge goes on:
I appreciate Mr. Fisher's interest in what we are doing and how we are going about it. We are not indifferent, I may assure you, to the concern expressed by Mr. Fisher with respect to our community operations in Canada as distinct from our other activities at home in the theatrical and television areas and our operations abroad.
Here is a lovely sentence of gobbledegook:
Considering all the factors affecting our role here and abroad, and resources are one of those factors, I sincerely believe that we have, over the years, maintained a reasonable balance.
Shades of Alphonse Ouimet. That is what A1 always comes up with, this reasonable balance thing. How do you argue with it? He goes on to say:
On all fronts, the demands have been, and still are, greater than our resources.
They certainly are. If you have got a director who starts with a short and turns it into a feature film because he is away from

home base, you really have got demands on your resources. There is no question about that. He continues:
In terms of effort and funds, community films and their distribution as a distinctive sector have not and are not receiving the "poor relation" treatment. I would say that on the production program for this current year, more than 20 new films in English and more than 10 new films in French are, in our opinion, particularly suited for community use-and this does not take into account other new films which are released first on television or in the cinemas and which then are placed in community distribution. An analysis of the current productions and of our releases in the last years would indicate that films "which handle social and economic problems" are not the exception in the board's program.
I am not going to accuse Mr. Roberge of lying because I do not think he thinks he is lying, but he is not giving a true statement of the situation as I see it. I do not know whether the minister has looked at the catalogue of films listed as available for distribution by the national film board in 1963, but I would challenge him to take a look at it, run through it and see just how old many of the basic series are. For example, the ages of the child series is seven years old, the adolescence series is seven years old, the mental mechanism series is 14 years old, the accidents do not happen series is nine years old.
And so it goes. In other words, much of the very best that has been produced by the national film board in the functional documentary area has become out of date, and anyone who has shown films eight, nine or ten years old, particularly in a field such as safety, knows just how out of date these things can become. Furthermore if they are in areas where there has been a fairly keen distribution you need a fairly large stock as well as having the older series brought up to date.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Francis):: Order. The Chair does not wish to interrupt the hon. member but I understand the item before us is the vote for the C.B.C., not the national film board.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister will explain.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, when I made my general statement more than a week ago I covered the eight cultural agencies and at that time invited members of the committee to make any comments they might want to make on this so-called first item. Therefore I think the hon. member is quite in order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want the minister to examine and go through the catalogue with Mr. Roberge and reassure himself with regard to
Supply-C.B.C.
whether I am wrong, because I do not believe I am. I cannot find better evidence of the national film board's feeling with regard to the production of serious, functional documentaries than the fact that so many of these films in their major series are out of date, and on top of that so comparatively few new ones are being produced.
I have here the quarterly reports of the national film board on the production of films and other visual materials for the periods ended March 31, 1964, and September 30, 1964. I have gone through these and again it is a most discouraging record if you are interested in having the kind of material you can take to groups of various kinds out in the communities, who want something serious and substantial.
I was reminded of that national film board production a couple of weeks ago, which all television reviewers thought was so beautiful, about the unmarried young lady who becomes pregnant. It is all done very delicately and the acting is very good with all the latest technique. But the only message seemed to come at the end when in a great tizzy she grabbed the telephone, called her boy friend and said, "I am going to have a baby", and then slammed down the phone. Having seen the problems of showing films to teenagers and youth groups such as the girl guides out in the communities, I can just imagine how useful this particular national film board production, with its I am going to have a baby, drop the telephone kick, is going to be when it is distributed. Yet here was a production that made use of excellent directing talent, contained some wonderful acting and I am sure involved substantial expense. It is a perfect illustration of the kind of fetish in programming that has become an obsession with many people in the national film board and with, I think, bad effect upon its primary purpose. I continue with Mr. Roberge's letter:
We are conscious that the need is to take into account the ways in which films are actually used today and to supply films for those types of uses-films with substantial content and on subject matter of contemporary interest and value. In fact we are working along those lines-
That is good to know.
-and, to that end, are seeking the best assistance we can find. For instance, on September 16, 17 and 18 a small conference on films was held in Saskatoon, convened by the film board and attended by senior people from the extension departments of the Universities of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I just want to make one comment in that regard. The way Mr. Roberge puts it you would think that the film board had taken

Supply-C.B.C.
the initiative. That is not true. That meeting was called because the extension departments of most of the universities in western Canada were fed up with the national film board and its lack of touch and lack of liaison. But the way this is put it suggests that the national film board took the initiative. Mr. Roberge goes on to say:
I am now considering proposing to the members of the board that a national committee of some kind be set up to advise us on matters pertaining to adult education. As you know, a considerable expansion is taking place in adult education and a decisive role appears to be played there by university extension. Between 1957 and 1962, enrolment in extension has almost doubled.
This is what people have been telling the national film board for a number of years, and finally it has got through. At this late date Mr. Roberge has decided that he should now consider a national committee of some kind. I should like to point out that this is typical of the fact that the national film board has been proceeding along lines that have been taking away from its primary purpose. He goes on:
For several years, a Canadian education association-national film board committee has advised us with respect to films specially intended for school use. We have followed the same pattern on the French side; a joint committee has been set up with l'association Canadienne des educateurs de langue frangaise.
My information on this point is that over several years this so-called committee has met no more than twice, and I have the information from one person who took part in one of the meetings that it really did not get anywhere, and it certainly has had nothing of substance to put forward.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that his time has expired, unless he has leave to carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I ask for about 10 or 15 minutes. I would appreciate it very much if I were given that time. I should like to continue with Mr. Roberge's letter:
There is a greatly Increased potential in community and educational films. There lies the board's traditional strength. While not detracting from our other duties, I am sure my colleagues and myself wish to emphasize and strengthen our work in these areas.
Well, where are the films? Where are these productions? There is a paragraph here concerning my local area which I will skip. I thought it a little bit of effrontery to tell me that the circulation of films is increasing

there. I certainly hope it will, and there is no reason why it should go down when there is a very devoted national film board man there pushing them.
Then, he goes on:
Mr. Fisher refers to film councils and to public libraries. In that respect, I would like to state in general terms that there is throughout the country an increase in film activities conducted through public libraries. Without implying that there exists a direct relationship between them, I would also like to say that while the number of film councils has remained quite constant, we have noticed that in the changing milieu and because of changes in the audio-visual and community fields their role is being modified. In my opinon, the film councils' role will, in coming years, find in many instances a different level. However, this is a matter under review and I am not prepared to say anything too precise about it at this time.
Well again, Mr. Roberge is not very precise or he is considering something. The facts, as I understand them, are that public libraries, particularly in Ontario and the western provinces, have built up a framework that is almost fundamental for the distribution of film. The cry at the moment is not so much for a different distribution system as it is for films. They want more functional, documentary films; films with a purpose; didactic films; films that explain some of the problems of our times.
I will just finish off Mr. Roberge's letter. He says:
Before closing, I would like to put the record straight on Don Owen's statement that his film "Nobody Waved Goodbye" just grew into a feature film production without our knowing about it.
This is really entertaining.
This is the ebullient statement of a young director who did not, I can assure you, operate with the complete independence his statement quoted by Mr. Fisher does suggest. The fact that the subject of his film grew was apparent to both hs producer and management. It was a management decision to produce the film at a longer length than that first contemplated.
I am not going to ask for a committee of inquiry into something that is within this area, the running wild of a film. However, Mr. Roberge is not kidding me, and I do not think he is kidding anybody when he says that the subject of the film grew and was apparent to both his producer and management. I do not believe you get a young man making the kind of statements Mr. Owen did, not to one reporter but to several at different times, indicating that he just went to Toronto with a bunch of film, on his own, and the first thing they knew he had a feature length film without his bosses knowing. I quite appreciate Mr. Roberge feels that he has

to cover up, but I am not accepting that answer at all.
I continue to quote from the letter:
Mr. Fisher points out too "the stories that come to him of the increasing split among the board's people in Montreal between the French and English sections". In the board, as almost everywhere in Canada, this is a delicate matter.
Well, it certainly is a delicate matter.
If, in this respect, the board were to be considered the "microcosm" of Canada, I venture to say that the whole Canadian situation would, at this time, appear to be quite sound and reasonable.
Well, I agree that they are still operating in the same building and that, I suppose, is an achievement. So far as I know, that is about it, in terms of the situation with regard to language.
I should like to add that I had some anxieties last year, but considerable improvement has taken place and, if left alone, the present equilibrium will be conducive to good results and relative happiness.
That is all I am going to read from Mr. Roberge's letter. This last point, the fact that there is a split between the French and English wings of the film board in Montreal is something I am not prepared to put forward any evidence upon. All I know is that it has come to me repeatedly, and the indications are that this split is not only a language split. It is a split between producer attitudes in terms of the fact that French Canadian producers are working as a result of the stimulus of their own city and the new techniques, and have gone much farther in this new, avant garde kind of film making. It is very easy to appreciate the excitement that they are generating amongst themselves. However, I think it has tended to divorce them in their purpose from the traditional, the functional kind of production that gave the film board a name in this work.


Maurice Lamontagne: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that in order to complete the record the hon. member should put the last short paragraph of the letter on the record.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will certainly do that.
Should you wish me to report in detail on all the points alluded to by Mr. Fisher, I shall endeavour to do so. Should you require further information, do not hesitate to let me know.
I did not deliberately leave it out. It was just to shorten things. I happen to feel that Mr. Roberge is a competent administrator, in his way, of the national film board. If I am pillorying him here it is only because I believe that he is befogging the purpose, 20220-861
Supply-C.B.C.
what I consider to be the central purpose of the national film board, which is to produce good, functional documentaries that have a distribution out in the country beyond the theatrical and television circuits.


Robert Simpson: Is there anything to say why they should have any place beyond television?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member asks if there is anything to say why they should have any place beyond television. I would assume that in his own area he knows that all kinds of groups cannot get around a television set.


Robert Simpson: No, why should there be any area beyond television?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Now you are on a very good point. I wanted to make these points that are put together by someone who has a relationship with the national film board, but in language which I have adopted or paraphrased.
There is a distinct danger of the national film board becoming oriented predominantly to the will expressed by some of its film makers rather than to the needs of its audience. I suspect that this is revealed by the great tendency in our films for manner to prevail over matter. Reversing the healthy relationship between these elements, the preferences are for subject matters to be increasingly dictated by the purpose of the film maker to provide film adventures rather than by the demands to maintain a story relationship. Consequently the policies currently being advocated, although presented without drama and in part legitimate slogans of aesthetic national idealism are essentially offering an environment of licence for film makers.
Performance and organization: by projecting discussion of internal national film board policies into the national arena and turning them into public dialogue, is both improper and dangerous. The national film board itself is increasingly coming to be influenced by the reflections of a narrow circle of critics, cine club critics, aesthetics and process film makers rather than those average viewers who seek a film more consistent with his problems of living than with the creation of an aesthetic division that assembles around the assumption that prestige in the film world amounts automatically to widespread public approval. The national film board has been living increasingly on past capital and good will in so far as a very large section of the Canadian public are concerned. The only prestige which counts in the long run is a prestige that is inevitably Canadian and associated with a creation in

Supply-C.B.C.
which the national film board has an important role to play. The steady distortion of the purpose by the alteration of this role could reduce the N.F.B. from its significant place in a Canadian society to that of an art factory concerned largely with its own prestige in a narrow film world, and this at a time when the real world faces us with most critical and complex problems. Already the national film board has begun to lose ground in an audience area where formerly it was successful.
Those points it seems to me, contain the guts of the criticism I have made and want to make of the national film board. I say that despite all the praise paid to the 25th anniversary of the national film board, the board is in serious difficulty in terms of its purpose, its allocation of resources and its direction.
If I had more time I would like to read other contributions. For example, I have a translation here put forward by the French association professionale de cinema which I think is very germane to the points I have raised. I know the minister has a copy and I assume he has looked at it, and later on in this debate I want to come back to this topic of the national film board.
There is a quotation from Jacques Maritain I want to read. Perhaps it is a little too arty to slip in here, but he made the point in one of his studies of philosophy that man is confronted by two separate concepts, that of artistic value which relates to his own work, and that of moral values which relate to his being a man. He says, about these two autonomous worlds, art and morality, that each is sovereign in its own field. The problem arises from the fact that these two worlds cannot ignore and disregard each other, for man belongs in them both as an intellectual maker and a moral agent. Therefore since an artist is a man before being an artist and is not an abstract impersonation of art coming down from an Appollonian separate heaven, the autonomous world of reality is superior to the autonomous world of art. "There is no law against the law on which the destiny of man depends."
That may seem somewhat remote but the point I want to make is that art for art's sake which has seized the new avante garde, the new wave dominating the national film board, has lost sight of the great morale and purpose which the national film board had with Grierson. I say that the statistics of production, the catalogues of the national film board prove it is falling behind in its original, major purpose and so far as I am concerned as a member of

parliament that is the purpose I want the national film board to keep in mind and in focus, rather than feeling it is becoming a centre for producing such artistic, lovely things, like that half hour which it produced for the C.B.C. a few weeks ago in which the only message I could see was that if you are unmarried and you are going to have a baby you ought to tell your boy friend.
That does not seem to be the proper sort of message for the national film board. It may be very suitable for the C.B.C., but my point is that the national film board using art can do moral work and contribute to education, and should not be using art just for art's sake.


David Réal Caouette: Supply-C.B.C.
That is how we heard Mr. Chartrand state on the national television network that Cuba has become a paradise since Castro took over and that the only thing missing there, since the advent of communism, is American soap and toilet paper.
That is the kind of program we get from the crown corporation which costs the Canadian people $86 million a year, at least this year.
The day after I made those statements in the house, the C.B.C. asked me to participate in Mrs. Michele Tisseyre's program "Aujourd'-hui". I was to have a discussion with Mrs. Jean Desprez, a commentator who writes a certain lonely hearts column and who can handle the heart problems of others much better than her own.
Consequently, I went to the C.B.C. studios to hear an employee or rather a person who has been doing free-lance work for the corporation for the past 27 or 28 years, that is since the C.B.C. was set up.
The next day or the day after, the lady took it upon herself to haul me over the coals on the pretext that I did not permit her to answer or express her opinion.
Here, on two pages, in a letter in two parts published in a Montreal newspaper, she repeats about exactly what she said on the C.B.C. She wrote:
I knew you were not very polite with those with whom you are conversing-


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The television debate between Mrs. Jean Desprez and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) may very well have been most interesting, but it has nothing to do with the departmental estimates now before us. Nobody cares who won the debate. What we want to know is what reforms the federal government can look forward to with regard to the C.B.C.


David Réal Caouette: Why cannot the hon. member for Lotbiniere mind his own business and realize that Mrs. Jean Desprez is getting a good share of the $86 million the federal government is called upon to grant the C.B.C., inasmuch as she is working steadily, 12 months a year, free-lance. Therefore, the interventions of the hon. member for Lotbiniere are unwarranted and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to keep him in his seat, so he will not stick his nose into things which do not concern him.
The debate which took place between Mrs. Jean Desprez and the hon. member for Villeneuve dealt with the C.B.C. and the nonentities, failures and incompetent people found among its staff, as Jean Desprez formally stated before the whole French Canadian public. That was the subject of our discussion. So I ask the minister to name the persons responsible for C.B.C. programming.
The Canadian people are not against bearing the cost of programs that make sense, but when it comes to having one's mind poisoned, there is a limit. Mrs. Jean Desprez herself said she knew people at the C.B.C. who were nothing but dead wood, nonentities, nincompoops and lazybones, not people like the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette).


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere is a hard worker.


David Réal Caouette: That is what I have just said, Mr. Chairman.
Why does the minister not give us the information we are asking for? When Mrs. Jean Desprez writes the following in her letter:
Well, go ahead. We will have a good laugh, gentlemen from Ottawa.
She no longer attacks a small group, she tackles the whole parliament in Ottawa.
Go ahead.
At the end of her letter she says:
If Messrs. Alphonse Ouimet, or Marcel Ouimet, or my immediate department heads in Montreal asked me what I think of it, it would be my duty to answer them. But you-
Speaking of me.
-you do not really think that I would put arms into your hands-
Here is a woman paid by the C.B.C. who would refuse to provide any member of parliament with the names of those who are nincompoops, dead wood, nonentities, incompetents, lazybones in the C.B.C. This is the common sense of Mrs. Jean Desprez.
After saying I had not given her any time to speak, all the letters I received the next day were to the effect that all the guests of Jean Desprez in any program on the radio or on t.v., complained that they had not been given any time to say anything, that she had been the only one to speak, and this is what everybody says. All the letters I had received accuse Mrs. Jean Desprez of being haughty and probably one of the nonentities in the C.B.C.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask you for a ruling. Are we going to hear about Mrs. Jean Desprez all afternoon? We want to know if there are reforms to be

suggested in connection with C.B.C. expenditures. It is suggested that Mrs. Jean Desprez be fired? What was said on the following day, the comments on the debate, are of no interest to the public.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lotbiniere has again stuck his foot in it. I have been speaking precisely about the expenditures on such people as Mrs. Jean Desprez who spent their time broadcasting twaddle, who while paid by the C.B.C. refuse to give us names other than those of Messrs. Alphonse and Marcel Ouimet or their immediate employers whom we do not even know.
We ask the minister who was responsible for inviting Mrs. Jean Desprez, or, for instance, who is her immediate boss? Who is Michel Chartrand's employer? Who does the inviting for the C.B.C.? Who invites-?


Auguste Choquette: It is the producer.


David Réal Caouette: Who is he?


Auguste Choquette: All you had to do was to look it up, it was indicated on the screen.


David Réal Caouette: So that is it. The producer has absolutely nothing to do with it, he is a public servant.
That is what we are trying to find out from the minister. Who is responsible for the programming? Who decides to invite Michel Chartrand and Jacques Berque?


Auguste Choquette: How do you know it is not the producer?


David Réal Caouette: We know that he is not the one.


Auguste Choquette: Upon what grounds do you base your arguments?


David Réal Caouette: Who invited Jacques Berque to appear on the C.B.C. network? The hon. member for Lotbiniere does not understand anything about that, as usual.


Auguste Choquette: It is the producer.


David Réal Caouette: The producer. They are hiding behind the producer who is being paid by the C.B.C.; he, on the other hand, is not afraid to be in the forefront. The same thing happened when it was said in the house that certain C.B.C. officials were communist, socialist, communist or socialist propagandists.


Auguste Choquette: Would the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.
Supply-C.B.C.


Auguste Choquette: When you were invited, who asked you? Who was responsible?


David Réal Caouette: It was Mrs. Michele Tis-seyre's program "Aujourd'hui".


Auguste Choquette: Who called you?


David Réal Caouette: Mrs. Michele Tisseyre's representative. I have his name; but what is the other's name? That is what I want to know.


Auguste Choquette: Ask the person who invited you; there is no problem there.


David Réal Caouette: It is not the same person.


An hon. Member:: He wants to get free advertising.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, it is not the same person, for one thing, but what I want to know and what I have requested from the minister for a long time, is who is responsible for the invitations that are sent out? This is what we want to know.
Much was made of the statement that there were some communists, socialists, and sympathizers of both groups, in the C.B.C. As a matter of fact, some performers called us up to tell us they were branded as communists since this statement was made in the House of Commons. I could name several of those who called me; and yet, when we spoke of the C.B.C. management, we mentioned no performers, because we feel they are doing their duty. But as far as the management of this crown corporation is concerned, it is a different thing, because while the performers have nothing to do or say, they also receive some fees out of these $86 million. But they are not responsible for the administration of the C.B.C. and the television services.
We maintain that improvements should be made in the C.B.C. We maintain that this corporation costs too much money. At least, if the C.B.C. costs $86 million to the taxpayers, it should give to the Canadian people programs that are worth that amount.
They should cease broadcasting programs with a subversive or clearly communistic tendency.
They should cease inviting Europeans or Asians as soon as they arrive in Canada in order to praise what is going on behind the iron curtain or in the countries under communist domination. As a matter of fact, if these countries enjoy material advantages, it is always to the detriment of personal freedom.
When I talked to people who were opposed to what we want in our country, that is a public corporation where everybody could

Supply-C.B.C.
express his opinions, while respecting other people's freedom, they answered that there was freedom in communist countries.
When we attend meetings like the one held by the attorney general of the province of Quebec, we are heckled by a bunch of separatists, of socialists or of extremist separatists who prevent people from speaking. Those people do not know or they forget that if they acted in the same way in Cuba or elsewhere, they would be shot forthwith; they are also unaware of the fact that if they intervened in the midst of a Castro gathering or if they did the same in Russia, they would be shot down without further ado.
Do we want the same thing to happen in Canada? The C.B.C. must play a part in this field; they must provide information; they must work for the education not only of mature people in Canada, but of the growing generation as well.
A well known artist stated recently in Ottawa that we are lazy, that we do not know how to assume our responsibilities. He was right up to a point.
Here in Ottawa we also have responsibilities and if the C.B.C. comes under the federal parliament, the time has come for the latter to assume its responsibilities and to suggest, even order the C.B.C. to show educational programs, programs which will help to educate our young people, to inform the public, instead of going about aimlessly, failing to give anyone a sense of direction.
Young people expect a lot from us and we can, through the state radio network, if we face up to our responsibilities, direct our young people with regard to their own future and the future of Canada. In fact, it is not so much for our future that we are working now, it is not so much for the future of a member of parliament or a political group, but rather for that of our young people.
We are heads of families; we have young people to look after and if we do not see to their education now, if we do not show them some leadership and give them confidence in the future of their country, in their own future or that of their families, we will lose fateful years in the House of Commons. It is to give leadership to the whole country that I tell the Secretary of State that the time has come to probe into the affairs of the C.B.C.
Why should we be ignored or told to keep quiet by officials of the C.B.C., which spends $86 million a year. The Canadian taxpayers are providing these fantastic amounts, and it is high time that the C.B.C. should be asked to direct its programming toward the educa-

tion of our young people, and to give satisfaction and leadership to the Canadian people at large.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, do not worry,
I shall not start a virulent discusion with the hon. member for Villeneuve. On the contrary, I shall discuss the problem from another angle, because this is a thing which comes back every year, more particularly on the estimates of the Secretary of State.
With regard to the C.B.C., and briefly to sum up my way of thinking, it should simply be said, repeated and reiterated that we want a French radio and television network in Canada. This is obviously a very serious claim, which it may be difficult to answer in practice, but if the existence of the French fact from sea to sea is to be recognized, as well as a policy promoting French culture throughout this country, instead of a policy tending to limit the existence or the spreading of that culture to a single province, then, I would say that the federal government has a primary responsibility to assume, and that television is doubtlessly one of the most powerful media available in this respect. On this point, I support the hon. member for Villeneuve's contention, when he says that television can deeply influence the education of the younger generation, which is now growing up. The hon. member is perfectly right and it is just because this medium is available to the federal government that the latter should assume its responsibilities, if not right now, at least in the near future, and promote a French radio and television network of national scope, reaching from sea to sea.
To my mind, the matter should be examined by a committee, either a committee on radio and television, or a special committee, which would consider the possibility of carrying out this project.
It would also be of interest to have the opinion of the English speaking members on this matter, in order to see whether, though not daring to oppose it for political reasons-[DOT] deep down in their hearts, they consider such a request sheer nonsense.
It would be interesting to know what they think, because we firmly believe that French culture should spread throughout Canada and that the best way to do this, in short the most powerful means to attain such an end is precisely through publicity over the radio and on television so that such a culture could expand not only in Quebec but throughout Canada.

That is why, this year, as in future years, I shall continue to demand the establishment of a French radio and television network in Canada, and I think I have the support of the French Speaking members of parliament in this respect.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, as we are considering the estimates of the Secretary of State, I should like to take this opportunity to talk about the national film board and the C.B.C.
With regard to the national film board, everything of course is not perfect, but I want to pay tribute to its personnel for the very good work they have done and I am convinced that, if the government decided to increase from $6.1 million to $10 million the estimates of that agency, the board could extend its activities and also make a contribution to our Canadian culture.
There is in Joliette an office of the national film board. The manager, Mr. Marier, is well qualified but unfortunately even though he does his best, he lacks the necessary funds to expand his office which deals with an important part of the province of Quebec.
I urge the minister to see to it that the national film board not only get its estimates increased, even up to $10 million as I have suggested, but that a more substantial amount of money be provided for the Joliette office which covers an important part of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, as for C.B.C. we have heard rather sharp criticisms by members from both sides of the house.
Every time the C.B.C. estimates are before the house there is a row. Criticisms and even charges are made. It seems that there is some uneasiness among the members, even general dissatisfaction with regard to the activities of the C.B.C.
It is difficult for everything to run smoothly of course within an agency whose budget reaches the $88 million mark, the operating expenses of the international broadcasting service included.
But if there are faults with the C.B.C., there is also some good, and we must say that the corporation contributed to national unity and rendered tremendous services.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, in view of the attacks made by hon. members on both sides of the house, from every political group, no matter what government is in office, it seems that some action must be taken. I think it would certainly enhance the prestige of the C.B.C. if a royal commission were
Supply-C.B.C.
instituted to look into all the activities of that corporation with an $88 million budget; it would also be a service to the taxpayers. National organizations, English or French, could present their briefs and make appropriate recommendations, and the C.B.C. would certainly come out of it a better agency, thanks to the constructive suggestions that would be made.
As far as the French network is concerned, I know that the great majority of the members of the House of Commons have only one hope, and it is that the network will develop from sea to sea. I wonder whether it would not be possible to increase the budget even up to $100 million so that the additional $12 million could be spent every year to develop the French network from sea to sea, wherever there are substantial French speaking minority groups.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to ask the minister whether, under the constitution, censorship is a provincial responsibility or whether the federal government could have its own censorship as far as the C.B.C. is concerned. I know that there is a conflict on that matter with the provinces, and I wonder whether it would not be possible to leave the censorship of programs and movies to the provinces who already have a special board of their own for that purpose.
In closing, I suggest that it is in the public interest that a royal commission be set up by the government in order to examine all aspects of the operations of the C.B.C. I am convinced that if the government were to decide upon such action, it would have the support of the great majority of the Canadian people who have serious grievances against our national network.
I must also mention that some private television stations are abusing their liberty. I think private stations lack firmness and discipline. The act should be amended if necessary in order that the B.B.G. or any other body may have some control over the operation of private radio and television stations.
Mr. Chairman, I make those remarks without any ulterior motive. I make them because all hon. members often receive letters protesting against certain programs televised over the national network. I believe a national investigation is necessary to go into all aspects of the operation of the C.B.C. whose stature would be enhanced by such a move. And we would probably also save several million dollars.
10450	HOUSE OF
Supply-C.B.C.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions I should like to direct to the Secretary of State while we are dealing with this particular item. I feel quite sure that when I have put them to him he will agree with me that they are of tremendous importance to a great number of people.
On many occasions in the past when we have been dealing with the estimates of the C.B.C. I have limited my remarks specifically to the important question of the extension of services. Not too long ago, on October 27, I had the opportunity to put on the record many of the views of the people of northern Manitoba and many of my own views with respect to our feeling that the C.B.C. has been moving at too slow a pace in this regard.
We all realize that the corporation is trying to develop the national service as quickly as possible, as it says, and that it takes money to do so. But as I have mentioned before we are being asked to approve expenditures in excess of $85 million under this particular item, and the C.B.C. has finally told us approximately what it is going to cost to complete the provision of service to all of the people of Canada to whom they feel they can provide television service.
In order to be brief I should like to put on the record once again a passage which appears in the annual report of the C.B.C. for the year 1963-64 so that the minister will have a greater understanding of the point I am trying to make. This extract has to do with the coverage policy of the corporation and reads as follows:
At the present time the corporation's planning in radio takes into account all areas of Canada with a population of more than 500 which could be served by one transmitter. In television, because of higher costs, the minimum population figure is 2,000. All areas which, on the basis of the latest available d.b.s. figures, have this many people are entered on the corporation's planning lists. At the present time there are approximately 122 communities on the radio planning list and about 60 on the television list. The possibility of bringing service to each of these areas and the costs involved have been given preliminary study and priorities established. ...
The system of priorities outlined above has been followed by C.B.C. for some years and is in line with the proportion of the over-all budget which it is felt can be devoted to this aspect of development. On this basis it is clear that the needs of these communities cannot all be met at once without seriously neglecting other phases of the national service. In fact, at the present rate, the communities mentioned above will not all be served for perhaps 10 years.
The capital cost of extending service to these communities over a 10 year period starting in 1964 would probably be upwards of $15 million.


Strong suggestions from many quarters, however, have caused C.B.C. to study the cost and time factors in other possible methods of meeting the problem.
Here is the part to which I should like the Secretary of State to pay particular attention.
It has been suggested that this program be accelerated as a matter of national importance. If, for example, parliament were so to decide, and to provide the financing in the form of a special grant, it would probably be possible to shorten the time factor to a few years, with the cooperation of equipment companies. The aspects of this are being explored.
The point I should like to make is that for many years, in consultations with the officials of the C.B.C., I have asked them why they did not include in their proposed expenditures a special item to complete the extension of services as rapidly as possible, an item in which it would be stated that the money would be spent in this way. They have never seen fit to do so. No doubt they have studied the question fully but they have never done so. In their last annual report they have thrown the ball back to parliament. They have put it directly up to the house to supply this extra grant and if it is provided they will do the job.
This is one of the questions I should like to ask the minister. Will he take a further good look at this particular part of the annual report which I have brought to his attention to see if it would not be possible to make a special grant to the C.B.C. and direct them to complete the extension of services to the unserviced areas of Canada as quickly as possible? I should also like to ask the minister whether the government has this in mind already in order that the people in these areas will have some idea of the thinking of the government on this very important matter. If the minister is not able to reply at this time, I am sure he could answer these questions during the further discussion of his estimates this evening. I realize that the house desires to get the estimates through as rapidly as possible but I think we should have some statement from the Secretary of State on this very important matter.


Mr. Herridge:: I should explain before I get started on these cultural activities that I am a simple son of the soil. I am not very much at home in this field. I have not the technical knowledge to judge what is a good documentary film or, in many cases, a good program. What I am doing, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon is simply presenting to the

house the position of my constituents. I must say that I am one of those who, through the years, has always supported the C.B.C. strongly. I do not always agree with all its programming, but I think the C.B.C. is something of which we can all be proud in Canada because it contributes to our Canadian way of life and so on.
I find in travelling around my district, and I am very fortunate in this respect, that everywhere I go I hear nothing but this: Will you please give us C.B.C. radio and television? I represent a riding which is very interested in C.B.C. programs. I hear this wherever I go. I realize that this problem is related to funds, and things cannot be done overnight. Once again I want to bring to the minister's attention the need for the smaller communities in Canada to be served by radio and television. So far as our area is concerned at the moment, we are fairly well served by radio. We have some blank spots so far as television is concerned. These people who make their living, shall I say, in the hinterland are just as entitled to receive these programs as those who live in the larger centres. I do urge therefore that everything be done that is possible to provide these services to these smaller communities. I believe the hon. member for Churchill had the same thing in mind when he was speaking.
Now I want to say something about the national gallery. First of all, I ask the minister when he replies if the Marquess of Lome's picture is at present hanging in the national gallery, because I have been interested in that subject for a number of years. I understand that for some time it was in a packing case somewhere in some warehouse. I do believe that should be hung in the national gallery. I have risen particularly, in this instance, to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the security guards who operate in the national gallery are employees of some private security service. I understand that this organization is really owned, almost in total, in the United States. I should like the minister to explain to the house why we have not got the corps of commissionaires in that national gallery. It seems to me it is a place where they could perform a very useful service, and it would provide an opportunity for some of these over-age veterans to obtain employment.
Now, I come to the national museum. I have very little time, indeed. I understand that since last year there has been some reorganization of the administrative services
Supply-C.B.C.
of the national museum. I do not know if the minister mentioned this when he was introducing his estimates, but I shall look this up. I am mentioning the national museum because I do think there is an opportunity for the national museum and the provincial museum of British Columbia to co-operate to make certain that in this ghastly flooding of the Columbia river there are no records of the past destroyed. I should like the minister to inform the house later what has happened to the Arrow lakes-Kootenay canoe that was in the national museum. It was brought down some two or three years ago, and I understand it was put in storage because the atmosphere was not humid enough.
I should like to see these two museums cooperate to make certain that there are none of these underground dwellings that are overlooked, and also that the Indian paintings on the rocks are photographed before this beautiful valley is sacrificed to producing power and irrigation in the United States, and so on. Then there are other artifacts, and the like, which can still be discovered between the big bend and Castlegar on the Columbia river. I believe he should bring this to the attention of the people in the national museum, to see what can be done in that respect.
I have a word here for the national film board. Here again, I am simply representing the views of my constituents. We have an excellent organization in Kootenay West which co-operates with the national film board in the distribution of the films throughout the district. There is a great deal of appreciation for the service performed by the national film board. Here again I am going to ask the minister if he will do something for a chap who is in a rather tough position at the present time. Could he possibly have a documentary film made of the Columbia river, a colour film, which would cover the section from Castlegar to the big bend? This film would show the land as it was, the 18 communities that are going to be flooded, the 50 miles of sandy beaches and many other aspects of this beautiful district. I do urge that he give consideration to asking the national film board to produce a colour film of this most beautiful district which we call the garden of Eden. I have been asked to bring this to his attention by several people throughout the district. I hope it receives favourable consideration so that prior to the destruction of this beautiful valley we will have a record of the past and what it was like in days gone by.

Supply-C.B.C.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, 1 think in discussing the C.B.C. and other cultural activities of the government of Canada, we must start with the understanding that it costs money to be a Canadian. I mean that we are very close to that tremendous colossus to the south of us and Canadians are influenced every day by material which emanates from the United States. Canadians read magazines from the United States. We see films made in the United States. We watch television programs which originate in the United States.
Since its inception, the C.B.C. particularly has been given the task of trying to help develop and maintain a Canadian identity. I think the C.B.C. has done a tremendous job in this respect. This does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that I have or anybody else has to like every program which the C.B.C. has produced or is likely to produce. I must admit that I am not particularly devoted to opera. If the C.B.C. televises a two hour opera I am likely to turn the television off and begin to read. I think it is to the credit of the C.B.C. and to the credit of the Canadian government that they have tended to encourage this kind of program.
I wonder how many Canadian cities would have symphony orchestras today if, during the last 20 or 25 years, a nucleus of musicians in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax had not earned a substantial part of their living by virtue of the fact that they were employed by the C.B.C. In the same way I wonder what kind of dramatic groups there would be in Canada, what reason there would be for building the cultural centres which are being proposed in Ottawa and other cities, if C.B.C. radio and television had not encouraged, sponsored and paid for the live drama which over the years was broadcast on both radio and television.
This does not mean that I must like every dramatic program which the C.B.C. broadcasts, that I must agree with the message contained in any particular program, but I think the C.B.C. should be congratulated on what it has done and should be supported. The same thing holds true for the public affairs programs which it broadcasts.
I believe we need to take a hard look at the whole organizational structure of the C.B.C. Personally I am not convinced it was a good idea to transfer the headquarters of the C.B.C. from Toronto to Ottawa. This can only tend to increase the importance of the bureaucracy and decrease the importance of the creative, production people who, in the final analysis, will make the C.B.C. as important as it ought
[Mr. Herridge.l
to be. The real operating headquarters of the C.B.C. ought to be in Toronto because that is where the English network headquarters are, and in Montreal where the French network headquarters are.
I hope that in the not too distant future a parliamentary committee will have an opportunity to discuss these things, but I believe that if such a committee were going to discuss the C.B.C. alone, it would be discussing the whole question of radio and television in a vacuum.
I was flabbergasted to hear the speech made several weeks ago by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson in which he proposed that we ought to sell the C.B.C.'s individual stations to private interests, who would be very happy to get them. Of course they would be happy to get them. The Pilkington commission report in Great Britain, which dealt with private television, said in effect that a licence given to a private t.v. station was a licence to print money. That is precisely what private television station licences will be in Canada, if they are not so already.
When the C.B.C. appears before a parliamentary committee it is my contention that we must look at the whole spectrum of television and radio, and to that end I hope we will be able to bring the B.B.G. before the committee, and also the operators of private television networks and individual stations. The board of broadcast governors was given a certain task, and I quote just one paragraph from the act which set up the board:
The board shall, for the purpose of ensuring the continued existence and efficient operation of a national broadcasting system and the provision of a varied and comprehensive broadcasting service of a high standard that is basically Canadian in content and character, regulate the establishment and operation of networks of broadcasting stations, the activities of public and private broadcasting stations in Canada and the relationship between them and provide for the final determination of all matters and questions in relation thereto.
When the B.B.G. was given the task of deciding in what areas second, private television channels would be permitted, and what groups and individuals should be given those channels, it received a large number of applications. In each city where a second channel was to be permitted, a large number of applicants applied and they were required to supply the B.B.G. with a very detailed outline of the kind of programming which they proposed to establish if they were given the rights to a t.v. channel.
It would be interesting to know how much attention the B.B.G. paid to those applications, because never was such a hoax perpetrated

on the public as the promises made to the B.B.G. by the successful applicants. The head of the group which got the private t.v. channel in Ottawa, Mr. Bushnell, had the gall- that is all I can call it-to suggest to the B.B.G. that it ought to compare the high quality of the programming which he and his group were proposing to give the citizens of Ottawa and adjacent areas with the much lower standard of programming which the other applicant groups were proposing to offer.
Mr. Bushnell and his group got the rights to the private television station in Ottawa, and I wish to refer briefly to some of the promises which Mr. Bushnell made on behalf of his group, not a single one of which has been honoured since he and his group got the rights to that channel.
They proposed that they would provide a high percentage of live Canadian programming in the prime hours of the evening. I do not know how many hon. members watch television, but there is virtually no live Canadian programming in the prime hours over station CJOH. What we get are old films, canned murder mysteries and westerns, purchased cheaply from the United States. I am not criticizing the owners of CJOH if they can get away with it, but I do suggest that in terms of developing a Canadian identity and in terms of the promises which they voluntarily made to the B.B.G. they have welshed, virtually 100 per cent, on their promises.
They promised that at least once a week they would show live dramatic programs, and that at least once a month one of those programs would be produced in Ottawa, using Ottawa actors and producers. To my knowledge station CJOH has never had a live dramatic program, and certainly never one that was produced in Ottawa.
They promised that they would give an award to the best Canadian playwright for a play produced in Ottawa. Of course they have never lived up to that promise.
They promised, in view of the fact Ottawa has a very large percentage of its population which is French speaking, that they would televise as much as ten hours a week in French. Recently when they were checked up on that by the student newspaper of Ottawa university their answer was that they had looked into the matter but they could not get the advertisers to make it worth while. When they made these promises to the B.B.G. they did not mention any condition that they
Supply-C.B.C.
would do this only if they could get the advertisers to pay for it.
Not one of these promises has been kept. Station CFTO in Toronto owned by that great Canadian patriot and citizen Mr. Bassett promised it would spend more than 25 per cent of its estimated gross revenue on live talent. Well, I venture to say that it has not spent 5 per cent of its gross revenue on live talent unless one includes in the cost of live talent the cost of televising football games. I am in favour of football. I like football and I like to watch football on television. But this certainly was not what Mr. Bassett promised the board of broadcast governors when he was applying for the channel in Toronto.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Especially when Kapp is passing for Vancouver.


David Orlikow: Similarly, the owners of station CFTO promised they would be televising performances by the Toronto symphony orchestra, that they would be televising "live" ballet, that they would be televising concerts of serious music. None of this has ever been done and I think the Canadian people and members of this house must bear all this in mind when they compare the schedules which, in fact, are offered with the standards of programming which the C.B.C. carried on so effectively before the private companies were permitted to enter this field-standards which the corporation has been obliged progressively to reduce as a result of this competition.
Station CFTO promised it would make available to its viewers a wide selection of Canadian programs of an artistic and dramatic nature. Its sponsors undertook to produce "live" dramatic plays. Of course none of this has been done. What we are given, as Canadian content almost exclusively over the private stations and over C.T.V., are quiz programs of the lowest type in terms of their appeal to those interested in any program content which would make them think.
Similarly the channel in Winnipeg promised to televise discussion groups, music by symphony orchestras, and so on. It undertook to give an opportunity to the ethnic groups in Winnipeg, of which there are many, to illustrate their various cultures; it promised to televise their music, their dancing and their folk art. None of this has ever been accomplished. I could go on for a long time. But these are some of the things which the applicants for private channels promised

Supply-C.B.C.
the board of broadcast governors. These applicants were interested primarily in making money, but I am not blaming them for that. Similarly, the C.T.V. network submitted to the board a list of no less than 45 programs which the sponsors said they were ready to produce both for Canadian consumption and for distribution around the world-programs dealing with sport, with life outdoors and with wildlife, with games of all types, with the work of dramatic groups, and so on. Few if any programs of this type have been available. I know the owners of the private stations and of the network will probably say they have been unable to do these things because they have not been able to make enough money. Indeed, I believe this is why the board of broadcast governors has gone easy with them and has failed to press them to keep their promises.
But, Mr. Chairman, this was not just a private arrangement made between private applicants and a body without official status. This was a promise made to a government board representing the people of Canada and I am naive enough to believe that such promises should be lived up to, whether they are made by ordinary citizens or by the big owners of private television stations and networks. Not only have the promised programs failed to materialize but pressure has been placed on the C.B.C. to lower its standards in order to meet the competition which these people are providing. This is why we must take a serious look at the reasons why the board of broadcast governors have not done the job which was given to it by the legislation setting it up.
It is true we will not have time to discuss these questions in detail to the extent that their importance makes desirable. It is true, as the minister will no doubt tell us, that a committee headed by Mr. Fowler has been appointed to look into this question. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Fowler and I am hopeful we shall get a worth-while report from him. I wish, however, I could really believe we shall see more action as a result of the report which he will be submitting within the course of the next four months than we saw in connection with the last Fowler report. What has happened in recent years, and this has been the case whether Conservative or Liberal governments have been in power, has been the gradual erosion of the ability of the C.B.C. to do the job which it has to do, and which it was required to do the day it was set up by a former Conservative government back in the thirties. tMr. Orlikow.]
The corporation has tried to carry out these obligations, but their discharge will be increasingly difficult unless the same standards are applied to its competitors as are applied to the C.B.C.
It is important we should look at what these private stations are doing. Some people think that having given them a licence we simply let them put on what they please. But private radio and television, the latter, particularly, are not in the same position as are other private businesses. If 20 different individuals want to open up grocery stores in Ottawa, Winnipeg or Montreal, nobody will question their right to do so; they will either make a go of it or not, on the basis of the amount of business available. But it is obvious to anybody who gives the matter thought that there is a very definite limit to the number of television channels which a country with a population the size of Canada's can permit. The limit would be two in most cities, or possibly three in the largest cities; four if one includes French and English channels. When parliament has set up a regulatory body, surely we can expect that body to select from among the applicants for licences those who propose to give to the Canadian people the best, the most educational, the most entertaining and the most provocative programs. If the regulatory body makes that choice then I expect them to exercise some type of supervision. If the B.B.G. had ever exercised supervision, with the exception of the supervision it exercised on the televising of the Grey cup last year, then I do not know about it.
It seems to me that having given the present operators of private television stations the right, as I said earlier, to spend money, they probably forgot about it and instead of becoming a regulatory body as instructed under the act they became the friends, the protectors and lovers of private television stations and networks. The public is not getting from the B.B.G., and therefore from the Canadian government, the B.B.G. being a creature of the Canadian government -perhaps not this government but it is a creature of the Canadian government-the kind of protection to which it is entitled.
I hope that it will not be November 24 next year before the parliamentary committee to look into radio and television is set up. I hope it will be set up early in 1965. I do not think it is necessary for the parliamentary committee to wait to be set up until Mr. Fowler and his associates make their report. I hope the committee is appointed early in

the new session and that it gets down to business right away. I trust we will hear from the C.B.C. a report in much greater detail than we have here. I agree with the minister that he is not responsible for the decisions on programming by the C.B.C. but I hope a parliamentary committee will have an opportunity to hear a thorough and complete report from the C.B.C. in explanation of some of the things they have done.
I am not thinking of censorship. It may be I do not like a particular play or program. I can say-it is no secret; I have said this to the people working on particular programs -that I am not enamoured of the program "This Hour Has Seven Days". I did not like the Rockwell interview, not because I think the C.B.C. should not run that kind of interview but simply because I believe Rockwell represents no one in the United States. In my opinion the only reason for putting on that interview was as a means of sensationalism, as a means of getting viewers. I think the C.B.C. needs viewers and exciting programs, but they should not stoop to putting on what I consider cheap sensationalism. But that is my personal opinion and I am not suggesting for a moment that any member of parliament or the minister in charge should interfere with individual programs put on by the C.B.C. Last week they put on an Ibsen play. I watched it and I did not like it. I noticed that the television critics in both Ottawa newspapers thought it an excellent play. That is understandable, because people react in different ways to different programs. I like football, but many people think there is too much football carried on television. I hope the C.B.C. continues to make its own decisions, but I think it is time that they came before the parliamentary committee, told us what they have been doing, what they are planning for the future, and gave us an idea of what this will cost. I do not for a moment believe the C.B.C. loses money. I call the expenditure of money for the C.B.C. the development of a Canadian identity. I want to remain a Canadian; I do not want to be a citizen of the United States.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Would the hon. member allow a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The hon. member said he does not consider the C.B.C. expenditure a loss of money, that it is an expenditure on behalf of culture. Would he explain to us where the culture was in the program "This Hour Has
Supply-C.B.C.
Seven Days", when Rockwell said that F. D. Roosevelt was the biggest communist the world has ever seen, with the exception of his wife?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked a question which indicates he has not listened to me, or if he has, has not understood a single word. I think I speak in language which 99 per cent of the people understand. I said I am not going to set myself up as a judge of which C.B.C. program is good and which C.B.C. program is bad. The C.B.C. puts on a great many programs which I suppose the minister and I would consider culture. I do not know what the hon. member for York-Humber would call them, but he can speak for himself. The C.B.C. also puts on programs which are not culture but information. They put on discussions and programs which I would only classify as entertainment.
My point is that it is the function of a television network, whether it be a private network or a public network, to offer a well rounded variety of programs to its viewers. Until the last year or so I think the C.B.C. did this very successfully, and if the hon. member wonders how successfully he just needs to look at the list of former C.B.C. writers, producers, actors and performers who sang and danced and have now moved to the United States or to Great Britain where they are able to earn anywhere up to ten times what the C.B.C. pays them. If the hon. member does not know of whom I speak I will be glad to give him a list on a later occasion.
This is what I think the C.B.C. should do, and it is also what I think private networks should do. When you look at a private network program you will see quite a bit of time is spent, so far as Canadian content is concerned, on news and public affairs. Is there a single member here who would suggest that these news programs come anywhere close to those of the C.B.C.? They are not even in the same league. These stations have what they call public affairs programs. They have a program which is put on once a week in which my colleague from Port Arthur is master of ceremonies. I think it is a good program and I wish they would show it in my home city of Winnipeg, but they do not. There is a program every night in which Pierre Berton is master of ceremonies. I do not always agree with him, particularly when he is foolish enough to suggest he will vote Liberal, but I think he is a pretty provocative person and I give him credit for his program, even though it does not originate in the city of Ottawa.

Supply-C.B.C.
Having given these two examples I challenge anyone either inside or outside the house to show the Canadian people what other public affairs programs the private networks are putting on on a regular basis. Where is the use of Canadian talent? Where is the use of Canadian performers? Where is the use of Canadian journalists or professors who can speak on public affairs? They just do not exist on private networks. The same thing has happened with regard to the other things they promised the B.B.G., and therefore the people of Canada, that they would do.
May I say in closing that the parliament of Canada, which represents the people of Canada, ought to take a very close look at the thinking which went on in the formation of the C.B.C. For the benefit of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, who made a bitter and I think completely unwarranted attack on the C.B.C. several weeks ago, I should like to quote some words to him about the C.B.C. used by a former prime minister of Canada in 1932, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. These are the words of Mr. Bennett.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: I am not sure the hon. member will applaud after he hears the quotation.
Mr. Bennett said that Canadians have the right to a system of broadcasting from Canadian sources equal in all respects to that of any other country, that this country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference or influence.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: Obviously the members for Jasper-Edson and Bow River have forgotten, if they ever read the thoughts of Mr. Bennett about the needs of Canadians, the kind of organization which the C.B.C. has been in the past. The hon. member for Digby-Annap-olis-Kings has been a great supporter of the C.B.C. I wish those hon. members would read his speeches, particularly when their speeches have been so consistently and persistently in recent years an attempt to cut that organization's throat.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I would remind the hon. member that his time has expired. Does he have leave to continue?


David Orlikow: I will be able to complete my remarks within two minutes, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I hope the kind of question I have raised today, which is basic to the needs of Canada if Canada is to survive as an independent nation, can be discussed in the very near future.
We on this side of the house have raised various matters and must accept our share of responsibility for taking up many long days during this session, which we hope is now approaching its end. We do not have sufficient time at our disposal to discuss in detail the activities of the Canada Council and other cultural and educational efforts of the government. As far as radio and television are concerned, we do hope that early in 1965 we can have a serious, detailed and careful consideration of the problems that beset these media in this country.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I may be permitted to add a very short footnote to the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and I should like to do so for the benefit of my hon. friend, the member for York-Humber.
Not too many weeks ago I tried to listen to that member when he was making a rather impassioned speech on the general subject of how the C.B.C. was attempting to cram culture down the throats of Canadian people. I would now remind that hon. member that one day not too long ago I wanted to listen to a program of entertainment on either radio or television, but I discovered that four of the five radio and television services in Ottawa which are part of the C.B.C. network were carrying the world series baseball game, and when I turned my television to the private station it was covering a football game. I thought at that time warmly of the member for York-Humber and felt that at some suitable time I should suggest to him that if we are having any kind of culture rammed down our throats by the C.B.C. and the other stations, it is the culture which pertains to football, hockey and baseball.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, in rising at this time to make some comments about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's expenditures, and I note that the minister responsible is in the house, I would like to state that only this afternoon I and other members of this house became aware of a supplementary estimate which was tabled yesterday in relation to the Department of Transport. This supplementary estimate amounts to $1 and could have a profound effect on the operation of private stations and the C.B.C. Is it the

intention of the government to allow a detailed debate about this supplementary estimate in the Department of Transport estimates, through which an effort is being made to place community antenna television under the supervision of the board of broadcast governors, or is this to be allowed to whistle by when the Department of Transport estimates are being considered? This subject must be debated in detail. This move will have an effect on the operations of the C.B.C. and private broadcasting stations, so is this the time to consider it, or should a lengthy debate take place during our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport some time presumably between now and Friday evening? I should like an answer to that question before I continue my comments in relation to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, the house leader is present at this time. This item is not within my responsibility, so I do not think a discussion about it could properly take place at this time.


Lucien Lamoureux: The item to which the hon. member alludes is, I believe, item 50c of the Department of Transport, so it would properly be discussed when the committee is considering the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am happy to receive your comments in this regard, Mr. Chairman, because I know that when that supplementary estimate comes up for discussion, during our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport, many members of this committee from all parties will wish to take part. This represents a drastic change which will affect public and private broadcasting services, if and when it is put into effect. I will reserve my comments on that subject until the estimates of the Department of Transport come before us for consideration, I hope before the end of this week. Only one item in those estimates has been passed to date.
At this time I should like to emphasize as strongly as possible that this House of Commons does not have much opportunity of showing any responsibility for the actions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, because of the manner in which we are told not to question the C.B.C. about this, that and the other thing, as it is independent in its operations and parliament must allow it to go its merry way.
Supply-C.B.C.
The estimates as they relate to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are very interesting to members of parliament. The main estimates appear at page 54 of the blue book where vote No. 1 is shown as:
Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service (details, page 55)
Page 55 is the next page, and one finds details of this expenditure of $85,900,000. Exactly 26 words including numerals give the details of this expenditure. Those words and details are:
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
Vote 1-Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service (20)	$85,-
900,000. (1964-65)
Those are the details of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation expenditures, yet we are told on page 54 that the details are to be found on the opposite page. Those being the complete details given to members of parliament, one can understand easily why the members are provoked by the lack of responsibility shown by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to a body which is asked to fork over $60 million, $70 million, $80 million or $85 million in a given year, and in this case more than $100 million. We are not being asked to vote only $85,900,000 as shown on page 55 of the estimates. If you turn to page 516 you will find there a tricky little entry under the heading, "Loans, investments and advances, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation". The number of the vote is L10 and it reads as follows:
Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of capital expenditures subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $14,250,000.
How in the name of heaven the government can make a loan to a crown corporation which has no means of repaying that loan except by a parliamentary grant, and call it a loan, is a euphemism, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings called it a few days ago. Under the heading of "Loans, investments and advances" we are being asked to lend $14,250,000 to the C.B.C., and I ask you where the money is going to come from except out of the current expenditures of the government at some time in the future? Why can this expenditure of $14J million not be included in the main estimates along with the $85,900,000 that is shown on pages 54 and 55?
I must say that having sat here for many months and having listened to the answers,

Supply-C.B.C.
that are given to questions regarding the C.B.C., I wonder whether I am legally right in commenting on the C.B.C. even tonight. I presume my first function should be to congratulate the government for the speed it has shown in bringing down the C.B.C. estimates. Last year we discussed the C.B.C. estimates on December 21, 1963, when the expenditures for nine solid months had already been made and there were only three months to go. I have a quotation here in my notes from the member for Algoma East in which he points out that the great responsibility of parliament is to examine the proposed taxes that a government may impose on the people and that these proposed taxes must be examined before the money is spent and before the taxes are laid on the backs of the people.
Last year the C.B.C. had already spent nine months of its allotment before parliament even had an opportunity to speak on the matter. Yet nothing was done. A number of us participated in the debate but the money went through without too much obstruction. The C.B.C. figures that members have had their say and they have got their money, so what is there for the C.B.C. to complain about? This year we have advanced the date from the 21st of December to the 24th of November. This is real progress. The C.B.C. has only spent eight months supply money before any discussion of their expenditures which are crushing the taxpayers of this country to death unnecessarily.
There are so many facets to the public and private broadcasting world today that it is difficult to know where one can speak most profitably for the taxpayers of the country who have to carry this load of $100 million to supply the C.B.C. We do believe that a little bit of responsibility by the C.B.C. to the House of Commons would be appreciated. They not only do not give us any details with regard to the expenditures they are going to make but they go their own sweet way in their programming. I will not comment on their programming, as I look at television and listen to radio very little. My objection to the C.B.C. is that it should not be in business at all.
Many years ago the federal government built the Rideau canal. I was born on the banks of the Rideau and I was raised on the banks of the Trent in the city of Peterborough. These two canals were built at government expense. The Glassco report recommends that they should be sold, or turned over to the province of Ontario as tourist attractions because they are of no future value to the fed-

eral government. I maintain that in the course of progress things that were satisfactory 30, 40 or 50 years ago are not necessarily so today. If these two canal systems that were so vital to the well-being of Canada in years gone by are now to be dropped by the federal power and offered to the provincial authority as tourist attractions, I say that the day of public ownership of national radio and television networks is past.
The government got into the field of radio in the 1930's, as I mentioned in another speech in the house, in order to protect the six channels that had been allotted to this country by international agreement in the very early days of radio. The government felt that if these six channels were allotted to individuals they would be offending scores and scores of people who would like to have these six channels, so in order to shut off criticism from scores of applicants for the right to broadcast privately the federal government decided to create a radio commission and broadcast on these six bands themselves. At the same time, however, they gave the right to private stations to broadcast in the farthermost parts of the country. Radio was so new in the early thirties that no one was aware of its potentialities or possibilities and it was thought that private stations in the far flung reaches of the country would not offend the stations on the bands in the central part of the country. The net result has been that with private stations allocated to certain areas and public stations to the larger cities we have had a private system growing up alongside the government stations, but as these two systems have been growing side by side the private stations have been paying their own way while the C.B.C. has been dipping into the pockets of the Canadian people more and more.
I have mentioned to the house before and I can only repeat tonight that as the national network of the C.B.C. expands and extends itself the competition which it provides against the printed communication media increases and increases. In the discussion of the proposed CATV service it has been brought out that the government is adopting the attitude that they must protect existing Canadian television stations and must see that they remain profitable. Has the government made any effort to see that the magazines and newspapers of the country remain profitable by forbidding television and radio stations to spring up in their communities?
The history of print media in this country over the past 30 years shows magazines sus-

pending publication month after month and year after year. Many big newspapers are no longer in existence because of the competition for advertising provided by the C.B.C. which is supported by the government all the way. I have complained on behalf of the print media of this country before that the advertising rates charged by the government system do not measure up to the cost of operation. A private publisher of a magazine or newspaper must secure an advertising rate high enough to cover his cost of production. On the other hand, the C.B.C. can go out and quote whatever rate it wishes and whatever rate the advertiser will pay. Then the advertiser, who is getting a cheap subsidized rate from the C.B.C., can turn around and tell the printed media publisher, "I am getting a cheaper rate from the C.B.C. than you are offering when I consider the number of families I reach per $1,000 spent".
This government subsidized competition is really strangling the print media business in the Dominion of Canada. But what does the federal cabinet care? Their only concern is that the now established radio and television stations shall not have any competition from other stations, as shown by the ruling with regard to the London application yesterday, and the wording on the CATV proposal shows they do not want any CATV competition for the television stations and radio stations now in existence.
In this country which is described by many speakers as one of free enterprise, why does the government show so much concern for the existing stations as to put newspapers and magazines out of business? Why does the government show so little concern for the print media that are forced to go down the drain because their advertising revenues are being sucked off into government subsidized television and radio stations?
Speakers today and during interim supply debates have been trying to get a committee or commission to investigate the C.B.C. There is no doubt that such a commission is long overdue. There are many Canadians who would like to get answers from the C.B.C. The members of the House of Commons are really provoked when the Secretary of State stands up and in reply to questions states, I will pass it on to the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and that is the end of that. A week later when members ask another question we are told it will be passed on to the C.B.C. and if they have a reply, it will be brought back. Of course, when they do not have a reply, it is not
Supply-C.B.C.
brought back and that is the end of that. If we had a parliamentary committee and we could get replies from the C.B.C., I am certain many interesting facts and figures could be adduced for the guidance of members of parliament. We are asked simply to vote $85 million or $100 million toward the operation of the C.B.C. without any explanation.
Now, there are a number of questions that we might ask. I have just received from C.B.C. headquarters information to the effect that the cost of the new head office building in Ottawa was $3,100,000 and that the new furnishings cost $35,000. This is a total of $3,135,000 for the building and furnishings out on Riverside drive in what I believe is called Confederation heights. Anyone would think that a $3,135,000 building would have some class. However, I am advised that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation held a program committee meeting, in which they called in the vice presidents and all their auxiliary help, at the Seigniory club down on the Ottawa river. Is not a $3 million building on Riverside drive suitable accommodation for the C.B.C. program council meeting?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Not enough class to it.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The C.B.C. is seeking to reach the mass market, not the class market, I understand. Why do they, in their efforts to reach the mass market go to the Seigniory club? It would be very interesting to know why that meeting of the program council could not be held here in the city of Ottawa in a building that was opened during the past few months and which cost the taxpayers of the country $3,135,000. Frankly, I believe the reason they went to the Seigniory club was that they want to live in the style to which they have become accustomed since they got on the C.B.C. payroll. This is simply one question that we might like to have answered if the government would appoint a committee to investigate the operations of this bloodsucking behemoth that is drawing off more and more money every day.
Then, I should like to know the truth as it relates to a statement that has been bruited around the country that the C.B.C. spent $87,000 to send a camera crew to China. You remember that Mr. Faibish, after he had done the necessary work for the minister of agriculture in the previous administration, left the Department of Agriculture, went to the C.B.C. and wound up in China on a seven weeks tour. They spent $87,000 on the China expedition. Some programs have been placed on C.B.C. showing that China expedition. I have been told that the French network of the C.B.C.

Supply-C.B.C.
refuses to run the picture. I should like to get an answer to that statement. I am told the French network feels it is a little on the communistic side, and also that they would like to send a French camera crew over to China to take pictures of the Chinese because the English camera crew does not take good pictures of the Chinese. This is the story in C.B.C. circles, and I should like to get a direct answer to it. I hope we will not be told that the matter will be taken up with the president of the C.B.C., period, period, period.
I mentioned once before in speaking about the profligate hand with which the C.B.C. throws money around, that the newspapers of Canada did not send any representative of their own to the Holy Land when the Pope visited Palestine some months ago. The board of directors of Canadian Press, which is a co-operative organization of all the newspapers in the land, decided that the visit of the Pope to the Holy Land could be adequately covered by having Reuters news agency in Europe report to them, plus the Associated Press of the United States. Then, the larger Canadian newspapers could buy the official foreign services of such organizations as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times or the Chicago Tribune, all of which operate news services under their own name. However, this did not apply to the C.B.C. As I reported before, the C.B.C. sent seven or nine people over to Palestine to record the visit of the Pope to that country.
The most interesting backlash of that visit is that we are now advised a French camera crew and an English camera crew arrived in Palestine unknown to each other to cover the visit.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would he be willing to tell us if the French network was prepared to televise the program which he is now describing?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I trust that my next few words will cover that subject.
I wanted to report to you that C.B.C. personnel have advised me that when the English camera crew and the French camera crew found that they were in Palestine together, they agreed that the French would shoot silent French footage and the English camera crew would shoot silent English footage. If you can tell me what silent English footage is compared with silent French foot-

age in Palestine, I would appreciate getting the information. I do not want to be told, we will ask the president of the C.B.C. and if he deigns to answer the inquiry such as you are making we will pass it on to you. This is a report that comes to me from several people who are well placed and well able to give me the information that I am passing on to you.
Now, I have remarked on the irresponsibility of the C.B.C. in not giving us an explanation of the vast expenditures they are making year after year. I think it is absolutely ridiculous-I cannot think of a stronger word -the way the C.B.C. flouts the good name of the parliament of Canada. In 1962, the immigration department of this Canadian government issued a stop order against George Lincoln Rockwell being allowed to enter Canada. There were good and sufficient reasons for that order being issued. The present government reinforced the order of 1962 which had been made by the previous government. This means that two consecutive Canadian governments had issued an order prohibiting the entry of George Lincoln Rockwell into this country. Why, then, in the name of heaven has the C.B.C. the right to spend taxpayers' money sending a camera crew down to Washington to interview Mr. George Lincoln Rockwell in Washington, put it on tape and bring it back to this country? If the immigration department has forbidden the man to enter the country, I do not believe that taxpayers' money should be spent in sending a camera crew down to see him because he is not allowed to enter this country.
Then, the immigration department of this country took a chap by the name of Sands off a plane from Chicago, I believe, at the Toronto airport. They said he was non persona grata in this country and he was sent back to Cleveland, Ohio, on the next plane leaving for the United States. There is a cease and desist order against this chap, or there was at the time, forbidding his entry into Canada. We pick up the C.B.C. on Sunday night and find they have brought this gentleman-I will use the term loosely in this case -to the United States-Canadian border on the Rainbow bridge at Niagara Falls. Despite the fact the immigration department of this government has said the man is non persona grata, they give him the national network at taxpayers' expense. They even photograph the international boundary to show that the C.B.C. would not allow Mr. Sands into this country. The immigration department will not allow him into the country, so we will just keep

him across the painted line and give him a national network show in Canada at the taxpayers' expense. If that shows any sense of responsibility, then I do not understand the meaning of the word.
I ask this question bluntly: The C.B.C., at the taxpayers' expense, has made a monkey out of the department of immigration. Are they planning to bring Harold Chamberlain Banks up to the Rainbow bridge and photograph him across the border in order to make an ass out of the Department of Justice? There should be some sense of reason and decency shown in the operations of the C.B.C., but we have got few examples of that recently.
During the last few days hon. members have been reading quite a bit about a charge from Winnipeg, Manitoba, regarding young boys who have signed some papers, and their fathers complain that when they want the boys to jump from one junior team to another they are informed that they signed papers when a mere lad, and they are stuck with those papers from now until the end of time
You may wonder what this has to do with C.B.C. estimates. I would like to point out that there is a revolution coming in free broadcasting of sporting events on radio and television because the professional athletes of this continent and of Great Britain are fed up to the teeth. They entertain people sitting in their homes thousands of miles away, and they do not get a single, solitary cent for the entertainment they provide these people.
There is now a move afoot to unionize these athletes. Everyone knows that the owners of professional football teams, the owners of professional hockey teams and the owners of professional soccer teams-I am thinking of Great Britain now-are fighting the unionization of players hand and foot, tooth and nail, but it will not be stopped because the players feel that when they entertain tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of fans, sitting in their own homes, they should be recompensed for the services they are rendering the public through the means of entertainment.
There is an editorial in the Globe this morning entitled "Bondage". It is quite a nice editorial and it compliments the government on its intimation that there is going to be an investigation into these charges out of Winnipeg. But I can tell you there is no combine in the pro-sports world, none whatever. Nothing is signed, never has been and never will be; but when six owners get together one will say, "Jack, when I pick up a 15 year old boy in Winnipeg who looks pretty promising
Supply


I will let the central office in Montreal know about it and you leave the family alone." Another one of the owners, walking around quite casually, says "We would not like to interfere with your property." That is the word they use, "property", so "bondage", as the heading of the editorial, is very good. Then another club owner says, "I have found a very good hockey player in Wetaskiwin. I will notify the central office in Montreal that this boy is going to be our property," and when the other five gentlemen owners of the hockey teams hear this they do not go near that chap.
No, there is no combine, not at all; there is nothing to break the combines law; it is just a gentlemen's agreement.
I have been in the newspaper game in Canada all my life. There is no combine in Canada with respect to the employment of people by newspapers, but I know newspaper chains that will not hire a man from another chain or from another paper. Of course there is an understanding but there is no combine. There is just an understanding that "if you leave my writers alone I will leave your writers alone. Anyway, why should you bid that man $10 a week more to drag him across to your paper when all I will do is raise my bid to $15 and then you will go up to $20? This is ridiculous. Why should the newspapers cut up one another?" Why should they offer the experienced help more money? The only person going to gain on it is the employee.
There are some employers who do not approve of that, but in the hockey business these men have no combine, no trust. They just do not bid against one another, so that thereby the players' remuneration would be greatly increased. The television and radio world is going to be revolutionized and more and more players in the baseball world, the football world and the hockey world will demand that they be shown only on either theatre, television or closed circuit television where the public will have to pay to see them perform.
Perhaps hon. members think that day will never come. I remember the junior member for Halifax making some comments a little while ago in which he said sports spectaculars could never be taken from the people, that they belonged to the people. That is a very nice phrase to coin, but what about the players?
In the city of Toronto today you can not only see pro hockey players playing on the ice at Maple Leaf Gardens but you can go to theatres in the city and pay admission, and

Supply-C.B.C.
there you can see the players playing on big screens. The away from home games are shown this way in St. Catharines, Hamilton and Toronto, and so long as the crowds remain at capacity in the Gardens, and so long as the theatres are selling out for theatre television the free broadcasting-any more than 75 miles and further away-will continue because it is through the free advertising that the C.B.C. gives hockey that it has reached its great popularity in this country today.
A royal commission, or preferably a parliamentary commission investigating the C.B.C. would turn out the facts to show how much it costs to broadcast a national league hockey game across Canada from coast to coast. You people may think it is those sponsors whose names are shown on the screen or which are heard over the air who are paying the full shot of the program. You could not be further from the truth. If they were paying the full costs of these sports spectaculars from coast to coast they would only be able to sponsor about two games a year.
The C.B.C. underwrites a tremendous portion of the sports spectaculars broadcast from coast to coast. It would be interesting to know whether sponsors of the Grey cup games and the N.H.L. hockey games are paying what are known as spot advertising rates or full program rates for the advertising they put on the air. Many of us who are experienced in the field are certain they are paying close to spot advertising rates rather than full program rates for the sports spectaculars with which their names are identified.


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


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Go ahead.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree that the hon. member should continue?


Gordon Minto Churchill: For how long?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Oh, let him go.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I can sit down now.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its consideration. I was just remarking that it would be wonderful to know the amount in millions of dollars of free advertising that the C.B.C. has given to such businesses as professional hockey and professional baseball. Why does it not give that same kind of free advertising to

other businesses in the country-the sale of furniture, the sale of automobiles, the sale of houses, the sale of pleasure boats? Why confine its free will advertising to sports businessmen and not support the whole commercial field throughout the Dominion of Canada?
I regret that I do not have more time to speak about the C.B.C. Frankly I think it ridiculous that on the 24th day of November we are discussing the expenditures of an organization that is going to take $100 million from the taxpayers of the country. There will be possibly two hours consideration of the matter and, come Friday, everything goes through in one mass vote without any further consideration; and a year from now somebody will say, "Oh, the C.B.C. was thoroughly considered, you remember, on November 24 last. Three or four fellows got up and talked about it, and that was that."
There has got to be a committee appointed to investigate the operations of the C.B.C. Its cost to the country today is greater than the cost of the C.N.R. The C.B.C. has asked for $100 million and C.N. is asking for $67 million. Some elections have been fought, won and lost in this country on the expenditures of the C.N.R. when they were little more than one half the cost of the C.B.C. today, yet when the C.B.C. estimates come up people get up and say, "This is terrific. This is culture. It is the best."
But the submission of the association of Canadian radio and television actors to the Fowler commission shows that 64 per cent of the programs on C.B.C. radio and 64 per cent of the programs on C.B.C. television are entertainment. Yet we hear all this stuff about culture, culture, culture. As I asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, what culture is involved in describing a great president of the United States as the biggest communist the country has ever seen, with the exception of his wife? Yet that is what was sent out from coast to coast not too long ago, and that is what the Canadian taxpayer had to pay for.
I regret exceedingly that discussion of the C.B.C. estimates is being so completely and thoroughly choked off. Since I have used up the time allotted to me, and even a few extra minutes, I will thank the committee for the consideration they have shown and keep to myself my reflections on the degree of thoroughness with which parliament is allowed to scrutinize public expenditures.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I call it six o'clock?


Mr, Mcllrailh:: I wonder whether the hon. member would agree that we should try to conclude these particular estimates so that we might get on to others.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Surely the hon. gentleman does not expect the committee to complete before eight o'clock a study of the estimates he listed last night?


George James McIlraith: No, just these. Then at eight o'clock we could go on with a new department. I understand the hon. member wishes to speak.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, but I do not wish to penalize everyone who is here now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Go on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, I want to make a further point I had in mind in connection with the national film board. It is my information that the division between employees of the board recently reached a stage where opposing briefs were presented to the head of the organization. I should like the minister to check this and confirm my information. I should like to know whether these contending opinions were referred to the board itself and what opinions the board may have expressed on them, or what opinion the head of the board may have taken with regard to them.
The other point I want to touch on-and I take some pleasure in doing so, because I see some representatives of the C.B.C. sitting in the gallery-is an incident of which I think we should all be thoroughly ashamed in the House of Commons. It relates to the treatment given by the C.B.C. to the man who produced the Pearson film. I think it is one of the most disgraceful episodes in parliamentary history and I think we all share in it, including the Prime Minister- perhaps, particularly, the Prime Minister.
This is not a question of whether or not the film should be shown. Assume the C.B.C. has the right to make the decision it did. But when the C.B.C. made that decision its officials uttered what were in effect slanders upon the ability and technical prowess of the person who produced the film. The reason they gave for not showing it was its technical or intellectual inadequacy, or words to that effect. That is fine. But they publicized these reasons to the extent that the reputation of the man who produced the film, Mr. Ballentine has been placed in a very bad light. It is only natural that in the circum-
Supply-C.B.C.
stances Mr. Ballentine should seek to obtain some form of redress, some opportunity to prove particularly by using the film, that he is not as incompetent as the C.B.C. labelled him. There is the story of his efforts to buy the film, for example. He offered $35,000 for it. But the C.B.C., loaded with the $17 million that the hon. member for York-Humber was talking about, is not interested in $35,000. If indeed the C.B.C. really believed this film to be inadequate and lacking in intellectual grasp, one would suppose they would be prepared to accept the $35,000 offered not only by Mr. Ballentine but by other people. At the moment though this is not the point. They made statements about this man's reputation and capacity, and let them stand; and they have been niggling and petty and small about giving him the opportunity to get and use the prints in order to put forward his case.
I have all the correspondence which passed between Intervideo and the C.B.C., largely with Captain Brooks, and there could not be a stuffier kind of correspondence than the pomp of those answers; there could not be anything better put, to my mind, than the simple request that the C.B.C., in view of the fact that they had damned this man in his professional capacity, should at least give him the film so as to demonstrate that he had some answers on this particular question. He received a request from a famous museum and film gallery in the United States, the Huntingdon museum, to show his film. He asked the C.B.C. to release him from the very narrow contract terms which had been arranged at the time when there was no understanding that the film would not be shown on television, so that people might have an opportunity to see it at this place where, in a sense, the reputations of film producers are in many ways determined. What was the answer he received? The C.B.C. would not accede to this request but was willing to let him have other pieces of film he had produced for them to show on this occasion. I cannot thing of a sillier or more backward answer-an answer which seemed to prove some kind of fear on the part of the C.B.C. beyond my understanding.
I am convinced that the Prime Minister of this country wanted the damned film shown. Perhaps there is some great integrity in the C.B.C. demonstrated by not acceding to that point of view or to what was obviously the wish of parliament. As far as I am concerned, and as far as Mr. Ballentine is concerned, the

Supply-C.B.C.
issue whether it should be shown on television or not is dead. The fact remains that here is an individual whose reputation has been smashed as a result of the refusal of the C.B.C. to use this film. Yet they niggle, they whine, they cheat, they waffle all the way through in the face of his attempts to get free use of the print so that he can take it to the people across this country in order to show he is not the incompetent, the emotionally immature person the corporation has labelled him.
We in this house have permitted the C.B.C. to behave in this way and I think it is a disgrace. Members can say all they please about political influence. Maybe the Pearson film was an issue; maybe it was not. Certainly it made headlines. The fact remains we have this big, stiff, swell-headed organization with a bunch of arrogant people at the top- damned arrogant-who have knocked the little man on the chin and who are refusing to give him a fair shake. I just want to let those people in the gallery, those big shots in the C.B.C., know, having looked at the correspondence and followed this case throughout, how I feel about it. Maybe they have an argument in support of their decision not to show the film for various reasons. Maybe there was no political interference. I do not really care any more. But they should have nothing but shame for their conduct with regard to this particular film-their action in refusing to sell it and let this producer have his "go". I think we should all be ashamed of what the C.B.C. has done in this connection.
I should like to close my observations on this subject by saying that I think the Prime Minister shares the blame even more than the rest of us do. After all, it was he and fundamentally his reputation on which this whole thing balanced. I am pleased to find that the sort of resentment and malice I happen to feel in this regard is not shared so much by Mr. Ballentine, who perhaps is larger in spirit than I. But if I were he I would feel terribly let down by any prime minister who would not take some step, even if it is just the persuasive one of getting the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to sit down and talk sense about the matter over the table. It is pretty disgraceful to have that sort of situation in your head office in this country.
I am sorry to have been so extreme in expressing this point of view but it seems to me that anyone reading this correspondence and following this "Mr. Pearson" film incident through cannot help but be ashamed

that we have such stiff backed, swollen headed, arrogant types at the head of a corporation who would treat any small individual in this way. It is as though they are taking out on him all the meanness which has been generated in them because of the boobs pulled by their organization over this "Mr. Pearson" film. To me it is regrettably pathetic that a giant organization with a budget of over $100 million a year should continue to have such a narrow and malicious point of view toward an individual who is doing what is really, in effect, in money or in other terms, a relatively small job for them.
The last point I want to touch on in connection with the C.B.C. is to remind the minister of a meeting I had with him last year with some representatives from my area regarding the extension of television service to the Geraldton-Longlac area. This matter seems to me typical of the kind of frustrations expressed by the hon. member for Churchill and those of us who have spent seven years trying to see an advancement in the policy of extension of service both through the C.B.C. and at the encouragement of the B.B.G. When this delegation came to see the minister, frustrated and fuming after spending an hour with Mr. Ouimet and Mr. Fraser, he assured them that the government would look at the problem of extending services to see whether this would not be possible, since Mr. Ouimet had told us that for a sum of $20 million to $25 million television service in Canada could be extended in a blanket coverage. I have never had an answer from the minister to those representations, and if he checks the file he will see I followed up with a letter which specifically asked him about this matter. But still no indication of the position of the government in this regard. This is basically the same question asked by the hon. member for Churchill.
More than that, Mr. Chairman, when we met representatives from the C.B.C. last winter they told us that within a month or six weeks they would have received some bids or quotations on a potential satellite transmitter in the Geraldton-Longlac area. That is many months ago. We are now almost to Christmas and it is still impossible to get any kind of firm answer from the C.B.C. The last letter I had from them was about two weeks ago and the whole matter is still up in the air. This is typical of my experience through the seven years in which I have had

dealings with the C.B.C. in terms of extension of service.
There is a beautiful castle erected in honour of Mr. Ouimet on the outskirts of Confederation heights, about which our friend from York-Humber was talking, and I have often wondered what is done there. This seems to me a good question to ask. Certainly minor attention has been paid either to budgeting or planning for an extension of service in the way the members of parliament have been asking for seven or eight years. They never seem to be able to live up to their deadlines in terms of the introduction of projects. At one place, Terrace Bay, they promised a better, low power relay station one year ago, and I doubt whether the damned thing has been put in yet. At least, I had a letter the other day indicating that it had not. There is always this kind of delay and procrastination in projects, putting them over to some future date.
This matter may seem particularly in contradiction with the fulsome phrases extended to the C.B.C. by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North. My comments are directed toward the function of the C.B.C. as a program producer and apply to the substantial administrative weakness of the C.B.C. and lack of flexibility in responding to questions which we have asked as parliamentary representatives, having nothing to do with programming. So this is not interference with their programs. I should like to ask the minister about the public accounts hearings. Did the minister read what Mr. Ouimet told us at the public accounts committee a couple of months ago, in the summertime? Mr. Ouimet, obviously reluctantly, undertook to provide certain information for the public accounts committee, and urged both by the Auditor General and the members of the committee he undertook that this information would be provided. I still have not heard about it. I do not know where the information is. I had assumed some of it would be in the next annual report of the C.B.C., which is one of the most uninformative documents one can find. I notice our financial critics are always analysing the annual reports of companies, whether they are good or bad, and I wish they would look at the C.B.C. reports, because if they did so they would find out how well things can be cloaked. Any report which can figure out to a quarter of a cent a day how much each one of us contributes as a taxpayer to the C.B.C. as so-called shareholders, and yet cannot give us a more in-
Supply-C.B.C.
formative picture is, it seems to me, a bit of a cover up job.
My point is that in my experience the C.B.C. has been very lax in providing members of parliament, or parliament, or parliamentary committees with information and material. The president of the C.B.C. may remember that a few years ago he was before the broadcasting committee, and at that time I was one of those who was most anxious to have all this information. I am sure he will remember how he fought the battle from point to point and from day to day before giving any information about the cost of programs. Finally he did. I hope we will not be faced with the same kind of point to point resistance to the provision of information in connection with the figures before the public accounts committee for which we are asking. Let me tell the minister, and through him the C.B.C., that several of us on that committee do not intend to let the C.B.C. fall back into any of its old attitudes in failing to provide this information. We would ask him to inform us now whether he has any information as to when the C.B.C. will provide this information, how it will provide it and what sort of distribution it is going to get.
That concludes the remarks I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the committee for its patience. Before I finish completely I want to mention one point in connection with the argument made by the hon. member for York-Humber about hockey players. I think generally I agree with him, but he is not completely accurate when he says that there is just a gentlemen's agreement existing. There are forms which are signed. Perhaps they would not stand up in court but the fact remains that forms are signed which tie a youngster through the amateur ranks and so on. I remember the son of a friend of mine who had a host of hockey scouts hovering about, and as the boy approached his sixteenth birthday a few years ago they all wanted his signature so that they could wire Clarence Campbell and get him registered in order that he would become their chattel.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I would ask the hon. member for Port Arthur, does he consider a signed document which is an agreement between a player and a hockey team the same as a combine signed by six owners? I made

Supply-C.B.C.
reference to a combine signed by six owners; I said nothing about players' contracts.


Douglas Mason Fisher: 1 can see the hon. member's distinction but I was only making the point that they give the impression that the whole thing is a gentlemen's agreement. I think if anyone wants to check on the business of professional sports organizations, he should look at the reserve clause, and if he really wants to look into the situation he should read the reports of the United States House of Representatives committee chaired by Mr. Cellar of a few years ago, before which Clarence Campbell and all the baseball and football magnates appeared and gave evidence.
I just wanted to put that on the record in case someone reading Hansard at a later time might wish to pursue the subject.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, just before you call vote 1 I should like to deal with some of the points raised during the course of this discussion.
In the first place, the hon. member for Port Arthur has spoken at length about the film board and the chairman. As far as I am concerned I do not intend at this stage to defend the film board, which has gone on winning international awards, or Mr. Roberge, who has proven over the years to be a very highly competent administrator and a devoted public servant.
I do not think either that the hon. member has read or carefully studied my speech, in which I said improvements were desirable and that the chairman and members of the board were conscious of this situation. I went on to say, and I think this covers a lot of the points the hon. member has raised, as recorded at page 10084 of Hansard of November 13, 1964:
They have begun a reappraisal of the institution itself and they are reviewing its programs and operations in several fields of activity in the light of current demand of course, but also of its national purpose and the relative importance of the functions assigned to it by parliament.
As an agency at the service of Canada and its people in the fields of information and culture, the board has already decided to strengthen its program for community audiences, and to undertake a survey and analysis of its distribution operations in Canada, with a view to identify and evaluate more precsely its audiences, in relation to their needs and to the purposes the board pursues.
While the present situation may need some improvement, as the hon. member has said, the board is already conscious of the changes that have taken place recently and over the years. It is already aware of new needs, and

is trying as fast as it can to meet those new needs.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is the old needs that I was worried about.


Maurice Lamontagne: The hon. member may have brought his criticisms too late to the board. In any case, I am quite sure the board will be happy at some later stage during the next session, if it is found desirable at that time, to appear before this standing committee on cultural affairs, if we decide to set up such a committee.
Three hon. members have raised the problem regarding the extension of the services of the C.B.C. Of course, as far as alternative service is concerned, there is a freeze at the present time, and this freeze will be maintained until we get the report of the advisory committee.
Where there are no services at the present time, the extension of services is of course a very important matter to those who are not covered. There is, however, a question of priority in the extension of services where they do not exist at the present time, and also a priority in other fields of services.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Like French in Toronto.


Maurice Lamontagne: These decisions were taken a few years ago, as the hon. member is aware. So the whole question of financing, both short and long term, of the C.B.C., is before the Fowler committee at the present time. I am hopeful that we will get its report early in 1965, at which time, when priorities have been determined both by the committee and by the government, I will be happy indeed to give immediate attention in terms of government decision and policy to this important question.
As the hon. member for Churchill has suggested, I am sure the Fowler committee will, as we will, give special consideration to the possibility and desirability of establishing a special grant for this purpose.
I will certainly present the proposals that were made this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay West to the national museum and to the film board, in so far as the Columbia river project is concerned. It would be very worth while to try, as much as we can, to save objects of value which are there, and also to record, on film, this great river in its present state.

I should now like to say a word about the suggestion made this afternoon by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm

(Mr. Pigeon) who intimated that the government should, at this time, institute a royal commission on the C.B.C. and broadcasting.
The hon. member must have forgotten that last May 25 I announced on behalf of the government that a three member committee would be asked to look into all aspects of broadcasting. The investigation is now under way. The terms of reference of the committee are very wide and will not be limited in any way. The committee also has unrestricted authority. It is empowered to call as witnesses any organization or individual who is interested in this problem, it can examine briefs and investigate the C.B.C., private stations and the B.B.G. I fail to see what the establishment of a royal commission would add; in my opinion, it would just be duplication.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Will the committee publish a report?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I have already announced that the Fowler committee report would be made public as soon as it has been received by the government.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one further question arising out of his remarks about the Fowler commission report. It is my understanding that one of the advantages of having the deputy minister of the Department of the Secretary of State, and having that minister's former executive assistant secretary as members of that small group, not holding open hearings, was so that this report could be obtained quickly and would form the basis of government policy. Is that right?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am not interested in whether the report of this commission is published quickly, or immediately made available. The important thing is when the decision is made by this government, and when it will be in a position to lay down new policy guide lines or even legislative changes as a result of the report.
The spectre of waiting for a report in English and French, this sort of coming forth like a royal commission document and then being commented upon across the country is not, it seems to me, what we understood we were going to get from this particular committee.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, the last time I discussed this with the chairman of the committee he told me he was hoping to have
Supply-C.B.C.
the report completed by the end of March. If this turns out to be so I am sure it will give ample time to the government to make up its own mind and to present legislation at a fairly early stage of the 1965 session.


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: In relation to the question just raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur and having regard to his earlier remarks concerning the establishment of priorities in the extension of service to areas not now served, I should like to ask the minister whether this means that no government action on this question can be contemplated until March? I might say to the minister that it is only through exercising considerable self-discipline that I for one, and I imagine quite a number of other members who are in a similar situation, have refrained from commenting or raising questions at length on this subject. Many of us have experienced the frustrations referred to by the member for Port Arthur.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I suppose that this is unavoidable. I think the government has not lost any time in this field. When we came into office we felt very strongly that we needed a new look at the whole field of broadcasting. We certainly needed a new look at the whole problem of short term and long term financing of the C.B.C., especially in view of the new need for consolidation projects in Montreal, Toronto and elsewhere. As was made quite clear this afternoon, there are limits to the activities of the C.B.C. and there are limits to the amount of money that parliament can provide to the corporation for the whole of its operations. It seems to me that the Fowler committee should have the chance to look at all the new needs that the C.B.C. will face very shortly in order to decide some order of priorities among those different needs. It seems to me it would be relatively unwise as far as we are concerned to proceed at the present time without a general plan.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, the minister just said that there are limits to the money that the government can supply to the C.B.C. I should like to ask him whether at $100 million for the current year we are anywhere near the limit?


Maurice Lamontagne: This is not for me to say, Mr. Chairman. This answer will be provided by parliament.


Douglas Mason Fisher: After listening to that answer all I should like to say to the hon. member for York-Humber is that I hope he knows

Supply-C.B.C.
more about what parliament means than I do. I should like to ask the minister this question. As I understand the timing of things, the budget of the C.B.C. for next year has been approved and has gone through treasury board very recently. I understand it is done every fall. Can the minister now give any indication whether there is any flexibility in that budget in order to allow for more extension of services next year rather than putting a lot of money into the Montreal and Toronto white elephants that the corporation wants to erect?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly look into this matter very carefully. As the hon. member knows, there are some delays in proceeding now with these consolidation projects and perhaps this will leave some money available for this other very desirable purpose. The budget of the C.B.C. has not yet been considered and approved by treasury board.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In connection with a question I raised earlier I should like to remind the minister that some of us were members of the house when the earlier Fowler commission report was tabled and we had high hopes then of seeing some action. I think he can appreciate the impatience that a great many of the people who have not so far had the benefit of any services at all feel about the long and frustrating delay in being able to participate in the benefits of our public broadcasting service.


Maurice Lamontagne: As I have just said, we will do our best to reconsider this matter in the light of the delays in the realization of the consolidation projects.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1. Salaries and other expenses, $374,300.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question about the board of broadcast governors. I understand Mr. Stewart has sent notice of his intention to resign from his position. I have had a private member's public bill on the order paper, the intent of which is to force the government to give notice to those people whose appointments are not going to be renewed. Following that up and being consistent it is only fair that I should ask the minister whether the government has given any notice of its intention to renew or not to renew the appointments of the other two permanent members of the

board of broadcast governors, aside from Dr. Andrew Stewart?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Chairman. There is only one other member whose term expires next year, and we will certainly want to look at the Fowler report before making a decision.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would not think that the Fowler report would pass judgment on his capabilities, but I would ask the minister to please give the man adequate notice if the government is not going to reappoint him.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what will be in the report in so far as the board of broadcast governors is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, including the payment of $243,000 to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,297,000.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have one question on the national gallery of Canada. Is there any intention at present or are there any plans under way to find a replacement for the present head of the national gallery?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, as I said in my speech about 10 days ago, the government is now preparing new legislation to improve the status of the gallery and if and when this legislation is approved by parliament we will then have to consider making appointments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Secretary of State.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, there is still another agency. Before the house made this new agreement about consideration of estimates I had proposed when I first spoke on the estimates of my department that I would make three separate statements, one on the department itself and a few other agencies, a second one on the so-called cultural institutions and a third one on the centennial commission. If the committee is ready to consider the votes for the centennial commission, which are included in the privy council estimates, I would be at the disposal of the committee. Otherwise this might be postponed until we come to the privy council item.


George James McIlraith: Carried.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the house leader asking for the item to be carried? I would appreciate it if it could be postponed because I have a couple of colleagues who, I think, want to speak upon it. I \Vould not want it to go through at 7.30 when they were not here.


Maurice Lamontagne: The only difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is that I have to be out of town tomorrow and Thursday, precisely for the purpose of preparing for the centennial. I have to be in Toronto for a meeting of the national committee on the centennial, but I would be back on Friday and would be at the disposal of the committee at that time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Friday would be a good day; you would be fresh.
The Depuiy Chairman: Vote No. 20, privy council, centennial commission.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Stand until Friday.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This might be a good time, Mr. Chairman, for you to notice that it is six o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council with the governments of the provinces and territories and with local school boards in respect of social assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, and to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and, notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $47,742,400.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: At the outset I would like to inquire of the leader of the house as to the whereabouts of the minister.


George James McIlraith: He is coming, he is right here.
10469
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We have reached a stage in the discussion of the estimates when some of us would like to ask questions of the minister rather than indulge in lengthy remarks. Having been in the chamber at 7.30-


An hon. Member:: Here is the minister.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -I felt we were getting into the position of having to deal with members of the government in relays. For that reason it may be a little difficult for us to bowl them down when they come in refreshed after a more extended recess than most of us had.
I have been trying to assemble the various pieces of material which I got ready on a number of previous occasions in the hope of making a few remarks and addressing some questions to the minister on the estimates of the Indian affairs branch. I listened with a great deal of attention to the minister's speech upon the administration of the branch. I do not recall everything he said, perhaps even he may not, but on listening to his remarks I got the impression that what he was suggesting as a program to meet the needs of Canadian Indians had a familiar ring. This led me to do some research on earlier discussions which took place in the house on this subject, particularly with respect to recommendations from parliamentary committees.
In this connection I would like to draw the minister's attention to one of the recommendations in the report of the 1948 joint committee on Indian affairs, a recommendation which was not included among his recent proposals. It is to be found at page 189 of the minutes and proceedings of that committee, and is a recommendation to the house:
Your committee recommends that the rules of the House of Commons be amended to provide for the appointment of a select standing committee on Indian affairs.	,
I am firmly of the opinion that it would have been the better part of wisdom had this recommendation been acted upon long ago, so that now we would have the machinery through which to give regular consideration to the problems faced by our Indian people. I hope the minister will consider these recommendations made by our predecessors in this house in 1948.
I find there were some other recommendations made by that 1948 committee which closely resemble the subject matter of the speech made by the minister when he introduced his estimates. For example, again on page 189, the committee had this to say:
Your committee therefore recommends that the government consider the desirability of placing on the agenda of the next dominion-provincial con-

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration ference, for consideration by the provinces, the following matters: education; health and social services, fur conservation and development and Indian traplines; provincial fish and game laws; provincial liquor legislation; validity of marriages solemnized by Indians.
The year 1948 was not the last year in which a committee of the house and the Senate met. In the report of the 1961 committee we And the following recommendation on the subject of health and welfare. It is recommendation No. 6.
(a)	The question of transferring health services for Indians to the provinces should be discussed at a dominion-provincial conference, but the present health program should be continued and extended until such time as this can be accomplished.
(b)	Provincial welfare legislation and services should be used for the benefit of the Indian population.
And so on. So in 1948 and 1961 we find committees putting forward proposals very much along the lines of those made by the minister in his speech introducing the estimates of the Indian affairs branch. I point this out to remind the hon. gentleman that a few months ago I did suggest in a speech made in this chamber that what we really require is a crash program. I am certainly not placing upon the shoulders of the present minister responsibility for the fact that the recommendations of the 1948 and the 1960-61 committee have not been implemented-they are still in the discussion stage at dominion-provincial conferences, and in secret, as my hon. friend from Skeena pointed out. Nevertheless I believe the hon. gentleman has very little time in which to do the things he is talking about.
Some of the modest increases proposed in certain items of the estimates of the branch are in the right direction. The proposal for a community development program, while extremely modest and, in my opinion, inadequate in its scale, is nevertheless a move of the right kind. I hope the minister can offer some explanation of the relationship between one aspect of these estimates and one of the statements he made in the course of his speech. The minister said, and I quote his words, that we shall need to considerably strengthen the branch staff in this field. I have tried to understand the estimates as laid out in detail, and as far as I can see the total increase in the establishment of the department for which provision is made is in the order of two or three persons out of a total of more than 600. Can the minister explain to us the relation between the proposal in these estimates to provide for wages and salaries

showing little increase as against past years with his opening remarks to the effect that there is a need to considerably strengthen branch staff? Does the minister believe that the provision of two or three people represents a considerable increase ,in the staff of the branch? Depending on the kind of answer the minister has to give me to this question, I may or may not have further questions to put to him later in this regard.


René Tremblay: I think this is a good opportunity to comment on the many remarks made last Friday by some hon. members about the administration of Indian affairs.
Of course, I will not have enough time to discuss in full detail the particular problems raised by those who took part in the debate so far, but I feel that I should give explanations on a number of general problems which have been raised, especially by the hon. members for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).
First of all, I would like to deal with what was called the transfer of jurisdiction as proposed by the government, that is, the transfer of the jurisdiction to the provincial authorities.
I only wish to state once more what I often said in this house-and this for the information of the committee-that at no time did the present government consider transferring this administration or jurisdiction to the various provinces. Even if this government considered such a transfer of jurisdiction, it would be totally illegal because under the constitution at it exists, no power reserved to the central government or to a provincial government may be transferred to another level of administration, since such a measure on the part of the central government or of the government of a province would be declared ultra vires, that is, overstepping the powers to them granted by the constitution. Therefore, the central government cannot transfer its jurisdiction respecting Indian affairs to a provincial government.
Second, the federal government would act against the constitution which gave the central government the power to legislate respecting Indian affairs, and I believe that in certain cases it would be contrary to the powers which were assumed by the crown when it signed treaties with the Indians, to transfer certain powers respecting Indian affairs, to the provinces which, in the opinion of some persons, could fulfil, better than

the central government, those responsibilities toward the Indians.
But there are other reasons beside the traditional respect of the central government for the constitution,, in regard to its obligations towards the Indians. The federal government is aware that it has a duty, a responsibility to all the Indians in this country, that is to help them to reach the goal everybody is looking forward to, namely the complete independence and control of their own affairs.
I feel that all Canadians wish that before the centennial of confederation, all the Indians in this country will be able to enjoy, as soon as possible, all the privileges and advantages the other Canadians now enjoy. Then those Indians will be able to say proudly: We belong to this Canadian nation, to this Canadian confederation the centennial of which we are going to celebrate in 1967.
It is because we are conscious of that task that we do not want, for any reason whatever, to give up the powers granted to us by the constitution and which, as I said earlier, are sanctioned by several treaties with regard to the Indians in our country.
But that having been said, and in view of the fact that we are conscious that the Indians themselves, in various numbers, are anxious to benefit like the other Canadian citizens from some services now provided by the provinces, it was thought that the time had come to submit both to the provinces and the Indians the project dealing with the extension of some provincial services to the Indians who wanted them. That gave rise to the idea of holding a federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs.
As you know, that same matter had been discussed by a committee which sat last fall, at the time of the federal-provincial conference on fiscal matters, and after a debate within that committee, the wish had been expressed to hold a full federal-provincial conference to deal only with problems related to Indian affairs.
As we know, this conference had originally been planned for last May but, for various reasons, it was postponed until fall. We were very happy to welcome to Ottawa the delegates from the various provinces to discuss with them, not the problem of the transfer of jurisdiction, but the attitude of the various provincial governments toward the Indians' problems.
I know some delegates suggested that we invite the Indians themselves to this conference, inasmuch as problems concerning them
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration directly were to be discussed. We all know that the conference was held without any Indians being present, and as I have already said to the house, the government did not wish to invite the Indians to this conference, for the following reasons:
That conference, of course, was not held to make any decisions with regard to any program which might affect Indians, and this is so true that the problem of consultation was put as first item on the agenda of the conference. We were, indeed, very much aware that any change, even with regard to the so-called extension of provincial services, would have to be submitted to the Indians in the first place, and that it would not be advisable for the federal government to conclude an agreement with any province, or to introduce a system which would apply within the country, without the Indians having been consulted and having stated their position, even as to the details of each program.
That is why the consultation principle was put as first item on the agenda.
What was the result of this conference, from the point of view of consultation? We decided, we of the federal government-and the provinces agreed-that from now on systematic consultations should be held in Canada with the Indians; that it did not suffice to greet a group of Indians to be able to say: The country's Indians accept this or that program, this or that legislation. There was going to be, for the first time in Canada, what has been called a consultative organization. I know Indians have appeared, singly, in groups or in bands, before the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs.
I know also that through our officials the Indians could express their wishes and claims to the department or to the government. But everyone deplored the fact that there was not in Canada a system under which the Indians could regularly, especially in connection with the details of the programs, express their views and wishes.
The central government and the provinces agreed unanimously on the need for consultation with the Indians and recognized two principles in that respect.
First, that consultation must start at the level of the Indians themselves, that is to say that the Indians, wherever they live in the country, whatever tribe they belong to, whatever ethnic community they may belong to, must be able, through duly selected representatives, to express to the central govern-
1047a	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
ment or to a provincial government, if need bp, their wishes, complaints and opposition.
Therefore, consultation among all the Indians was the first principle. But, as I have already said in this house, that consultation would be related to the second point which I will develop later on.
That consultation would take place at the regional level or, as it were at the provincial level, but in regard to Indian affairs, we always refer to regions that correspond approximately to provincial boundaries.
Regardless of the recommendation of the consultation given by the Indians and their representative in this form, it was recognized that no decision could be forced on any particular band. Therefore, a new level of consultation was needed-a more traditional one -the council of the band which retains its right to reject or accept any provision which might apply within the area or the province.
. Therefore, those two kinds of consultations have been accepted in a general way by the central government, which told the provinces: With you, if you wish, or alone, we shall, in each area of this country, establish Indian advisory committees to which every problem of importance in respect of Indian dffairs will be submitted. You will give your advice to the government and decisions will be made in the light of those consultations. But this consultation will not necessarily be binding on all bands in the territory, which shall remain free individually. In other words, these bands will remain free to accept this consultation or this decision of the majority of the Indians in the area, or to accept a special status.
It is because we wanted the provinces to express their views on the principle of consultation that we thought-and that is one reason-that a federal-provincial conference at government level should be held before submitting any program directly to the Indians.
The second principle was that nothing should be done concerning Indian affairs without preliminary discussions with the Indians themselves and with the provinces concerned about the problems which could arise by extending provincial services. One of the conclusions reached was that everything that had been discussed at the conference should be reconsidered at a conference with the Indians, in every region in the country. I think In am now answering the hon. member for Skeena who was concerned about the Indians having to decide on some programs without

knowing what stand would be taken in that connection by the province in which they lived, since Indians did not attend the federal-provincial conference.
But since the conference recognized the principle whereby there would be consultations at the regional level and the provinces themselves, jointly with the federal government, would have to submit to the Indians their views on extension of education, welfare, health and community development services, precisely because that consultation with the Indians was to be held at the regional level, it would be at that level that the program in which the central government and the provincial governments were interested would be submitted to the Indians.
Therefore, that is another reason why the Indians were not called upon to attend this conference whose purpose was merely to support the principle whereby, there would be submitted, at the regional level, any particular program which would show some degree of flexibility in relation to other programs which could be established in other regions of the country.
You may say that some financial problems were on the agenda of that conference. That is true, but it was merely in order to ascertain the reactions of the provinces concerning what could happen in a certain district should a special educational or welfare service be extended to the Indians, how the provinces could participate in those programs, and what financial problems would arise should such services be extended.
In the other fields, there was merely an exchange of ideas, and those discussions will be resumed at the level of each and every province and region.
Hence, it can be said that this federal-provincial conference on Indians was merely a first step, a precedent in the frank and open discussion between, on the one hand, the central government which has full responsibility over Indian affairs, and the provinces which, through the school boards or municipalities, are already engaged in the extension of some Indian services, and that gives rise to some problems.
It was immediately realized that it was necessary for those provinces to make their reactions known so far as the financial aspects of that conference were concerned.
That is the story of the federal-provincial conference which, in my opinion and in the opinion of most of the participants, was a success. It resulted in two major effects: a consultation system was set up, and it was

recognized as a principle that a general service extension plan could not be established in this country, but that there had to be a particular agreement with each province, after consultation with the Indians of that province, who would be consulted collectively and, after that, individually, within each band.
A second general point which was raised during the discussion on Indian affairs estimates is the problem of the Indian claims commission. I merely want to say this: even if the government was blamed for proceeding slowly with the establishment of that commission, I am not so much concerned with that criticism, because the delay is the result of a systematic consultation, of course not with the same methods which will be used in the future, but a consultation which was carried on by mail. My predecessor had sent at that time letters to all the provinces, to all Indian associations in the country, to all Indian bands, asking them for their comments on Bill No. C-130 which had already been tabled in the House of Commons and was in relation to the setting up of an Indian claims commission. It would have taken a lot of time for each and every one of those Indian groups to start working seriously, to study the aspects of that legislation and after that systematic work, we began receiving briefs and recommendations.
There are hundreds of briefs, some much more elaborate than others, but we made a systematic study of all those briefs and recommendations.
Following that study, we have now brought a certain number of reforms or amendments to Bill No. C-130 regarding Indian claims. We hope that very soon we shall be in a position to bring before the house a bill to amend Indian claims.
Those were, Mr. Chairman, the two main points brought up during the examination of my estimates, first, the federal-provincial conference and the whole problem of consultation with the Indians and, second, the problem of Indian claims.
I realize that other points have been raised by various hon. members. I would be very glad to send my comments to each of them individually on the points they raised while discussing my estimates.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's statement on the two points with which he dealt, namely the federal-provincial confer-
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration ence and the matter of services being provided under arrangement with the provinces. I fully agree with him that this is a matter which has to be dealt with on a regional basis or among the Indians within each province. Therefore I will confine any questions I have on this aspect of his remarks to my own province of British Columbia.
I think I can say without fear of being contradicted by any of my Indian friends that there is a generally accepted desire among the Indian people in the coastal region of British Columbia to be treated the same as any other citizens of the province in respect of services such as education, health and welfare and so on. Can the minister tell me what the attitude of the government of the province of British Columbia was? Is he in a position to say whether that government is prepared to enter into a suitable arrangement or whether a suitable arrangement has already been worked out with the provincial government in respect of the provision of these services if, as a result of further consultations which the minister indicated will take place provincially, the Indian people themselves confirm what I feel to be their desire to have these services rendered under some more direct form of provincial administration?


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, no general program was set up at that federal-provincial conference, neither for the whole of Canada nor for any particular province.
I do not have the right, of course, to disclose the stand taken by each of the provinces, but what matters most is not so much what a province's representatives might have said at that conference but what will be said when the provinces and the central government meet and the provinces express their views. That is when a particular program, for British Columbia for instance, can be submitted to the Indians in British Columbia and a consultation can take place with the Indians of that province.
I think it is in keeping with the general spirit of the federal-provincial conference to wait until those conferences and consultations have been held at the provincial level to really know what particular programs will be submitted to the Indians in each of the provinces.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Can the minister tell me whether a date has been set or a timetable has been arranged for the conference between
10474	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the Indian people of British Columbia and the federal and provincial authorities?


René Tremblay: It is extremely difficult to set up a schedule. We intend to set the dates as soon as possible for consultations with the provinces throughout Canada, but I do not know when we can discuss the problem with British Columbia. However, I trust it will be soon, because we are anxious to have consultations with the Indians.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In the light of my earlier references to some of the things recommended in committee reports, I should at least like the minister to tie this down by saying whether these conferences are going to take place within six weeks, six months or six years.


René Tremblay: If all goes well, Mr. Chairman, we should hold all these conferences in the spring. I do not know exactly when, but the plans have been drawn up. My officials tell me that plans have been made for these consultations to be held as early as possible, and this means in the spring.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I suggest to the minister that he should adopt the slogan of the Minister of Labour, "Why wait for spring, do it now". I should like to ask the minister whether a report from British Columbia I read recently is correct. I understand an announcement was made by the Indian commissioner for British Columbia that effective on January 1, 1965, welfare payments to the Indian people of that province who require such assistance would be made by the Indian affairs branch on the same levels as payments now being made by the welfare department of the province of British Columbia. With relation to that announcement I was wondering whether this had anything to do with the imminence of a particular arrangement with the province in the general welfare field.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, I am told that in British Columbia, it is hoped to be able very soon to bring the welfare payments to the Indians up to the level of the welfare payments that are now being paid to the other citizens of British Columbia.
This is in accordance with another principle which it is our intention to apply, that is, that


the welfare payments in any province be the same in the case of the Indians as in the case of the other citizens of that province, with this provision that in none of the provinces should the welfare payments be lower than they are now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is this provision contained in the estimates now before us? I read the announcement about the same time that the latest supplementary estimates were tabled and I looked for an item in those estimates but did not see one. Is there already provision in the estimates we are discussing?


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman-


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration confined his remarks to the federal-provincial conference and the claims commission as if those two items covered all the problems of the Indian people. I want to say a word or two about the problems of the 5,000 to 8,000 Indians on five reserves in my riding. I rise in my place because I feel I have a duty to these people and so far the minister-I should like to have his attention-has not given any intimation whatsoever as to what his department intends to do with regard to a program on the reserve for these people.
What are the problems that should be solved? On these reserves you will find that the Indians do not have any feeling of ownership. In turn they are not given an incentive, as white people are under our free enterprise system, to go out and earn and save their money. If we are going to start to solve the problems of these Indians on reserves we have to introduce a system of farm management to deal with the problems that exist there. You have to give these people a feeling of ownership and the feeling that when they work on the land on their reserves they will have something to show for their efforts. At the present time no program has been worked out by the department.
I want to congratulate the minister on promoting Mr. Battle to the position of head of Indian affairs. He is a very fine man and I wish to congratulate the minister on having made that appointment. But at the same time, without encouragement from the minister, without encouragement from the top, even Mr. Battle will not be able to put measures into effect that will give the Indian the incentive to put his best foot forward and give him

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
the feeling that he is operating under a free enterprise system. As it now stands, it is apparently a socialist system, a 100 per cent communist system, on each one of these reserves. This is where the problem arises. I wonder if the minister has thought through this problem? I wonder if the members of his department have gone into these reserves and thought about these things from the point of view from which the Indian is forced to think of them? Many people criticize the Indian and say he is shiftless; that he will not take care of his affairs; that he will not put his best foot forward. This is not true; if he had the incentive to do it, he would. Put any white man in the same position as an Indian, and he will not do any better than the Indian. The white people who are governing these Indians, who are controlling them or guiding them, are not providing proper leadership.
What I am trying to say to you is to think about this problem and adopt a constructive program to deal with it. I have heard nothing from the minister that would lead me to believe he has any program in mind along the lines which I consider to be most vital for the solution of these problems. There is the whole problem of schools, education and health. You can lump them all together, if you wish. Certainly, if you are familiar with the Indians you will know that they want a square deal in connection with education, health and other problems. I do not believe they are getting it now. There is just too much squalor and all the rest of it on these reserves.
We can go ahead and double the foreign aid program for the minister of external affairs; I have no objection to that if we can stand it financially. At the same time, however, I believe that our aid should start at home with our own people, the Indians and the Eskimos. I notice that this vote is around $60 million or $70 million. Our foreign aid for this last year was jumped by more than $75 million. Why could not more money be put toward taking care of our Indians and Eskimos and less for the people in foreign fields? It is all well and good to do this, but there has been a strong minister of external affairs who had the ear of the treasury board or somebody and so has been able to get a doubling of his foreign aid program. What is the justification for it in relation to the requirements of these Indians? I say to the minister who is listening to me that this Indian appropriation is the vote that should be doubled under which more services should be given to our Indians. Let us cut foreign aid programs unless we can afford to do both.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, but I did want to put my own views on the record.
I hope the minister will give consideration to the type of program which he intends to implement on these reserves and start from first principles, that is the problems of the Indians and how those problems are going to be solved.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the other day I introduced the subject which I thought was the No. 1 problem of the Indians, one of which we are not proud, and that is alcoholism and drunkenness. Shortly after that time I was speaking to the hon. member for Athabasca and he suggested to me that this is just a symptom, not really a cause of anything. I understand his reasoning very well. You only have to look at the difficulties created by alcoholism in our own society, where almost any community has an organization of alcoholics anonymous and in most larger towns and cities in eastern Ontario we have an office of the alcoholic research foundation spreading information and prepared to give assistance right up to psychiatric assistance to people who are suffering from alcoholism. I think most people in the educational realm are worried about the problem.
Recently I have been deluged by letters, as I am sure other members have, from people who are concerned about the promotion of alcohol and the amount of advertising on television, particularly in connection with beer. The whole content of this advertising seems to be to make drinking a kind of fun thing, an okay thing to do, a thing at which athletes and socially prominent or worthwhile people in the community spend their time. This is an aspect of the problem of drinking as it affects our society in the main, and our record is nothing of which we can be proud. I think we know enough about our own situation as it exists on parliament hill to realize that very few of us are in a position or have the sort of clearcut integrity to be our brother's keeper in this particular regard.
But I come back to the problem as simply and as bluntly as I can. Except for the Indians in the north who are nomadic and who are unable to get to substantial sources of drink, who have not yet developed skills in brewing their own, the largest single difficulty we encounter in northwestern Ontario with the Indian problem is drinking. Now, whether it is a symptom of their dissociation from our society and our culture, whether it indicates bad treatment on our part, this re-
10476	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration mains the central problem. The thing that bothers me is that you can go through the estimates and you can find $84,000 for burying destitute Indians who have died; you can look, and I have looked at every bit of publicity I can find that ever came out of the department at various times, and all you get are comments that touch on this matter peripherally.
I think it all comes down to the fact that we are embarrassed to talk about the subject. We are embarrassed when talking about it to our Indian friends. I admit the very same weakness. I remember going to one band and taking notes of a meeting that lasted for about five hours. I got 60 different grievances. Later, when I had these grievances explained to me, and they covered the whole range from the fact that an illegitimate child was not registered within the band to the fact that somebody could not get unemployment insurance or the welfare allowance was not big enough, I found that in case after case the grievance hinged on the fact that there was too much drinking in a family and, as happens repeatedly, a child had been left inadequately cared for and drink was at the root of it.
Just recently a young friend of mine who is a children's aid worker and who is studying for the ministry, a very able boy and not a sissy by any means, because he has been an excellent football player, landed into a reserve to check on a couple of children. The children's aid were concerned about whether or not they were getting the proper care. He found the child, less than a year old, just a mass of scabs, with maggots around in the bed and no responsible adult taking care of it-just a couple of children. Where were the parents? They had gone out on a drunk in town, and they had taken it too far and had been thrown in jail.
This is not an isolated thing. I am not talking about something that happens once every week or once every month. The minister and his officials should be aware-the men on the local scene are-that this is constant among almost every Indian group in northwestern Ontario, and one of my colleagues from B.C. tells me it is the greatest single problem there.
The very least one could ask is that the department should have some analysis and appreciation of the problem. It is an extremely difficult one and should be faced up to. We need to have some advice from the alcoholic research foundation of the provincial government. We need some advice from a


group such as Alcoholics Anonymous to see if they have any suggestion about how their particular method of meeting this problem might be translated into the reserves and the Indian situation in general.
I do not expect any thorough or complete answer from the minister. All I ask is that he accept that this is a major problem and that he give some indication the branch is prepared to do some studies on it. From the number of papers that are presented I know we have anthropologists and sociologists working on many problems. In fact I remember reading a most interesting study dealing with a comparison of the Indian community and Eskimo community up at the mouth of the Mackenzie river, and with the social attitudes and responsibilities of both. I was most impressed with the kind of analysis conducted by the man who made that study. It is people such as that who must go into some of these band and tribe situations and see whether it might be possible, working with the Indians themselves, to get some kind of movement towards temperance, or to achieve at least a realization that alcoholism and over drinking, bootlegging and home brewing are some of the worst factors in demoralizing and ruining the situation as it exists at present.
One of the really tragic parts of this concerns individual reserves comprised of a couple of hundred people, who send 20 or 25 of their children away to boarding schools for example at Fort William or Spanish. When the kids move away they get discipline. They are set within some kind of ideal and a philosophy, usually a religious philosophy. Their care is complete and I have no complaints about it. But at the end of the school year the kids go back to the band and quite often the first thing they see in their homes, which are mostly shacks, is a can on the stove with a bunch of yeast, raisins and sugar brewing away. They return into an atmosphere where the biggest worth-while thing the adults can think of is to go on a rollicking drunk on Saturday night.
Hon. members may say I am exaggerating the situation. Maybe the minister and his officials think so and, if they do, I am prepared to take them on a tour through my area, to talk to some of the Indians and to some of the people who work with them, who can confirm that this is the situation. I finally reached the stage a few weeks ago of feeling there was no use ignoring it any longer. I felt that any time an Indian band brought a problem to me that touched on welfare or jobs, one of the great dilemmas I had to face

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
was this whole question about drinking and the irresponsibility which it engendered.
There are a couple of good communities in my area. I know some of the Indians at Pickle Crow gold mines who have fitted in very well there, and my information is that they are good employees and are worth-while people in the community in the sense of total responsibility. I know that at Heron Bay the Ontario Paper Company for a number of years has encouraged men of the tribe to work on the flume where the logs go shooting down to the shore of lake Superior for delivery. The company has turned up a number of good workers and this has had a considerable effect on the reserve.
If one looks at that particular reserve and its housing, where the same basic provisions apply as over at the other side of lake Nipigon, it can be seen that band has a much higher standard in home furnishings and the kind of material comforts that tend to mean so much to all of us. They also have a higher attitude toward education for their children. I know economic opportunity also fits into this, but too often it is brought to ruin by drinking, and by the fact that too often in our bush communities the Indians live on the periphery, and their touching point with white society is usually in the noisiest of beer parlours or at the bootleggers.
I am not going to deal further with this particular point. I insist it is the most serious problem I know of in connection with the Indians. We have to face it openly and we must ask many of the Indians to face it openly.
Another point I want to touch on with the minister relates to the Department of Industry and the Department of Labour. We have designated areas to which special tax incentives are given, depending on whether a particular area qualifies under a formula, worked out by the Department of Labour, based on its unemployment statistics. The minister may be aware that most of the Indians in northwestern Ontario are not on the unemployment rolls or unemployment statistics. They just do not figure in the majority of them. Therefore they do not play any substantial part in determining whether the unemployment statistics are up or down.
This becomes important when you get into a situation such as one in my riding where there are two Indian reserves adjacent to the village of Longlac. A large United States plywood concern has expressed interest in establishing in that community, but of course it is looking around at other places where it 20220-663J
would have the advantage of a designated area tax incentive. Longlac has been seeking to see if it can qualify as a designated area but it finds that although it has serious unemployment, particularly among Indians, the formula has been determined in the main by the unemployment and employment statistics of the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William, 180 miles away. This is obviously unfair because the lakehead unemployment and employment situation is not a reflection of the situation at Longlac.
I understand the Department of Industry has been inflexible on this matter. I have talked about it to people in the department of economic planning and development of the provincial government, who say that three times they have raised this issue strongly with the federal government and got nowhere. I ask the minister to look at the situation closely as it applies to the community of Longlac because that plywood mill, if it should be established there, would mean much employment for the Indians on those two reserves.
I mention this in particular because a few of the Indians on those reserves have regular employment with the sawmill that is run by the Kimberly-Clark Pulp and Paper Company. This may seem to be an isolated problem, but it opens up one of the difficulties about economic development. We have a whole host of agencies involved in this, federal and provincial, but it seems to me it is very difficult to get any co-ordination or co-operation.
The last point I want to touch on relates to members of parliament who have a considerable number of Indians in their constituencies. It is apparent to me that despite the general interest each of us has in the Indian problem, there are no more than 20 or 25 members who have a substantial number of Indians in their constituencies and who get these problems brought to them in great detail. Offhand I can think of the hon. member for White Bay-Grand Falls-Labrador, the hon. member for Churchill, the hon. member for Skeena, the hon. member for Fort William, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and so on; but the number is not large.
I suggest one of the things we might do, in order to achieve a closer understanding on our part of the branch's problems, is that the minister arrange some kind of informal meetings, possibly a special informal committee, that could get together on several occasions during a year and have a rundown from the officials of the branch on Indian problems. It seems to me this would save considerable time for us when we come to consider these
10478	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration matters in the house. It would also assist us greatly in our understanding of what is developing. Some may say: Is it not the responsibility of the member to deal with the branch? But I could be writing or telephoning the branch almost every day in connection with Indian matters, and one is engaged in a great many things. It seems to me that this special effort should be considered by the branch in order to keep us better informed.
Another thing I should appreciate as a member with a considerable number of Indians in his constituency would be a copy, at least several times a year, of any major decision taken in connection with the Indians in the region in which I am most interested. I am not pressing for any secret information or for any internal memoranda. What I have in mind is information regarding the appointment of officials to various posts, the extension of areas of authority, the development of a winter works program or of a woodcutting program on a particular reserve. It seems to me that information of this kind should be given to us almost automatically. I do not think it would involve a great deal of trouble or time and it would certainly serve to remind us that we are, or should be, closely in touch with Indian matters.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, before we take up another item I should like to come back to an extremely important point mentioned by the hon. members for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) and Skeena (Mr. Howard) last Thursday. They made a comparison between the estimates of Indian affairs and the estimates of the assistance to underdeveloped countries.
I think that the question asked by the hon. member for Macleod is a very good introduction to the program I announced in the house, namely the community development program concerning the Indians.
I think that to increase indefinitely the amount of money allocated for the various Indian reserves in the country is not the proper solution. All those who have experience in Indian matters and all hon. members who have followed closely the development of their reserves, in their own ridings, know very well that even if the government were to decide tomorrow to double the amount allocated for the the Indian reserves in the country, that would be no solution to the Indian problems that every hon. member is facing, no matter where they sit in the House of Commons. That solution was already


found, not by us, but by all those who experimented with what is called community development, which means that when one group has problems, in some society, the best way to solve that problem is to make them realize that they must themselves take a good look at their situation to find a way to improve their own lot. That is the experience we are trying to apply in the development of Indian affairs.
The amount of $3,500,000 may seem little, but we must not forget that the amount will be used to pay the salaries of community development experts. The regular expenditures for Indians will appear in the estimates already before the committee and they amount to some $60 million.
I believe that with $60 million much can be achieved for the Indians, especially if this amount is increased by a special budget of $3,500,000 for community development to be spread over a period of three years.
Specialists could be hired to help the Indians examine their position and devise means of improving their lot. After the Indians have studied their problems and drafted programs to their convenience and in conformity with their wishes, then the amounts that can be allocated to them will be useful and will allow them, on a long term basis, to develop their own initiative and assume their normal rank in the Canadian society.
This amount of $3,500,000 seems small, but it will allow us-according to the experiments conducted by our own department at the provincial level and by other countries- to eventually solve the problems facing the Indians.
I just want to say a word about the extremely important problem raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I refer to alcoholism in our country's Indian territories. I should like to tell the hon. member that we are greatly concerned about this matter. We are anxiously awaiting a report from the Ontario body which has been studying this problem for approximately four years and which is called the alcoholism and drug addiction research foundation of Ontario. We hope it will soon be in a position to submit a report to us on that subject.
On the other hand, we are doing all we can to provide Indian services with specialists on all the problems of alcoholism one could find on the Indian reserves. Such specialists would be of great use to us.
Now, a suggestion was made by the hon. member for Port Arthur, namely to set up a committee made up of members having a

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
large number of Indians in their ridings to discuss administrative problems with the officials of the Indian affairs branch.
My assistant deputy minister, the director of the Indian affairs branch, tells me that he would be very happy to co-operate with all hon. members of the house and to give them information beforehand-since that is another point raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur-about all the new programs that might deal with the country's Indian affairs.
tText]


Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: As another member who has a large number of Indian reserves in his riding I, too, am deeply interested in this subject, particularly in the educational aspect.
I well recall that back in 1958 hundreds of Indian boys and girls in my constituency did not have the opportunity to attend school at all. I am pleased to say that in 1963, however, there was not one Indian boy or girl in my constituency who was not reasonably near a school. I am happy to find we have succeeded in reaching these children. However, in some cases there is great difficulty in getting these children to school. Great strides have been taken in connection with the integration of schools which are now providing instruction both for Indian children and for others. This was a wonderful step forward. But there is great difficulty in securing transportation to schools on the reserves themselves. Buses have to be provided by the Indian affairs branch, and great difficulty has arisen in this connection. I also found great progress in the integration of the Indians in our public schools.
One great disadvantage to the Indians is that in some parts of the north we are taking away their livelihood and have failed to provide alternative provision for them, such as fishing, trapping and hunting. We have taken such a large portion of this activity away from them with our tourist trade and we have not made alternative provision for them. Therefore the Indians find it very difficult to make a living. I realize we have increased three times the number of houses on Indian reservations but we have not gone nearly far enough. I also realize it is a great problem. I admit we have made great strides to increase the number of houses, but we have only scratched the surface of the problem.
I also found in the southern part of my constituency that the Indian population which
has a chance to farm or to raise livestock are willing in this day and age to go ahead with this activity, but we have only made a start in this direction. One speaker mentioned the Colombo plan, and I am sure we could do much more by way of providing equipment and encouraging these people to make their own livelihoods. The people in the northern parts of the country live differently from those in the southern part, which is why I am interested in what we have done to compensate the Indians for their loss of livelihood. In the Cold Lake area we have deprived the Indians of their livelihood through the construction of the bombing range there. We have also never fulfilled our part of the bargain by repaying these people for what we have taken from them. I have noticed that when we have given the Indian population the chance for progress they have taken it, and I am happy at the increased opportunities provided for the education of our Indians. But I am sure we must go a lot further yet.
Another difficulty I have noticed for our Indian farming population is that many are unemployed because they cannot obtain loans. We make provision for them to go into other fields of endeavour, and to do so they are forced to take their children out of school. This makes it difficult both for the children and for the parents. I have particular reference to the Indian families which work in the beet fields. In such cases a whole class at school can be upset. Perhaps the teacher was making great progress with the children of a family which goes to work in the beet fields, taking their children with them. In such cases they have no chance to attend school and possibly the whole year is wasted. I have seen what the Indian people will do if we would only help them. I have seen this particularly in the north where we provide them with saw mills, planers and materials for house building.
The drinking habits of Indians have been mentioned, but I do not think that they are any worse than those of the white man. In my constituency a lot of these Indians have only just obtained permission to go into beer parlours, so one might expect some problems; but it is amazing how they begin to conduct themselves in many cases better than the white people. The big problem is that we are not getting enough housing accommodation for them. We are not making enough provision to enable them to commence farming, or purchase livestock and machinery. If we are to reach the stage where these people take

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration their rightful place in the economy we must make greater progress than we have; and this should be forthcoming in view of the little which has been done in the past few years.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I will follow tlie example of the hon. member for Meadow Lake and make my remarks brief and to the point. I should like to confirm what my colleague from Meadow Lake has said, that the improvement on reservations the last few years has been noticeable and I think we should strengthen the gains which have been made. But because there has been gain it does not mean that we should be satisfied. Tonight I propose to make one or two suggestions, which I hope will be practical and acceptable not only to the minister but to his officials.
First of all, to give weight to my arguments I have to refer to the circumstances existing in my constituency, in which I have eight reservations. These reservations are on land along the Qu'Appelle river, with one exception south of Broadview. Some of the land on these reservations is fairly good land for farming, and much of it is exceptionally fine land for pasture. So far there has been no good reason why the Indians should develop this agriculture land or these pastures. I do not intend to go into the reasons, which are purely local and well understood by the Indians. I want to make my positive proposal in the interest of pushing forward the efforts of the Indians on these reservations, who are making an effort to improve their lot, without very much help. This proposal has to do with encouraging those on the reservations who are now making serious efforts to get into grain farming. Fortunately for them the crops over the last three years have been good and they have been able to finance any improvements which have been made from the surplus grain which has been sold. At the present time they are encumbered by the fact that because the reservation land cannot be used to borrow money they cannot move into commercial farming operations like the rest of the farmers, because of their inability to borrow money on the land which belongs to the reservation or to the band.
My suggestion is that wherever an Indian farmer has demonstrated to the satisfaction of his band, to his neighbours on the reservation and to the farmers close by that he is a successful farmer, the Indian affairs branch, either by backing this Indian farmer's loan with the Farm Credit Corporation or by making the money available itself, give the farmer an opportunity to prepare a program
to show the Indians affairs branch and the band concerned that the money invested will not only return interest but that he will pay the capital back and increase his own capital at the same time. I know that several Indians on each of the reservations in my constituency are prepared to sit down with competent Farm Credit Corporation advisers and work out such a program, and if they meet the rigid test of the corporation's supervisors then I believe this backing should be given.
I should like to remind the minister of a similar situation existing in other countries besides our own in connection with young people. Young people on the farms in general, both in the United States and Canada, who have no parents to support their applications for loans from various government lending agencies are, generally speaking, unable to get loans. The exceptions are that certain sections of the farm improvement loans act of the United States make it possible for young people to go to local banks, and if a number of local farmers agree that the young person concerned has a chance to farm successfully and they sign their name to that effect, the young person is given credit as if he had land and assets. In the beginning they had to pay a deposit of $50, backing up their claim that these young farmers were worth-while individuals and deserved government assistance. This worked so well in several districts in the United States that the neighbouring farmers are no longer being asked by the banks to put up the $50 deposit.
This is the kind of legislation we must consider in relation to the Farm Credit Corporation's lending operations. We could allow local farmers, if they are willing, to put down so much money to indicate their good faith and judgment that the young farmers involved would not make mistakes and would be able to pay back the loans plus interest, while at the same time substantially increasing their standard of living. I suggest this type of operation could take place to the benefit of Indians on reservations, provided their neighbours, who are, after all, the best judges of their ability to farm, were willing to back these young Indian farmers as being capable of operating commercial and selfsustaining businesses. In view of the fact the Indians cannot use land on reservations as collateral the Indian affairs department could by this means provide the necessary collateral.
The other alternative is that the band councils could recommend that certain Indian

farmers on reservations are deserving of this type of assistance, and become a signatory to a loan backed up by the Indian affairs department, making a deposit to show good faith, and this signature could then be used as collateral by the Farm Credit Corporation.
To summarize the suggestion I am making, Mr. Chairman, we should now take the next step in relation to young Indian farmers, who are making an honest and sincere effort to improve their standard of living. If they can come up with a practical proposal, indicating that they can not only pay back the principal but the interest, while at the same time improving their standard of living, satisfying the farm credit supervisor, but due to the fact that the Indian cannot use his land as collateral, the Indian affairs could then provide the necessary assistance.
I would estimate that there are perhaps five to eight farmers per reservation in my riding who could meet the qualifications required to obtain the signature, and the deposit of $500 from the Indian bands, on the understanding that if the farmers were not successful the band would lose the $500. I think that would be a reasonable enough provision to secure any assistance advanced, and I feel that we should take this step to help these Indian farmers become self-sustaining.
I am personally aware of a young Indian farmer who, with a loan of $15,000, having at the present time 230 acres under cultivation, could increase his cultivated acreage, add to his herd of beef cattle, which is a fine one, and within 18 months to two years arrive at the end of the year with a net income of $4,000, after paying expenses. That is as good an income as any average farmer can expect in this country under those circumstances.
If we could put family after family into an operation of this kind, giving them that type of net income, even though it might only apply to five or six families per reservation, we would be assisting these Indian families and by their example do more for the other Indian families on the reservations than we could do by any amount of persuasion.
The Department of Agriculture has assisted a great deal in this particular area by using 45,000 acres of these Indian reservations, after making a tour of them with the band councils, and putting them under administration and operation by the P.F.R.A. They have assisted in putting cattle on these lands, paying the usual six cents per day per head, thereby increasing the cattle population. Under this agreement between P.F.R.A. and the Indian
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration bands the Indian gets first right to put his cattle on these pasture lands, which will eventually carry 9,000 head. Using very round figures this means an increase in income to these four reservations of approximately $1,500,000 per year. I should mention that Indian people take readily to beef farming operations because there is no intensive labour type operation involved, and they can work a few months in the wintertime feeding their cattle, then put the female stock out to pasture and work the land growing enough fodder to carry the remainder through the winter.
Mr. Chairman, this operation would not only be self-liquidating as far as the department is concerned, but would assist family after family to establish respectable selfsustaining businesses. That in brief is the first proposal I should like to make.
I had hoped that I could cut my remarks short at this stage by asking the minister to indicate that he and several of his officials will discuss this type of operation with me to see whether we can make an experiment in a few cases to prove to the minister and his department that this proposal will work. I hope the minister will be kindly in his attitude toward my suggestion.
The second type of operation I should like to describe today relates particularly to hay lands. The Department of Agriculture, through its P.F.R.A. operations, controls the movement of water down the Qu'Appelle river. In controlling this water sometimes it is necessary to dam up the river and flood some of these Indian reservation lands, destroying their economic possibilities as far as the Indian people are concerned. They are at those times not able to obtain full use of their hay lands. I believe the Indian affairs department could work with the P.F.R.A. officials in controlling the flow of water so as not to dam up the water during haying seasons, enabling the Indians in this area to take full advantage of the tremendous productivity of this land now subject to almost annual flooding. The P.F.R.A. officials have been very good in this regard, without any kind of pressure being put on them at all. They have carried out a voluntary survey of these areas of the Indian reservations, particularly the Muscowpetung reservation where the Indians have already done a lot of diking work. These people would like to co-operate with the Indian affairs department to organize this operation in such a way that the hay can be stored, and then, at the time of the
10482	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration inevitable shortage of hay, which will come within the next two or three years in Saskatchewan, it could be sold first of all to the Indian reservations, which are building up their cattle herds, and then to the neighbouring farmers.
Once again in this way with almost no expenditure on the part of the Indian affairs branch the revenue of the Indian bands could be added to, to the extent of $20 per ton for 3,000 or 4,000 tons of hay per year. That would provide a tremendous increase in revenue to these Indian bands.
Mr. Chairman, these suggestions are not impossible things. In fact, the expenditures are very small in respect of the second proposal, and none at all in respect of the first, except the amount required to back the credit. I hope that I can discuss these ideas personally with the minister at some time.
Finally, I should like to remind the minister that he made an announcement in the house not long ago about his negotiations with the provinces. I have discussed this proposal with some of the bands in my area. I have presented the arguments for and against, and have found that many Indians in my electoral riding have expressed a willingness to consider this proposal fairly. They realize that in some cases they probably will have to pay taxes, and also provide a right to certain services in the province of Saskatchewan. I cannot indicate for certain what the final outcome will be, but I can say for all bands in my area that they will consider the minister's proposals fairly. Naturally they are concerned, because they feel their long term rights cannot be tampered with, and the province of Saskatchewan has guaranteed that there will be no such infringement on their traditional rights. I think we must accept the fact that the word of the government of Saskatchewan is good.
The point that does worry them a little bit, of course, is the proposal in regard to roads. They know that they will have to expect to pay municipal taxes for their share of the roads through their municipalities. It may well be necessary that the Indian affairs department will have to consider that any cost in this regard is in fact a tremendous investment in social capital, particularly in the early stages. I feel that a little bit of help should be given in the earlier stages of the plan. Indians are also very much interested in the proposal to go in with the school districts, as far as nearby town schools are concerned. They are very interested in obtaining

the same social welfare services as the rest of the people in the province.
They know quite a bit about hospitalization and medical care and this point worries them a bit. If some ambitious young Indian boy or girl leaves the reservation at the present time and gets a job in the nearby town, which I think they recognize is the only future for them, the minute they go off the reservation they lose their right to the payment of hospitalization and medical care if that applies. This causes many of them to be frightened about leaving the reservation. When they go to the nearby town they have to learn about a new type of civilization and they are somewhat frightened about the fact that they are not covered with respect to the payment of hospitalization unless they are paying into the government scheme.
I think we should encourage the movement of these young people away from the reservations by providing that for a period of two or three years after they leave, their hospitalization premiums will be paid for them so they will not feel they are forced to go back to the reservation because of fear about not being covered for hospitalization.
These are small matters but I have tried to be constructive in putting them forward in the hope that by a slight change of attitude we can continue this mixing of the cultures of our country and help the Indians to make the necessary adjustment. At the present time in my constituency approximately half the children on most of the reservations go to the nearby town schools while the other half attend the reservation schools. I think you will find gradual acceptance of the fact that there is a slightly better standard of education in the town schools and that the tendency for them to go to these schools will increase.
Finally, I wonder whether the minister would provide me with copies of the brief presented by the provincial governments at the federal-provincial conference in which each province lays down its position with regard to what it will do for the Indian. I have the one for Saskatchewan and I should like to get them for the other provinces. Second, the Indian affairs branch provided a very fine briefing book for the discussions at the provincial level and I should also like to get a copy of that. If the minister can provide me with these documents I will be very happy.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, before the minister makes any further reply perhaps I might be allowed to raise a point again which

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
he did not deal with in his previous remarks. The committee will recall that a little earlier this evening the minister suggested that the answer to the problem of the Indians was not to continue to pour endless sums of money into a sort of blind program. I certainly agree with him in that regard. While I am not familiar with the details of the suggestion just made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle,
I think this is the sort of approach for which we are looking.
Because I am so interested in the success of the community development program, however, I am concerned whether the scale of the program will in any way be adequate for the job that needs to be done. I am concerned that with the scale of recruitment envisaged by the minister we will wind up with a situation where we have all generals and no privates in the implementation of the program. I must say that my fear is based in part at least on my own observation of the present situation in the operation of the Indian affairs branch, and in this connection I should like to draw to the minister's attention yet another quotation from his opening speech on the branch which is related to the question I raised earlier and which he did not answer. The minister said:
The present staff can only do so much. There is a need to strengthen the operations of the branch in both the field and support services. More highly qualified staff are required to do the job.
I ask the minister again to relate that statement to the fact that, unless I have missed it completely in my study of the details of the estimates, there is no provision for more staff, more people to do the job. I had hoped to raise this point earlier in the discussion but did not have the opportunity. However, I would point out that I have had in my files since December 21 of last year the answer to an order paper question I asked on the subject of the office of Indian commissioner of British Columbia, and the staff of one of the agencies which operates within the boundaries of my own constituency.
If one makes an analysis of the complement, he certainly cannot help but come to the conclusion that there is some validity to my suggestion that we are in a position where we have the generals but have not got the staff in the field. Apart from the normal clerical positions in the commissioner's office in British Columbia, we have provision for an engineer and a supervisor of construction. I do not want to take too long going over all the details, but I would point out that there seem to be three part time construction foremen.
If I understand the return correctly, in the field of welfare we have only one trained welfare officer for the whole of the province of British Columbia. To take the west coast agency as an example, we find that in the field we have a superintendent and an assistant and two members on the clerical staff, a clerk and a stenographer. In addition we have a captain engineer to operate the agency vessel which goes up and down the west coast of Vancouver island. It is pointed out in this return, and I know this from my own observation, that when the agency vessel goes on a trip up the coast to the reservations a crew of three is required for this vessel under federal government regulations. Who are the crew? There is the captain engineer, and then the agent superintendent and his assistant have to perform the duties of the crew. They may not mind doing this too much, although I think there might be some question whether some of the steamship regulations are not being bypassed. But, more important, who is left in the superintendent's office? There are two clerks, and a clerk-stenographer.
In that one agency there are enough people who have been a part of the welfare case load to require more than the full time service of one social worker under provincial welfare standards, which are none too high in British Columbia. Yet as far as I can gather the only social worker for the whole of British Columbia is in the Indian commissioner's office in Vancouver.
I have a number of questions I should like to raise but to me this is a vital thing because I have seen money go down the drain on housing construction programs because supplies have been shipped up the coast and have been left lying on the beach until they rotted. Nobody was available with the necessary skill to give some direction in getting the construction of the houses started.
I have again drawn the minister's attention to the thousands of dollars that have been wasted on the reserve at Opitsat in respect of water supply systems. Each time it has been a case of too little and too late. It has been a case of sending good money after bad, and there is still no adequate water supply system there. I could go on and name other instances. This is the reason I raise these two questions with the minister. Is he convinced that he is going to be able, under this proposed community development program, to get the people out in the field where the job needs to be done? Second, what if anything is he doing to meet his own statement that the present staff can only do so
10484	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration much and there is need to strengthen the operations of the branch in both the field and support services?
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I note that the hon. member for Skeena and I believe the hon. member for Macleod, have related what we are doing for our Indian people to what we are doing in the field of external aid. So far as I am concerned, we need to do both. When I was at the parliamentary conference in Malaysia last year, one of the delegates from the United Kingdom, a delegate who was in the then government party in the United Kingdom, was able to say before that conference that the United Kingdom was devoting 1.5 per cent of its gross national product to its external aid program. When I spoke shortly afterwards, I said that I would have been very happy if I could have said that Canada was devoting the same proportion of her gross national product to that kind of program. I should like to tell the minister, in view of the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Macleod, that if we could lump together our external aid program and our internal aid program in relation to Indians and Eskimos so that for this combined purpose we were spending 1.5 per cent of our gross national product I would be much happier about the situation in both fields than I am at the moment.


Mr. Thomas:: I do not wish to delay the committee but I have a question to ask the minister. What has happened to the promise of an Indian claims commission? Has the government given up on the idea or have the Indians ceased to ask for this? The question has been asked in the house on occasions, but so far nothing has happened. This was definitely promised to the Indians two or three years ago, and I should like to have the minister answer that question now while we are considering his estimates.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I have
already replied to the question, but I think the hon. member was not in his seat at the time.
Briefly, this is what I said. We have consulted all the Indians in Canada and we have received and examined a few hundred briefs. On the basis of those briefs, we have made a few amendments to Bill No. C-130 which has already been introduced and we hope to submit the amended version of the bill to hon. members' consideration shortly, that is as soon as the business of the house will allow.


While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer two questions put by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).
The first one dealt with the number of officials working on the community development program who could be put at the disposal of the various reserves in Canada.
Our project-and the estimates available to us will make it possible-is to have 60 community development officials across the country and 50 assistants. We thought that, at the beginning with 60 officials specialized in community development across the country and 50 assistants-we would be able to carry out this three year program called community development program.
With regard to the problem of necessity-[DOT] [Text]


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask the minister how many of these people are going to be spending their time in Ottawa and how many are going to be out in the field?


René Tremblay: We already have here in Ottawa at headquarters all the officials needed. Therefore, they are those who will be put at the disposal of the Indians.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the division of Indian affairs.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank all hon. members for their co-operation in the work of examining my estimates.



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Roger-Joseph Teillet: May I ask for the indulgence of the committee to have permission to proceed with the supplementary estimates to implement the increases in war veterans allowances and pensions, amongst other things?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We will now consider the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $5,180,500.
Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I will not keep the committee very long but there are one or two things I wanted to say on these estimates.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Colin Cameron: No, it will not be a filibuster; I am not that ambitious. I merely want to make some suggestions with regard to our trade policies in the future. I believe that our whole concept of trade should be changed in the light of developments in the world today and that there should be some consideration taken of our responsibilities and our opportunities with regard to the underdeveloped areas of the world. In fact, if policies of this sort were employed, I think it would amount to an [DOT]extension of the Canadian economy which would make it that much easier to deal with some of the internal problems with which we have been dealing earlier this afternoon.
As was stressed again and again by the international conference in Copenhagen this year, the gap between the developed and underdeveloped areas is widening and deepening. There appears to be little being done at the moment to close that gap. I suggest we have to base our trade now on a much more sophisticated basis than we have in the past. We have, as it were, to build up some credits for the future in our dealings with areas that are slowly trying to come into the twentieth century. Nor do I think we should allow political considerations to stand in our way of advancing the credits that will be required, in the first instance, to develop trade.
I have in mind, for instance, the position with regard to Cuba. While it is true we have, ever since the revolution, conducted trade in a rather delicate manner with Cuba and with one watchful eye on Washington, we have not really undertaken anything massive in the way of help for developing the economy of that country which might well help solve some of the tensions that now exist in the western hemisphere, if we were prepared to do that. The same thing is true, I believe with regard to the Middle East. If we were prepared to deal with the Arab countries in the same way, I think we might find we were beginning to reduce some of the tensions in that area. There are such things as the Jordan river development to be considered, which will require immense help from the western world. Should these be undertaken successfully we would be on the way to solving the festering sore that lies in the midst of our troubles in the Middle East, the Arab refugees.
Before long we may find ourselves with unsaleable volumes of wheat, and before that time comes we should be preparing the groundwork for future markets. Nor should
Supply-Trade and Commerce we consider this a philanthropic gesture. We often speak of that when talking about things such as the export of $350,000 worth of flour to Indonesia. Actually it is of equal benefit to the prairie wheat farmers, and I am sure their interests were of equal importance to the government in its decision in that regard.
So far as I am aware no one is yet in a position to estimate how massive an expansion of this credit program the Canadian economy could carry. But I would remind the committee that in 1939 we also had no idea just how heavy a load the Canadian economy could bear, and we astonished ourselves and the rest of the world by finding what a tremendously heavy load our economy was able to bear from its own resources.
I would suggest that in this new war- and to my mind even more important war- against poverty, ignorance and hunger throughout the world we have an even more important challenge facing us than we had in 1939. I would hope the government would begin to regard our trade policies as part of the responsibilities of Canada, as one of the affluent countries of the world, to try and win this war against poverty, and to remember that as we do so it is not a philanthropic gesture, it is a gesture of straight self-interest and self-survival.
I would like to see the government being considerably bolder in its estimate of what the Canadian economy can afford in the way of credits to the underdeveloped areas of the world, so that we may build up for the future further possibilities of trade for the vast volumes of goods and materials that an automated industry will, before long, confront us with. Because, make no mistake about it, this is one of the problems we are going to face in the next few years or decade-what to do with the enormous avalanche of goods a modern industrial community will supply us with. The rest of the world is going to be in desperate need of them, and I suggest we should now be placing its peoples in a position where they can take advantage of the enormous capacity of North America and other developed parts of the world.
But to do so will need a complete break with the traditional idea of trade for immediate profit, immediate return, trade for the immediate balance of payments problem, trade for the usual 19th century purpose of making a profit in the immediate future. I shall of course admit that if we do this we shall probably have to do as much violence to the more sacred cows in the free enterprise pasture as we did during the war. This does

Supply-Trade and Commerce not disturb me at all, because I have noticed those free enterprise cows are poor milkers to start with, and they preserve most of their milk for the owners of the pasture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
15. Canadian government travel bureau-to assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada including a grant of $37,000 to the Canadian Tourist Association, $4,907,300.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: In opening perhaps I might commiserate with the minister on his inability to deliver a very excellent speech to the federal-provincial conference on tourism earlier this evening, from which he departed to be present for the discussion of his estimates. I want to assure him his speech was exceptionally well read by the Solicitor General, who I notice has just returned to the chamber. On previous occasions I have raised the question of the adverse balance of payment on our travel account. This was on the basis of the figures for the first and second quarter when we had them before us. The figures for the third quarter are now available and they confirm the belief that in 1964 the adverse balance on the travel account will reach serious proportions as far as Canada is concerned. Perhaps the minister could advise the committee whether there is some hope for the future in this connection and whether the suggestions which I and others have recently made are valid, namely that more travel within Canada would provide an answer to this problem. This is the only point I wish to raise. I think it is the one which most seriously concerns us in connection with the department now under review.


Edward Nasserden: I should like to make a few brief comments in the time available tonight on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. They are directed to the action taken by the government during the past year, first with regard to the relaxation of the quota on imports of turkeys and second with regard to the Durum wheat situation a few days ago.
I think the action taken on each of these occasions indicates to some extent the attitude of the government opposite and are part of a trend. Already we can see the effects of this laxity or carelessness upon the agriculture industry of this country.
With regard to the quota, it has been said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as well as by his colleague the Minister of Agriculture that the United States took strong exception to the fact that these quotas were in effect. I would remind him that they were in effect for five years during which time the United States took no action whatever and there was no reason to think there would be


any change at this time. I believe what has happened reflects a certain carelessness on the part of the ministry.
The decision with regard to Durum wheat is another which strikes at the very heart of what agricultural people as well as governments in Canada over the years have been trying to achieve in international agreements, particularly international wheat agreements. The danger of the situation arising out of the action which has been taken cannot escape the minister's attention because it is of concern to anyone who is interested in the price of grain.
Another matter I wish to mention briefly has to do with seasonal embargoes on imports of fresh fruit from the United States. Many people engaged in this industry in Canada tell me they feel these embargoes should be put into effect three weeks or a month earlier than they are. At the present time United States surpluses are placed on our market where they fill up storage immediately prior to the embargo taking effect, and this works to the detriment of the local market.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I believe the minister was about to rise on the first item. I did not want to delay matters because I am sure he is anxious to get his estimates through. But perhaps he could answer some of the questions which have been asked.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, during the several days on which my estimates were discussed I took a careful note of many of the questions and suggestions made by hon. members. Indeed, I have with me a very large file in which I have recorded the comments and suggestions made. I do not intend to take the time of the committee in giving replies but I do want the committee to know that I have looked at these suggestions very carefully and those that I consider of merit will be put into effect.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They will be taken over.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, they will if I can get away with it.
There are also some questions which were asked which I would have been ready to answer had the committee been disposed to give me time. It would take me quite a little while so I propose to leave the matter, and if any hon. member would like to ask me a question on some other occasion or address a letter to me I would be very happy to supply the information.
May I answer the question asked tonight by the hon. member for Parry Sound-

Muskoka, who referred to the adverse balance of payments on tourist account which is almost certain to appear in our international accounts this year. He asked whether there was any hope for the future. We are continuing in our efforts to increase our income from tourist spendings in Canada and we have every hope of achieving the target that I have taken over from the preceding government of $1 billion in 1967. I have also been looking at the question of how much help we might be able to give to encourage travel within Canada by Canadians. As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka will realize if he has looked at the figures carefully, the reason for the adverse balance is not because there has been any failure in our earnings on tourist account but because the great prosperity of the Canadian people has induced them to travel abroad in greater numbers. Therefore we will do what we can as a Canadian government to assist the provincial governments and the Canadian tourist association to encourage travel within Canada, in this way helping to reduce this adverse balance.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: One minor point, Mr. Chairman. May I make a suggestion to the minister regarding all these comments he has on points raised by hon. members. Perhaps he could put some of his very excellent staff to work in merely dropping a note to hon. members. This has been done by some of his colleagues and predecessors in office and is very effective. I do not think hon. members appreciate just being ignored.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman very much for his suggestion and I shall be very happy to follow it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Ten o'clock.



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act, the Prairie Grain Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act, the salaries and expenses of the inspector general of banks' office, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $2,710,400.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed with the estimates of the Department of Finance, vote No. 1. This item
Supply-Finance
will be found on page 122 of the blue book, the details on page 125.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just one short point. I do not believe this question was asked on orders of the day today. The Bank of Canada has advanced the bank rate. This follows similar action in the United States, which in turn followed on the deliberate action of the British government in this regard. I am wondering whether the minister could tell us whether this is a protective policy on behalf of the Canadian financial market in case there is a tendency to raid, or send money to the United Kingdom? In other words, is it concerted action or is it merely individual protective action?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: My hon. friend may not have been in the house this afternoon when I was asked a question on this matter and gave a rather extended reply, during the course of which I quoted the statement of the chancellor of the exchequer in England who explained why they had increased the bank rate from 5 per cent to 7 per cent. Then I went on to give an explanation of the action of the reserve authorites of the United States in increasing their rate by one half of 1 per cent and also the rate allowed under their regulation "q". This relates to the interest that they allow on farm deposits.
After considerable discussion during the course of yesterday it was felt that the Canadian national rate would properly be raised by one quarter of 1 per cent, despite the fact that the United States rate has been increased by one half of 1 per cent. The reason, of course, is that our reserve position is strong, and we thought this was proper in the circumstances.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one question. Is he aware of the statement made a day or two ago by the prime minister of Great Britain, Right Hon. Harold Wilson, who advocated in his statement, as far as I can understand the press report, the extension of the powers of the international monetary fund to the point where it could create credit in much the same way a national central bank could do so, as a method of solving the question of international liquidity? As far as I can understand, Mr. Wilson was advocating something in the nature of a proposal that is usually associated with one of the professors in British Columbia, Robert Triffin. I wonder whether the minister took note of that statement, and could he indicate what the Cana-

Supply-Finance
dian government's position would be if such a proposal were formally advanced?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I promised my hon. friend, the member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands, that during my consideration of the estimates I would expand on some of the questions he asked earlier about the differences between the reported views of the minister of finance of France and the Triffin plan, and the proposals that were made in discussions that took place at Tokyo.
The major proposal before the board of governors of the international monetary fund at its annual meeting in Tokyo, as the house will be aware from my statement of September 14, was that there would be a general increase in the quotas. That is an increase in the contributions and drawing rights of all members of the fund. The specific figure mentioned by various governors for this general increase was 25 per cent.
As I indicated in my report to the house, and as I said in my speech to the governors at Tokyo, it seems clear to us that the time has come for another general increase in fund quotas. Moreover we considered that an increase larger than 25 per cent could be justified. That is certainly the Canadian view.
The French minister of finance, on the other hand, stated quite explicitly that the 25 per cent increase in quotas did not seem to his government to respond to an evident and urgent need, and that they did not consider the increase of international liquidities to be the main target of the studies which had been undertaken. In my reply to the hon. member for Chicoutimi on September 29, I intended to make clear this distinction between our view and that of the French finance minister.
Turning now to a question raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, I believe there may be some similarities between the ideas expressed by the French minister and the Triffin plan. In his statement to the governors, the minister of finance of France envisaged a system based in the first instance, and as is the present one, on gold, but supplemented as necessary by other "sources for supplying owned resources." The minister was extremely cautious in speaking about these other sources and the extent to which they would be used to create additional reserves. For instance, he pointed out that, "as there is always temptation to accumulate an over supply of world liquidities, cautious regulations would be required in order to assess the need for such a creation and to adjust its amount". He added that "if the need were to arise for an increase in

the amount of owned reserves, there should be a concerted and limited recourse to additional fiduciary means". These remarks by the minister suggest that he does not consider that there is at present a shortage of liquidity and that he did not put forward his proposal as a means for increasing reserves at least in the immediate future.
Professor Triffin in his plan suggested that an institution such as the international monetary fund should be empowered to increase the total of international liquidity by creating deposits based either on loans or investments. He recognized, of course, that the power to create additional liquidity should be limited, but thought that the best way to handle the problem might be to limit the increase to a total amount which would, together with increases in the world stock of monetary gold, raise total world reserves by 3 per cent to 5 per cent per year. This suggestion contrasts sharply with the more cautious approach suggested by the minister of finance of France.


Colin Cameron: The minister did not mention whether he had seen the report from London of the British prime minister's proposal, which seems to go a bit farther than this.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have not seen the report but I will be interested in looking it up, and I must say that a more expansive approach would be sympathetically received in these quarters.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister of Finance a question which I asked the Secretary of State some days ago, but did not get any reply. I brought up the fact that we have an economic council which reports to the Secretary of State, and in addition we have the Department of Trade and Commerce which is very important in economic matters, and also the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry and the Department of Labour, all dealing in the main in economic questions. The question that many of us have tended to come up with in the past is, how do all these economic ministries of the government, one might say, dovetail? It is not so much a question of who is the senior minister or who is the central person or which is the pivotal office in all of these economic arrangements. It is not a case of probing for cabinet secrets with regard to what may be a private cabinet committee. It is just a question of where

the prime responsibility lies, the central portfolio in all these economic affairs.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will do my best to answer that question. In government nowadays I think that the various phases of activity in the economic sphere are so all pervasive that appropriately they must be divided between different ministers. I do not think it is any secret that in the present government there is a cabinet committee on finance of which I as Minister of Finance am the chairman. In the last analysis it is the Prime Minister who must accept the responsibility for coordinating the views of different ministers, but to a considerable extent this is decentralized through this particular cabinet committee. We have frequent meetings and we discuss the different views of the various ministers to whom my hon. member referred, and other ministers. I am inclined to think that this approach has been quite effective.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Comptroller of the treasury-
25.	Administration, including the administration of the superannuation and retirements acts, $24,692,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a brief word to the Minister of Finance. I am sure he knows what it is.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do not say it, then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, if I thought he would consider the matter without my saying anything about it, perhaps it would be a good idea to sit down. I want to tell the minister what I am sure he knows from the correspondence he has received, that the superannuated civil servants are not at all satisfied with the answer the government has given to their request for an increase in the pensions of civil servants already retired. I hope the minister will not think that because this matter has been looked at two or three times while he has been Minister of Finance, that the answers the government has come up with are at all satisfactory or at all final. The whole concept of what people are entitled to in their years of retirement has definitely gone through a good deal of revolutionary thinking in modern times. There are many jurisdictions that have increased the pensions of persons already retired. I know of employers who are starting to do this. It is true that, in some cases, it is achieved because of collective bargaining. However, the old idea that people, once retired, are off the hands or their former employers is definitely out of date. I am speaking I am sure for the retired civil servants generally
Supply-Finance
and I think I am expressing the mind of a good many, if not most, of the members of this house, when I say we are not satisfied with the kind of reply given. I express the hope that this whole question will be reviewed much more sympathetically and much more humanely than has yet been the case by the present government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tariff board-
30. Administration, $238,800.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have one brief question for the minister and he can let me have a reply by way of correspondence. Can he give us a list of the outstanding references to the tariff board and when he expects reports from the board in regard to them? He can give us the information by written reply.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to supply the information to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian mint-
35. Administration, operation and maintenance. $2,344,600.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister briefly what the plans are for the extension of the mint? As the minister knows, there is a great backlog of persons asking for coin collections. I am sure members find themselves in the same position as I am, having repeated requests from people wanting to know why it is they cannot get sample coin collections.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, there has been an absolutely phenomenal increase in the interest in what is known as numismatics. The number of coin sets the mint has been asked to produce has exhausted the capacity of the mint. There are plans for expanding these facilities and, incidentally, increasing the price of these coin sets slightly, although I think there is no way of setting a price that will overcome the avidity of collectors in this or other fields. We need new facilities, we need expanded facilities. Having said that there is of course no assurance that the rather phenomenal demand of the last two or three years will be continued. However, this is something that I am personally convinced of, that there should be some expansion of our output, and I hope this will be possible within a reasonably short time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Just while we are on this general subject can the minister tell us

Supply-Finance
whether we are going to have a gold coin minted as part of our centennial celebrations?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think it highly improbable, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Finance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we take two items on which we do not intend to say anything more? They are in the supplementaries-5b-industry-which deals with defence development programs, and 15a-national research council-which deals with research in industry.


John Watson MacNaught: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Department of
Labour-vote No. 30.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we propose calling first the estimates of the Minister of Forestry, then the unemployment insurance commission item, the Department of Public Works and the Department of National Revenue, the latter two departments not necessarily in that order. I would also ask hon. members to be ready for any smaller items that may not have been dealt with as yet.


[Stage Direction]
It being thirty six minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
1.	Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service, $85,900,000.
International broadcasting service-
5. International broadcasting service including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue from the rental of facilities in Montreal, Sack-ville and Vancouver to an amount of $427,000 and to re-expend these moneys for the purposes of the international broadcasting service, $2,100,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L10. Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of capital expenditures subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $14,250,000.
Board of broadcast governors-
1. Salaries and other expenses, $374,300.
National film board-
1. Administration, production and distribution of films and other visual materials, $5,792,900.
5. Acquisition of equipment, $307,700.

[Stage Direction]
National museum of Canada-
25. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,489,600.
National Gallery of Canada-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, including the payment of $243,000 to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,297,000.
la. Administration, operation and maintenance and grants as detailed in the estimates, $17,000.
Public printing and stationery-
1. Departmental administration, $180,700.
5. Printing, binding and distribution of official documents and publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public including the Canada Gazette and the Annual Statutes, and the purchase for sale of such other publications and related material as the treasury board may approve, $2,766,400.
Loans, investments and advances-
L33a. To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of paying for the printing of publications by commercial printers; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed, $250,000.
Public archives and national library-
A-Public archives-
1. General administration and technical services, $840,400.
la. General administration and technical services, $21,500.
Supply-Items Passed
B-National library-
5. General administration including a payment of $100,000 to the national library purchase account for the purpose of acquiring books, in conformity with section 12 of the National Library Act, $469,300.
5a. General administration, $20,000.

[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council with the governments of the provinces and territories and with local school boards in respect of social assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, and to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $47,742,400.
15a. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates-to extend the purposes of vote 15 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to include authority to make grants and contributions pursuant to agreements entered into with the governments of the provinces or the territories or other groups or authorities approved of by the governor in council, for the provision of welfare and other services to Indians, $3,393,600.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including expenditures on works on other than federal property, assistance to Indians and Indian bands for the construction or acquisition of housing and other buildings and related works, land and equipment and recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council with the governments of provinces and territories and with local school boards in respect of the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, $12,400,000.
20a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $500,000.

[Stage Direction]
Welfare services, allowances and other benefits-
10c. War veterans allowances-to provide, effective the 1st day of September, 1964, that the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, be amended by repealing schedules A and B to the said act and substituting therefor the schedules A and B set out in the details of the estimates, and the rates mentioned in section 5 of the said act are amended on the same basis; and to
(a)	authorize the governor in council to amend the war veterans allowance regulations by repealing effective the 1st day of October, 1964, paragraph (d) subsection (1) of section 10 of those regulations, and
(b)	repeal, effective the 1st day of September, 1964, item 45d of supplementary estimates (D), 1963-64, authorized by Appropriation Act No. 5, 1963, $9,000,000.
15c. Other benefits including treatment and related allowances, $170,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Pensions-
25c. Pensions for disability and death-to provide, effective the 1st day of September, 1964, that the Pension Act is amended as follows:
(a)	Schedules A and B to the said act are repealed and the schedules A and B set out in the details of the estimates are substituted therefor; and
(b)	in subsection (1) of section 30 thereof, the words "eighteen hundred" are struck out and the words "three thousand" are substituted therefor; and
(c)	in subsection (2) of section 30 thereof, the words "ninety six" are struck out and the words "one hundred and eight" are substituted therefor, and the words "forty two" are struck out and the words "forty eight" are substituted therefor; and
(d)	in subsection (3) of section 30 the words "ninety six" are struck out and the words "one hundred and eight" are substituted therefor; and
(e)	in subsection (2) of section 38 the words "five hundred and seventy six" are struck out and the words "six hundred and thirty six" are substituted therefor, $10,100,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $5,180,500.
la. Departmental administration, $100,000.
Trade commissioner service-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,500,000.
5a. Trade and commissioner service-Administration, operation and maintenance, $70,000.
10. Exhibitions branch, $2,190,700.
12. Participation in the Canadian universal and international exhibition, Montreal, 1967, $970,000.
15. Canadian government travel bureau-To assist in promoting the tourist business in Canada including a grant of $37,000 to the Canadian tourist association, $4,907,300.
Standards branch-
20. Administration and operation, $3,372,100. Dominion bureau of statistics-
25.	Administration and operation including the fee for membership in the inter-American statistical institute and a contribution of $500 to the international statistical institute, $12,436,000.
26.	1961 Decennial census of Canada, $733,700.
27.	1966 Quinquennial census of Canada, $26,100.
B-National energy board-
30. Administration, $734,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
L37a. Acquisition of uranium concentrates in accordance with the contracts entered into with the approval of the governor in council by Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd., on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada with Rio Algom Mines Ltd., Denison Mines Limited and Faraday Uranium Mines Ltd., and to provide for the costs of stockpiling uranium concentrates purchased under the said contracts, $4,500,000.

[Stage Direction]
Administration-
1. Departmental administration including administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act, the Prairie Grain Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act, the salaries and expenses of the inspector general of banks' office, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $2,710,000.
la. Departmental administration including grants as detailed in the estimates, $250,000.
Subsidies and other payments to provinces-
5. Payments, computed in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, to the government of each province, in respect of income tax paid by corporations whose main business is the distribution to or generation for distribution to the public of electrical energy, gas or steam; the said payments to be made in respect of such part of the income of the corporations for the taxation year ending in the calendar year 1962 (as determined under and for the purposes of the Income Tax Act) as is derived from the said distribution or generation in the province to which payment is made, $10,600,000.
Government administration-
10. Grants to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act and regulations made thereunder, $29,700,000.
15. Contingencies-subject to the approval of the treasury	board,	(a)	to	supplement	the	paylist
provisions of other votes; (b) for miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses; and (c) for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act; including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, $6,000,000.
15a. Contingencies-subject to the approval of the treasury	board	(a)	to	supplement	the	paylist
provisions of other votes; (b) for miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses; and (c) for awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act; including authority to reuse any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, $35,000,000.
15b. Contingencies-To extend the purposes of vote 15 of the main estimates to supplement, in such amounts and in accordance with such terms and conditions as the treasury board may prescribe, the estimates of other departments in order to provide for an accelerated construction and repair program and to provide a further amount of, $5,000,000.
17a. To deem, for the purposes of section 28 of the Public Service Superannuation Act, the expression "public service employer" to include the administrator of a superannuation or pension fund or plan established by an act of the legislature of a province for the benefit of employees described in the act and the said employees to be employees of that public service employer, $1.
20. Government's share of surgical-medical insurance premiums and government's contributions to pension plans and death benefit plans for employees engaged locally outside Canada who are excluded from the Public Service Superannuation Act, to the unemployment insurance fund in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office and to the hospital insurance (outside Canada) plan, $11,365,000.

20b. Government's share of surgical-medical insurance premiums and government's contributions to pension plans and death benefit plans for employees engaged locally outside Canada who are excluded from the Public Service Superannuation Act, to the unemployment insurance fund in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office and to the hospital insurance (outside Canada) plan-To extend the purposes of Vote 20 of the main estimates for 1964-65 to provide for the government's share of surgical-medical insurance premiums, determined on such basis and paid in respect of such persons (and their dependants) as the governor in council prescribes, who are members of the Senate and House of Commons or are former members who are in receipt of an annual allowance pursuant to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; additional amount required, $8,000.
Comptroller of the treasury-
25. Administration, including the administration of the Superannuation and Retirement Acts, $24,692,500.
Tariff board-
30. Administration, $238,800.
Royal Canadian mint-
35. Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,334,600.
35a. Administration, operation and maintenance,
[Stage Direction]
40. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $231,700.
Municipal development and loan board-
45. Administration, $221,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Finance-
L15. Loan to the Ottawa civil service recreational association, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, to assist in the further development of the W. Clifford Clark Memorial Centre, $300,000.
L16a. To authorize the Minister of Finance to make contributions out of the consolidated revenue fund to the international development association in the fiscal years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 of an amount or amounts not exceeding in the whole $41,700,000 U.S., in addition to the amount provided by section 4 of the International Develop-
Supply-Items Passed
ment Association Act, including authority for the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government of Canada, to issue to the association in respect of such contributions, pending cash requirements by the association, non-interest-bearing and nonnegotiable demand notes in such form as the minister may determine, notwithstanding that the contributions may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of May, 1964, which is $45,036,000, $1.
Auditor General's office-
1. Salaries and expenses of office, $1,366,700.
Insurance-
1. Departmental administration, $877,200.
Loans, investments and advances-
Finance-
Government administration-
L18c. To authorize the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding subsection (2) of section 11 of the Canada Student Loans Act, to increase upon application by the government of any province the provincial allocation for the province for the loan year ending June 30, 1965 by such amount as may be determined by the minister, the aggregate amount of all increases authorized by the minister pursuant to this provision not to exceed $8,000,000; and to provide that for the purposes of the Canada Student Loans Act the provincial allocation for any province in respect of which an increase has been authorized by the minister pursuant to this provision for that loan year shall be deemed to be the aggregate of such additional amount and the provincial allocation for the province for that loan year as determined pursuant to subsection (2) of section 11 of the said Act, $1.

[Stage Direction]
5b. To sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence development programs, on terms and conditions approved by treasury board, $1,000,000.
National research council, including the medical research council-
15a. Assistance toward research in industry- To authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, the making of commitments for the current fiscal year in a total amount not exceeding $3,000,000,	$1.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 25, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the order in council appointing Chief Justice Dorion of the superior court of Quebec to carry out the inquiry announced yesterday by the Minister of Justice. I am sending copies of the order in council to the various party leaders.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, before the minister asks for permission to table the order in council may I suggest that he should read it into the record. It seems to me that all members would be interested in knowing what are the terms of reference.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of
Finance.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister will read it into the record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is the Favreau syndrome you are catching.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I see that copies have been given to two party leaders only; we did not get any.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No party has
received a copy.

I have given copies to be delivered to the leaders of the four parties.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: There are 265 members here.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no objection to reading the order in council. I was just complying with the usual practice.



P.C. 1964-1819

[Stage Direction]
25th November, 1964.
The committee of the privy council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise that the Honourable Frederic Dorion, chief justice of the superior court of the province of Quebec, be appointed a commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire fully into allegations about any improper inducements having been offered to or improper pressures having been brought to bear on counsel acting upon an application for the extradition of one Lucien Rivard and all the relevant circumstances connected therewith, and in particular but without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider fully the reports submitted to the Minister of Justice by the R.C.M.P. and the evidence laid before him in connection therewith and any further evidence elicited by or laid before the commissioner, to consider such other matters as may appear to the commissioner to be relevant and to report whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant any prosecution for offences that may be involved.
The committee further advise:
1.	That the commissioner be authorized to exercise all the powers conferred upon him by section 11 of the Inquiries Act;
2.	That the commissioner adopt such procedures and methods as he may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry and sit at such times and at such places as he may decide from time to time;
3.	That the commissioner be authorized to engage the services of such counsel, staff and technical advisers as he may require at rates of remuneration and reimbursement approved by the treasury board; and
4.	That the commissioner report to the governor in council with all reasonable despatch, and file with the dominion archivist the papers and records of the commission as soon as reasonably may be after the conclusion of the inquiry.
R. G. Robertson,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I presume the minister is doing this under motions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not a statement. I was just tabling the order in council and my hon. friend asked, so that he might obtain the sense of it, if I would read it. That is what I did, but I did not make any statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would ask you for a ruling, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister says he is tabling a document and has placed it before the house, I ask Your Honour if it is not in
10496	HOUSE OF
Canadian Participation in Sterling Support order then to make some comment on the statement which the minister has made.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am asking the Speaker, not the minister tor external affairs.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: The understanding I had was that the minister was tabling a document under motions, not making a statement under motions; therefore there is no debate.



FINANCE


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I wish to announce Canadian participation in a new credit arrangement to provide massive support for sterling. The purpose of this is to enable Britain to meet speculative selling of the pound. Under the new arrangement 11 countries consisting of Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States and the bank of international settlements have provided credit facilities totalling $3 billion. The Bank of Canada's share of this total is $200 million. These credit facilities are separate from the $1 billion stand-by arrangement which Britain already has with the international monetary fund. A drawing under this stand-by is expected to take place shortly. This will be used in part to pay off presently outstanding short term credits from central banks which was arranged last September.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance, I believe that it would be appropriate for us to make some comments, and it would be in order to ask the minister why the Bank of Canada is entitled to lend $200 million to assist another country-$200 million as a loan to England- whereas the Minister of Finance always told us that the Bank of Canada could not lend money to provinces, municipalities or school boards.
Then our school boards, our municipalities and our provinces will borrow from England and the United States the money which the Bank of Canada loaned to England-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Gilles Grégoire: You will agree with me that it amounts to a complete about-face in the present government's monetary policy.


The government has always maintained that the Bank of Canada could not lend money, and here we find that it made a loan, not to Canadians, but to foreigners.
I wonder if, after making such a statement, the Minister of Finance does not fear the resentment of the Canadian people, who have to borrow money abroad, at a high interest rate, while the Bank of Canada, on the minister's advice, is making a loan to Britain practically interest free.
There is surely something wrong there and, in my opinion, the Minister of Finance should start by telling us what rate of interest is to be charged. While he specified the amount of the loan, he made no mention of the interest rate, and we should be told about that.
Second, is this a new Bank of Canada policy? And under that new policy, will the Bank of Canada now grant loans to provincial governments, municipalities and school boards?
It is all very well to loan money to England but let us start with our own people who need loans, that is the provincial governments.
One knows that the province of Quebec had to borrow $100 million from British Columbia. Why did that province not get the chance to borrow that amount from the Bank of Canada? I feel it would be more normal if the Bank of Canada, rather than another province, were to loan money to the province of Quebec.
Further, Saskatchewan borrowed money from Alberta.
That statement takes us by surprise because it goes against what the Minister of Finance told us previously and it contradicts his previous monetary policy.
We hope the minister will at least tell us what interest rate the Bank of Canada will charge to Great Britain and that he will say whether or not he is willing to let the Bank of Canada lend to public bodies in this country.
In my opinion the statement is most important, because it proves what we have always claimed that the Bank of Canada is in a position to lend money. However, it should stop lending to save foreigners and lend once in a while to help out the Canadian people.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, despite the sapient comments of the hon. member for Lapointe I think most informed members of the house

will be very glad to hear that the Canadian government has taken the necessary action in the international monetary field to deal with the straits in which our friends in Great Britain find themselves today. However, I think the very situation we have had to move to correct necessitates a far reaching review of the whole international monetary system and indicates the necessity for taking much bolder action in regard to the solution of these problems than has been taken so far.
I hope the Canadian government, at this particular juncture in history when we have to take this action, will press for much more forward looking policies in this field.

On the orders of the day:


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Could the minister tell us at what rate of interest the Bank of Canada will lend $200 million to Britain?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In the first place, the Bank of Canada has not yet lent this money to Britain. It is a stand-by arrangement which may or may not be called upon. I shall be glad to inquire about the rate of interest and see whether I can make it available with propriety. As I reminded the hon. member in connection with the first arrangement of last September, which in subsequent months was drawn on, the rate was the current market rate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In the first place, I should like to point out to the minister that I did not say "lent" but rather "will lend".
My supplementary question is as follows. Is the minister suggesting that if the Bank of Canada lends money, he himself does not know or could not disclose the interest rate? If so, who is asking that the interest rate remains unknown? Is it the borrowing country, the Bank of Canada or the cabinet? [Text]


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I can assure the hon. gentleman that I am sorry he was not here last night when the estimates of the Department
Actuarial Report Tabled of Finance were being examined. On that occasion he would have had the opportunity to go into these matters in some detail. However, in fairness I must say I did not expect them to come up last night either; I only got here just before they were called.
As to this question of the interest rate, I have already said I will ascertain whether it would be proper for me to divulge it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one last supplementary question?
Since the minister noticed my absence in the house last evening, I must say that I was at the University of Sherbrooke trying to convince the students of the iniquities of our present monetary system.
Here is my supplementary question. Is the Bank of Canada setting up a new policy in this and will it be in a position in th^ future to lend, here in this country, to public bodies, provincial governments, municipalities, and school boards, as it is doing for England?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands made a very apt remark a little while ago. I do not know whether this is the time or the place to explain the monetary policy of this government. I do not think it would be on orders of the day. I am sorry for the students referred to if they get their only instruction in these matters from the hon. member.



PENSIONS


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table at this time two copies in French of the actuarial report, dated November 6, 1964, tabled earlier in the house in English. In addition thereto I should like to table, in English only, the annexes or appendices which are to be attached to the English version of the actuarial report. I apologize to the house for the fact that the French version will not be available until the end of this month. However, since the joint committee is having its first general meeting this afternoon I wish to have these documents placed before it. All documents concerned will be circulated to all members of the house.
I would ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam not to request that these very lengthy documents be read in full.

Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Howard: Since Mr. A. E. Fry has been superintendent of the Yukon Indian agency upon what specific dates has he visited Atiin, B.C., and for each of those visits (a) by what means did he arrive
(b)	how long did he stay, indicated by minutes, hours, days, or weeks, as the case may be (c) did he meet with any native Indian people and, if so, who were they and for how long did the meeting or meetings last (d) did he meet with any people other than native Indians and, if so, who were they and how long did the meeting or meetings last (e) by what means did he leave?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No detailed record has been maintained of the superintendent's meetings with the Indian and non-Indian residents of Atiin, B.C., which is a small community that serves as a transportation stop on his field tours. However, the following information is available:
November 21, 1962: (a) by car, (b) one day, <c) not available, (d) not available, (e) by car.
December 7, 1962: (a) by car, (b) two days,
(c)	yes, with various Indian people, (d) several local officials including R.C.M. Police officer, (e) by car.
January 2, 1963: (a) by car, (b) three days,
(c)	yes, with various people, (d) several local officials including R.C.M. Police officer, (e) by car.
June 21, 1963: (a) by car, (b) short stop-over on return trip to Telegraph Creek, (c) yes, with some Indian people, (d) none, (e) by car.
September 11, 1963: (a) by car, (b) part of the day, (c) yes, Emma Williams, George Jack and Mrs. Jack and George Etzerza and other various Indian people, (d) yes, the R.C.M. Police officer, (e) by car.
October 21 and 23, 1963: (a) by car, (b) stop-over en route to Atiin and on return from Telegraph Creek, (c) yes, various Indian people, (d) yes, (e) by car.
June 3, 1964: (a) by car, (b) stop-over en route to Telegraph Creek and Iskut, (c) yes, various Indian people, (d) yes, (e) by car.
June 10 and June 17, 1964: (a) by car, (b) brief stop-over, (c) yes, some Indian people,
(d)	yes, (e) by car.

September 19, 1964: (a) by car, (b) brief stop-over, (c) yes, some Indian people, (d) yes, (e) by car.


C.B.C. PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the C.B.C. produce or support in any way a monthly magazine called RacLio-T.V. and, if so, what is the circulation figure and the cost of this publication to the C.B.C.?
2.	Does the C.B.C. or the staff have any other publications which are distributed to its employees?
3.	Is there a publication distributed to C.B.C. employees called Inside and, if so, what is the difference between the function of Radio-T.V. and Inside and what is the approximate difference in costs of the two publications to the C.B.C.?
4.	Has any consideration been given to producing Radio-T.V. in a cheaper format?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes, this is a two language staff magazine produced by the C.B.C. with a circulation of approximately 8,800 made up of present and former staff members, a limited number of people engaged in or associated with broadcasting outside C.B.C., and Canadian libraries. The annual cost including staff salaries, travelling, honoraria to contributors, photography and art work, printing, mailing and handling totals approximately $61,000.
2.	Yes, there are locally produced inexpensive publications in some C.B.C. locations.
3.	Yes. Inside is a four page brochure printed fortnightly in English containing local news and information for and about the Toronto staff. Radio-T.V. is a 24 to 30 page magazine, in English and French, carrying articles and staff information of national interest. There is no real basis for comparison of the two publications. The annual cost of Inside with a circulation of about 2,500 is approximately $4,800.
4.	Yes. In the last five years, despite rising costs of wages, paper stock and services the unit cost has been reduced slightly and the magazine is now produced on the lowest grade of paper stock suitable for a magazine, the next cheaper stock being newsprint.


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, PRINCE COUNTY, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What projects are included in the $3,000,000 1964-65 winter works program for Prince county, Prince Edward Island, recently announced by the Solicitor General?
2.	What is the amount to be expended in each project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 and 2. The following projects have been authorized under the supplementary federal government winter construction program in
the county of Prince:
Dept, of National Defence
(air force)	Total cost
Interior painting of hangars $ 46,000 Storm sash replacement P.M.Q.'s	10,000
Storm sash replacement stn. bldgs	10,000
Dental clinic	13,000
Standardization of fire alarm	14,000
Projects up to $5,000	12,000
Sand storage building	30,000
Alterations to BB 55	156,000
Dept, of Public Works
Cape traverse-wharf repairs	3,000
Miminegash-north pier repairs	2,500
Tignish-north breakwater
repairs	2,000
Tignish-south breakwater repairs	2,000

There was a typographical error in the news item concerning these projects which was corrected in a later edition.


C.B.C. TELECASTS OF FOOTBALL GAMES
Mr. Basford: 1.	Over what national football league football games, does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have television rights?
2.	Does the C.B.C. have delayed rebroadcast rights to any football games televised by it and, if not, for what reasons?
3.	If the C.B.C. does not have such delayed rebroadcast rights, what steps is the C.B.C. taking to acquire such delayed rebroadcast rights?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation that, having been advised by the hon. member that this question relates to Canadian football only, the answer is as follows:
1.	To Saturday games of both eastern and western conferences; interlocking Saturday games of the two conferences; first game of eastern conference semi-final; first game of western conference final; second and, if necessary, third games of the finals of each conference and the Grey cup game.
2.	Yes.
3.	See part 2.
Questions


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA-LIVE CANADIAN PRODUCTION
Mr. Orlikow: In their application for the right to operate a private t.v. channel in Ottawa, did the successful applicants undertake with the B.B.G. to provide a percentage of live Canadian production in their programming and, if so, in the months of July, August and September of 1964, what percentage of CJOH's programming was made up of live Canadian production?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes. The percentage of live Canadian production was as follows: July 1964, 33.5 per cent; August 1964, 36.9 per cent; September 1964, 37.6 per cent.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA-CONTENT OF EVENING PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On their application to operate a private t.v. channel in Ottawa, did the successful applicants undertake with the B.B.G. to provide during peak hours, from 7 to 11 p.m. that a certain percentage of their content would be Canadian and, if so, what is the percentage?
2.	During the months of July, August and September, 1964, how much time from 7 to 11 p.m., week by week, contained (a) Canadian content (b) American content (c) British content?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes, 69.5 per cent.
2.
Canadian*	American	BritishJuly	1-4	1:30	12:10	2:20July	5-11	2:20	22:30	3:10July	12-18	2:20	22:30	3:10July	19-25	2:50	21:20	3:50July	26-Aug.	1	2:50	20:50	4:20Aug.	2-8	5:21	19:29	3:10Aug.	9-15	2:48	20:30	4:42Aug.	16-22	8:37	16:32	2:51Aug.	23-29	5:40	19:02	3:18Aug.	30-Sept.	5	2:50	20:31	4:39Sept.	6-12	6:04	17:35	4:21Sept.	13-19	5:47	17:58	4:15Sept.	20-26	2:30	23:00	2:30Sept.	27-30	2:00	10:30	3:30
*Note: The board's logs are broken down to show Canadian, foreign and commonwealth programming. For the above table it was assumed that all foreign programming was American and all commonwealth programming was British.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA- CANADIAN PERFORMERS
Mr. Orlikow: Did the present owners of CJOH in Ottawa undertake with the B.B.G. to give Canadian artists an opportunity to be seen and heard by international

Questions
audiences and, if so, how many, month by month, Canadian authors producers, actors, variety artists, performed for CJOH in 1964?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes. Stations are not required in the logging process to file information about the number of authors, producers, actors, and variety artists that they engage. It would be the intention of the board at the public hearing of the application for the renewal of the licence of the station which expires on March 31, 1966, to examine the licensee on the station's operation in light of undertakings given with respect to the employment of the staff and artists.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA- EXPENDITURES ON LIVE TALENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for a private t.v. channel in Ottawa undertake with the B.B.G. that they would spend $240,000 of their gross income on talent for live Canadian programming, if they were granted the rights to the Ottawa channel?
2.	How much, each year, has station CJOH spent on payment of talent for live programming since it began operating?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2.	The board does not make public the financial information it receives on private station operations. It would be the intention of the board at the public hearing of the application for renewal of the licence of CJOH-TV, which expires on March 31, 1966, to examine the licensee on the station's operation in the light of the financial undertakings given.


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA- PROGRAMS BASED ON CANADIAN STORIES
Mr. Orlikow: Did the successful applicants for a private t.v. channel in Ottawa indicate to the B.B.G. that they intended to produce programs for use in Canada and for export, based on such stories as the Jalna stories, the Grey Owl stories, as well as programs called "The Northern Trader" and "Canadian Abroad" and, if so, which of these have been produced and televised?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes. The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.
[Mr. Orlikow.l


TELEVISION STATION CJOH, OTTAWA- REVOCATION OF LICENCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Will the B.B.G. give consideration to revoking the licence of the owners of CJOH if an examination of the record discloses that undertakings regarding programming have not been met?
2.	Is the B.B.G. considering any alternatives such as transferring the licence to other interests?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The board has no authority under the Broadcasting Act to revoke a station's licence.
2. The board has no authority under the Broadcasting Act to transfer the licence of a station to other interests.
Under the regulations pursuant to the Radio Act an initial licence is issued for a period of five years. When the licence of CJOH-TV terminates on March 31, 1966, it is expected that an application for its renewal will be filed with the Department of Transport. Such an application will be referred to the board by the Minister of Transport for a recommendation following a public hearing.
On October 7, 1960, the board wrote the licensee of CJOH-TV calling attention to the specific program undertakings given at the time of the original application. It would be the intention of the board at the public hearing of the application for renewal of the licence to examine the licensee on the station's operation in light of these undertakings.


TELEVISION STATION CFTO, TORONTO- EXPENDITURES ON LIVE TALENT. ETC.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for station CFTO in Toronto undertake with the B.B.G., in the first year of their operation to spend over 25 per cent of their estimated gross revenue on live talent and, if so, what percentage of their gross revenue in each year since operations began, has CFTO spent on live talent?
2.	Did the successful applicants for station CFTO in Toronto undertake with the B.B.G. to spend a specified sum of moneys for Canadian artists. Canadian writers, Canadian musicians, on scenery, props and costumes on live production in the first 12 months of their operation and, if so (a) what was the amount specified in their undertaking, and (b) how much did CFTO spend in each of these categories in the first year of their operation?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes. The board does not make public the financial information it receives on private station operations. It would be the intention of the board at the public hearing of the application for renewal of the licence of CFTO-TV which expires on March 31, 1966, to examine the licensee on the station's

operation in the light of the financial undertakings given.
2. Yes. (a) The amount specified in the undertakings was $1,646,000. (b) The board does not make public the financial information it receives on private station operations.


TELEVISION STATION CFTO, TORONTO- PROGRAMMING UNDERTAKINGS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for station CFTO undertake with the B.B.G. that they would spend a specified amount for live programming in the second and third years of operation and, if so (a) what was the specified amount for each of the said years (b) how much did CFTO spend on live programming in the first three years of its operation?
2.	Did the successful applicants for station CFTO undertake with the B.B.G. that a specified percentage of their costs of live programming would be for (a) drama (b) light entertainment (c) music (d) singing and choral groups and, if so (i) what was the specified percentage in each case (ii) what percentage of their expenditures for live programming has been made in each of these categories in each year since CFTO has been in operation?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes. (a) The applicant proposed to spend $1,846,000 in the second year and $1,945,000 in the third year.
2. Yes. (a) Drama 9.72 per cent, (b) Light entertainment 23.6 per cent, (c) Music 9.6 per cent, (d) Singing and choral groups 13 17 per cent.
The board does not make public the financial information it receives on private station operations.


TELEVISION STATION CFTO, TORONTO- CANADIAN PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for station CFTO undertake with the B.B.G. that they would make available to their viewers a wide selection of Canadian programs of an artistic and dramatic nature and, if so, what was the extent of their undertaking in this regard?
2.	Did they inform the B.B.G. that they had contacted other cities, such as Vancouver and Winnipeg specifically, with a view to sharing such programs and costs with these stations and, if so, what was the extent and nature of such information?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The applicants for station CFTO-TV undertook in their application brief to do one half hour program per week and five one hour dramas to be presented at intervals during the first season. The brief indicated plans for once a month special programs which would be outstanding examples of the telecasting art.
20220-664J
Questions
2. The application brief stated that "when second stations go on the air in the various other metropolitan cities and markets we would attempt to co-operate with them to the fullest degree in productions in order to spread the costs across the country. We have already had conversations with the successful applicants in Winnipeg and Vancouver."


APPEARANCE OF U.S. NAZI LEADER ON C.B.C. PROGRAM
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	Who was responsible for the decision to have George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the American nazi party, appear on the C.B.C. t.v. program "This Hour Has Seven Days"?
2.	Did George Lincoln Rockwell receive a fee or remuneration from the C.B.C. for his appearance on this program and, if so, what amount did he receive?
3.	Did the C.B.C. expend public funds to arrange the appearance of George Lincoln Rockwell on this program and, if so (a) what was the amount so expended, and (b) who authorized this expenditure?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The program on which George Lincoln Rockwell appeared is a responsibility of the C.B.C. public affairs department.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. This portion of the program was recorded on film in Washington by a production team which was also working on another program assignment, (a) The cost of facilities, taping, film processing, editing, etc., was approximately $1,200. (b) See reply part 1.


BANK OF CANADA CREDIT ADVANCES TO GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Balcer: 1.	With reference to credit advances that the Bank of Canada may grant the federal government and the provinces, on what conditions does it do so with regard to each level of government and are provincial borrowings more costly than federal borrowings?
2.	Is any consideration being given to amending the Bank of Canada Act in order to maintain deposits with provincial administrations?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1. The conditions governing loans and advances which the Bank of Canada may make to the government of Canada or to the government of any province are set forth in section 18 (1) (i) and (i) of the Bank of Canada Act:
[The Bank of Canada may]
"18(1X1) make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the government

Questions
of Canada or the government of any province on the pledge or hypothecation of readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province;
(j) make loans to the government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the government of Canada, exceed one third of the estimated revenue of such government for its fiscal year, and shall not in the case of any provincial government exceed one fourth of such government's estimated revenue for its fiscal year; and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of such government;"
The rate of interest to be charged is not specified in the act. No advance has been made to a provincial government since 1936.
2. There is no provision in the Bank of Canada Act under which the bank could maintain deposits with a government and no consideration is being given to amending the act in this respect.


*C.B.C. PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Webb: How many public relations people are employed by C.B.C., and of this number, how many *are employed in each province across Canada?


Mr. J. B. Siewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that its public relations is largely carried out by the' management group as a basic responsibility. The corporation employs three full time public relations people who assist in this work.


MONEY. LOST THROUGH CHEQUE TAMPERING
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): , Does the Bank of Canada keep records of money lost through tampering with cheques and. if so, what is the total loss in each of the last five years?


Lawrence T. Pennell: No.


TELEVISION STATION CFTO, TORONTO-DRAMA WORKSHOP
Mr. Orlikow: 1. Did the successful applicants for station .CFTO undertake with the BB.G.: to televise a drama workshop which would offer acting opportunities on t.v. to top players from little theatre groups and; opportunities and incentives fpr writers?	.	,
: 2. Has station CFTO offered any live drama programs, produced in Toronto, to its viewers since

it began operations and, if so, how many and what are their titles?
3.	Is the B.B.G. considering any alternatives such as transferring the licence to other interests?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The program schedule included in CFTO's application brief listed a program called "Screen Test" which was described as a drama workshop.
2.	The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.
3.	The board has no authority under the Broadcasting Act to transfer the licence of a station to other interests.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG- PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba, undertake with the B.B.G., when they applied for the t.v. rights in Winnipeg, to televise one and one half hours a week of public affairs material in the form of panels and discussions and groups?
2.	Since they have begun to operate the station, how much time per week has this station devoted to public affairs programs?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2. The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG-EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba, undertake with the B.B.G., when they applied for the t.v. rights in Winnipeg, to televise adult education and religious education programs on a regular basis and, if so, how much time per week did they undertake to devote to this type of program?
2.	How much time per week has this t.v. station devoted to this type of program since they began operations?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes, five hours.
2. The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG-RURAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba, undertake with the B.B.G., when they applied for the t.v. rights in Winnipeg, to devote a definite period of time each week to programs of rural interest (including music, visits to country fairs, talks by farm experts, etc.) and, if so, how much time did they undertake to devote to such programming?
2.	How much time has this station devoted to this type of programming since the station began to operate?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes, five hours.
2. The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG-USE OF LIVE TALENT
Mr. Orlikow: Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba, undertake with the B.B.G. to devote a substantial proportion of their television time to live programming and live talent and, if so (a) how much time did they undertake to devote to such programming per week (b) how much time have they actually devoted to such programs since they have been in operation?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes. The applicant proposed 45 hours 45 minutes per week of local live programming. The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG- TALENT SEARCH
Mr. Orlikow: Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba, undertake with the B.B.G. to provide staff to search for talent of a professional nature to be handled by a producer employed by the station; to give them training; to permit them to train on the station's facilities; and to video-tape their rehearsals and, if so (a) has this policy been followed by the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba (b) how much of this type of programming has been done?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes (a) Stations are not required in the logging process to file information of this kind with board, (b) The board does not have this information. It would be the intention of the board at the public hearing of the application for renewal of the licence which
Questions
expires on March 31, 1966, to examine the licensee on the station's operation in the light of undertakings of this kind.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG-LIVE PROGRAMMING IN PRIME TIME
Mr. Orlikow: Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba, undertake with the B.B.G. to devote a substantial part of the prime television time from 9.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. to live programming and, if so (a) how much live televising did they undertake to program (b) how much of this prime time has the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Mantioba, devoted to live programming since they began to operate?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes. (a) The program schedule included in the application brief listed the hours from 9.30 to 11 p.m. as live programming. (b) The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG-MUSICAL PROGRAMMING
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba, undertake with the B.B.G., when they applied for the Winnipeg t.v. rights, to televise regular programs of (a) popular music with orchestra, vocalists (prizes for songs especially written for the program) (b) concerts featuring professional musicians, ballet and symphony (c) amateurs-featuring performers picked in auditions all over the province and paid for their performances (d) western music featuring orchestra, vocalist and square dancers (e) ethnic programs-featuring music, dances, songs and costumes in the traditional manner of the large ethnic groups of Manitoba and including an orchestra singers and dancers?
2.	If so (a) how much time per week for each did they undertake to provide (b) how much time per week for each type listed above has been provided by the private t.v. station in Winnipeg since it began to operate?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2. (a) 30 minutes each, (b) The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG- DRAMA PROGRAMMING
Mr. Orlikow: 1. Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba, undertake with the B.B.G. to televise regular programs of (a)

Questions
family theatre-consisting of live productions produced in Canadian cities including Winnipeg (b) excerpts from plays and musical productions or from rehearsals of the same, on a continuing basis, produced in Winnipeg (c) high school or university students in dramatic plays, vocal or instrumental performances, physical fitness demonstrations or panel discussions?
2. If so (a) how much time per week for each did they undertake to provide (b) how much time per week for each type of program listed above has been provided by the private t.v. station in Winnipeg since it began to operate?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2. (a) 30 minutes, 30 minutes and three hours respectively, (b) the board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG-ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the successful applicants for the private t.v. channel in Winnipeg, Manitoba, undertake with the B.B.G. to produce an adult education series in co-operation with the University of Manitoba, the Winnipeg museum, and other groups and dealing in a documentary and searching manner with important subjects?
2.	If so (a) have such programs been produced and shown by the private t.v. station in Winnipeg (b) how often since the station began operations have such programs been televised?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Yes.
2. The board does not keep a continuous detailed record of the material broadcast by the station since it began operating and it is not, therefore, able to provide the information requested.


TELEVISION STATION CJAY, WINNIPEG- REVOCATION OF LICENCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Will the B.B.G. give consideration to revoking the licence of the owners of CJAY, Winnipeg, Manitoba, if an examination of the record discloses that undertakings regarding programming have not been met by the successful applicants for such t.v. rights?
2.	Is the B.B.G. considering any alternatives such as transferring the licence to other interests?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. The board has no authority under the Broadcasting Act to revoke a station's licence.
2. The board has no authority under the Broadcasting Act to transfer the licence of a station to other interests.
[Mr. Orlikow.)
Under the regulations pursuant to the Radio Act an initial licence is issued for a period of five years. When the licence of CJAY-TV terminates on March 31, 1966, it is expected that an application for its renewal will be filed with the Department of Transport. Such an application with the Department of Transport. Such an application will be referred to the board by the Minister of Transport for a recommendation following a public hearing.
On October 7, 1960, the board wrote to the licensee of CJAY-TV calling attention to the specific program undertakings given at the time of the original application. It would be the intention of the board at the public hearing of the application for renewal of the licence to examine the licensee on the station's operating in the light of these undertakings.


TELEVISION STATION CBLT, TORONTO-COLOUR REBROADCASTS
Mr. Gelber: What would be the installation cost for CBLT to rebroadcast in colour, network programs which it is presently rebroadcasting in black and white?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that a limited conversion of the facilities of CBLT Toronto sufficient to permit this station only to give colour transmission of the U.S. network colour programs would incur a capital cost of approximately $175,000. This conversion would not permit the colour transmission of any Canadian insertions in these programs, either live or filmed, nor any live or filmed programs originating in the Toronto studios.


EXTENSION OF PROVINCIAL PROGRAMS TO INDIANS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has any province indicated interest in extending provincial programs to Indians as discussed at the recent federal-provincial conference and, if so, which provinces have indicated an interest and in which programs?
2.	Have any of the provinces proposed an agreement with the federal government to extend the range of services offered by the province for the Indian population of that province and, if so, which provinces, what services and under what terms?


Hubert Badanai: 1. Yes. All provinces indicated an interest in extending provincial programs to Indians. This interest was expressed at the conference in terms of a broad range of services rather than to particular programs.
2. No firm agreement was proposed. However, various suggestions on the kinds of services that might be made available to

Indians were put forward which might be used as a basis for future discussions, all within the general framework that the Indians in each province concerned must be consulted about proposals before any final agreement is reached.


MARRIED QUARTERS, R.C.A.F., OTTAWA
Mr. Pritlie: 1.	How many units of public married quarters are occupied by commissioned officers of the R.C.A.F in the Ottawa area at the present date?
2.	How many commissioned officers are on a waiting list for such accommodation at this time?
3.	How many units of public married quarters are at present occupied by non-commissioned officers and airmen of the R.C.A.F. in the Ottawa area?
4.	How many N.C.O.'s and airmen are on a waiting list for public married quarters accommodation?
5.	If a separate waiting list for airmen, excluding N.C.O.'s is maintained, how many are on the list at the present time?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. 149.
2.	114.
3.	663.
4.	411.
5.	A separate waiting list for aircraftsmen is not maintained.
Questions


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION, WORLD TRANSPORT EXHIBITION
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the government of Canada accepted the invitation to send an exhibit to the world transportation exhibition to be held in Munich next year and, if so, what is the nature of the exhibit?
2.	What phases of transportation will it cover?
3.	What Canadian groups other than government will be represented at the exhibition?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The government of Canada did not accept an invitation to sponsor an exhibit in the international exhibition of transport and communications to be held in Munich next year. In so far as the interests of the Department of Trade and Commerce are concerned, it is recognized that the success of any exhibit designed to promote trade depends to a large extent on active participation by industry. In this instance, the long duration of the exhibition running from June 25 to October 3, 1965 made it impractical to expect that exhibiting firms could make senior sales personnel available to man their exhibits in Munich for such a lengthy period.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No information has been received by my department that any Canadian groups other than government will be represented at the exhibition.


REFIT OF H.M.C.S. &quot;SKEENA&quot;
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Were tenders called for the refit, repairs or conversion of H.M.C.S. Skeena?
2.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
3.	To what firm was the contract awarded and is the amount of the contract a firm price?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes.
2.	Tenders were invited for the conversion and refit of H.M.C.S. Skeena on 21 April, 1964. The names of the tenderers and quoted ceiling prices, excluding federal sales tax, are as follows: Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., $2,873,193.75; Marine Industries Ltd., $2,950,420; St. John Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. Ltd., $2,980,000.; Canadian Vickers Ltd., $3,626,727; Halifax Shipyards, $4,332,409.
3.	The contract was awarded, 14 July, 1964, to Davie Shipbuilding Limited, Lauzon, Quebec, and the amounts payable under the contract are comprised of two elements: (i) a firm price for overhead and fees; and (ii) a ceiling price, target incentive arrangement for labour and material.


COST OF CADET PROGRAMS
Mr. Olson: What was the total cost to the federal government for the air cadet program, the sea cadet program and the army cadet program for the fiscal years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64?
Hon. Paul Hellyer	(Minister	of NationalDefence)	Sea	Army	AirYear	cadets	cadets	cadets1961-62	$1,480,000	$3,861,000	$2,371,0001962-63	1,481,000	4,213,000	2,264,0001963-64	1,500,000	4,772,000	2,516,000


NEW INDUSTRIES IN DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Coates: 1.	With respect to question No. 1,846 answered by the Minister of Industry on September 14. 1964, what are the names of the companies to which certificates have been granted which have established in designated areas?
2.	In each case, what is the area, capital investment, type of industry and employment?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. None of the new industries referred to in the answer to question No. 1,846 has yet

Questions
requested certificates for the purpose specified in section 71A of the Income Tax Act as amended June 18, 1964.
2. Not applicable.


CENTENNIAL PROJECTS, ALBERTA
Mr. Horner (Jasper-: Edson):
What are the names, numbers and status of all projects applied for by the province of Alberta for grants under the national centennial commission?


Maurice Lamontagne: The centennial commission has received from the province of Alberta the following applications for grants under the federal-provincial centennial grants programs: (1) city of Calgary, construction of a planetarium; (2) town of Bowness, construction and equipping of a senior citizens' lounge; (3) village of Killam, construction and equipping of a sports ground.
Their projects have all been referred back to the provincial authorities for further information.


INVITATION TO TRADE MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Trade and Commerce receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.


INVITATION TO MINES MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: No.


INVITATION TO STATE SECRETARY TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Secretary of State receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Maurice Lamontagne: No.


INVITATION TO VETERANS AFFAIRS MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Veterans Affairs receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: No.


INVITATION TO INDUSTRY MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the minister of industry and defence production receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the minister of industry and defence production is concerned the answer is, no.


INVITATION TO AGRICULTURE MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Agriculture receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Harry William Hays: No.


INVITATION TO CITIZENSHIP MINISTER TO VISIT PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard: Did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration receive an invitation to visit Prince Rupert to participate in the celebrations surrounding the 100th deep sea ship to call at that port this year and, if so, from whom was the invitation received and what reply was given thereto?


Hubert Badanai: No.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. McIntosh: 1. As of January 1, 1964, how many of the public officials of the government of Canada, excluding the armed services and the R.C.M.P., held their offices through appointment by order in council?

2. As of January 1, 1964, how many of the public officials of the government of Canada, excluding the armed services and the R.C.M.P., held their offices through appointment under the Civil Service Act.
Return tabled.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the inadequacy of the terms of reference contained in order in council P.C. 1964/1819 appointing a commission to inquire into certain allegations.
Under the rules of the house I believe I am permitted to give reasons for the urgency which arises with respect to this matter. On Monday last information was elicited from the Minister of Justice to the effect that he had conveyed to him on August 14 last information that serious allegations had been made with respect to certain persons close to the government; that he ordered an investigation by the R.C.M.P., receiving transcripts from time to time, and a final report on September 18. It is now clear that the said report indicates that a certain legal counsel was confronted by the executive assistant of one minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and it is alleged that a bribe was offered.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman. He has I believe the right to discuss the adequacy of the order, at this time; but I just raise for his consideration whether it is right, in view of the fact that there is to be a judicial hearing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Whitewash.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure we all want to approach this matter in an understanding and intelligent manner-


John George Diefenbaker: That is all we are asking over here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and it would be wrong for us since we are going to have a hearing, under the direction of the chief
Administration of Justice justice of the superior court of Quebec, to say in the house, in discussing the adequacy of the order anything that would reflect in any way upon the kind of matter which is to be determined as a matter of fact by the judge. I know that my hon. friend, whose fairness in these things I recognize, would be among the first to appreciate that there is the greatest merit in what I am now saying.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing only with the urgency of debate and I am pointing out not rumours or casting aspersions but facts which the minister himself has already confirmed.


Mitchell William Sharp: They are not facts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He has already confirmed that allegations were made by a counsel in Montreal alleging, first of all, that he was offered a bribe-as I have already pointed out-and alleging also that an attempt was made to intimidate him. As a result of these allegations which came to the minister through the report of the R.C.M.P., the minister apparently took no immediate action other than to decide, in consultation with the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to rise on a point of order, but surely my hon. friend is now commenting upon the kind of matter that will be examined by the commissioner who has been appointed by the governor in council today. I call Your Honour's attention to citation 149 at page 127 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which says:
Besides the prohibitions contained in standing order 35: it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
Then there are paragraphs (a) and (b); and (c) is:
-refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending-


Gilles Grégoire: There is no judicial decision pending.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: There is. Today the governor in council appointed the chief justice of the superior court of Quebec to conduct an inquiry pursuant to the terms of the order which has been tabled. My submission, with respect, is that any discussion in this house now on matters within the scope of that inquiry, that are sub judice, would be in violation of this decision-


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Whitewash.

Administration of Justice


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -and my hon. friend was, I think, the first to suggest that this inquiry should be established. Now that it has been established, if we are to usurp the functions of the commissioner we are certainly prejudicing that inquiry, and I know that is not what my hon. friend wants to do. I do not mind his arguing whether the order is adequate for the purpose he believes, but 1 do not believe that it is right, that it is fair, that it is within our rules to discuss a phase of this matter that now comes under the order passed by the body that has the executive power and that covers something the commissioner alone can decide. My hon. friend knows that the Department of Justice estimates will be up tomorrow, at which time he may discuss the adequacy of the matter. I do beseech him now not to traverse an area that will be covered under this order in council by a judge.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister of external affairs in one breath says it would be highly improper to discuss this whole case now since an order in council has been passed, yet in the second breath he tells me that tomorrow during consideration of the Department of Justice estimates I will be able to go into this matter fully.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely my hon. friend knows I did not say that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I did say was that tomorrow my hon. friend could discuss the adequacy of the order; but at no time, now or tomorrow or at any time until the chief justice comes to a decision, has any member under our rules the right to discuss a matter that is now within the exclusive competence of the judge.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Bow River.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to answer the minister for external affairs. I was rather interested in rule 149, and should like to repeat what the minister said He read this part:
(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending-
I assume the minister means the matter within the terms of reference as laid down

by the order in council. Therefore this might depend on his interpretation of what has been laid down, or it might depend on the interpretation by the leader of the New Democratic party as to what has not been laid down; but surely that is a matter for decision and discretion. I suggest that the leader of the New Democratic party is squarely within the rule rather than violating it. The matter which is under discussion is the terms of reference which govern the jurisdiction of the judicial inquiry. Therefore if there are matters not covered in the terms of reference, surely it is relevant for the leader of the New Democratic party to discuss the terms of reference this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I will not refer to the happenings of the past few days, if that touches upon the tender susceptibilities of the minister for external affairs. I am led to believe that perhaps this order in council was passed as quickly as it was so as to prevent any discussion asked for yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: All I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that the happenings of the past few days have profoundly shaken the confidence of the members of this house and the people of Canada in the administration of justice in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yesterday when the Minister of Justice outlined the terms of reference we requested that those terms be widened; and the Prime Minister said, as recorded in Hansard, that the terms of reference would be sufficiently wide to investigate the propriety of the procedures followed by the Minister of Justice and by the government. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the terms of reference contained in this order in council do nothing of the kind.


Guy Favreau: Read them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The relevant sentence appears at the bottom of the first paragraph where, after setting forth the allegations which had been made, it states:
-to consider such other matters as may appear-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we all want to keep this matter in order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, why is the minister rising at this time?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You rise on a point of order?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Yes.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


An hon. Member:: You sit down too, Paul.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs rising on a point of order?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I am not objecting to my hon. friend's argument as such, but I am-


An hon. Member:: Are you rising on a point of order?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -suggesting that what my hon. friend is-


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to ascertain from the minister whether he is rising on a point of order. He cannot simply ask a question at this time, because the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has the floor.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I am rising on a point of order, and my point of order is this. The hon. gentleman under standing order No. 26 has referred to the matter of urgent importance. The only issue before us now is the urgency of debate. If Your Honour and the house should decide that this is a matter which comes within standing order 26, then my hon. friend would be in order in the argument he is now making. What he has to establish is that within the meaning of the rule this matter is of urgent importance. I point out to him-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do you not think it is
important?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: This is a matter of importance, of course, but whether it is a matter for urgent debate within the meaning of standing order 26 is another thing. The estimates will be up tomorrow, so my hon. friend will have an opportunity then to make the argument he is now making. Surely what he must do now is indicate that under standing order 26 this is a matter involving the right of urgent debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am trying to establish, and shall continue to do so if the minister will stop interrupting. I am making the point that the only relevant clause of these terms of reference is 20220-6654
Administration of Justice "to report on whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution for any offence that may be involved." I say that is too narrow, and that the matter must be discussed today because-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Surely the-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -once this order in council has been implemented and the judicial inquiry set up we will then be precluded from discussing this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that must be discussed today or never. Although the order in council has been passed, the judicial inquiry has not as yet got under way. If we wait until tomorrow or any succeeding day, the government will then take the position that the judge has already been appointed and has commenced his work; therefore we cannot discuss this matter. It seems to me that this house has a right here and now to discuss these terms of reference and to indicate our opinions with respect to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of debate lies in this, that the government and particularly parliament ought to take immediate action to clear away any suspicion, so as to renew the confidence of the people of Canada in the administration of justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That will be very difficult.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That cannot be delayed but ought to be dealt with now. The government ought to realize that any failure to act now will only increase the suspicion which already exists in the minds of a great many people. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is great urgency to discuss this question of the terms of reference, and to discuss it right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, until the Secretary of State for External Affairs intervened there might have been some doubt as to whether the motion made by the hon. member was proper, but the minister certainly removed any possible doubt in that connection. His argument was so cogent that it convinced me entirely of the rightness of what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam advanced. Let us see what has happened here. Yesterday

Administration of Justice the matter was before the house, and in the course of discussion, when the question was raised as to the setting up of the commission ;I said this, as recorded at page 10426 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, with reference to the announcement made a moment ago regarding the setting up of a judicial commission, we in the opposition might want the opportunity of discussing further [DOT]ramifications in connection with this matter which I am informed will be brought before the house. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister whether he is in agreement that no objection would be raised on the part of the government, should the commission be appointed, to having further discussion of the matter in the house when the estimates of the Department of Justice come back to the committee of supply. To that end I suggest to the Prime Minister that they be called again tomorrow and that the order in council, if it has not already been issued, be held back so as to permit further disclosures to be made.
Sir, the Prime Minister replied in a general way as follows:
-the hon. member for Yukon made certain charges, allegations and statements in the house yesterday and had, of course, ample opportunity to do so and he had the right to that opportunity.
. Now, sir, it becomes very clear why it was that at 10.30 this morning no order in council had been passed. The cabinet apparently met thereafter, and with a zeal that has not been characteristic of the government it rushed through an order in council. That order in council is so limited that what I stated yesterday will in effect be the result, namely that the chief justice appointed will be limited to what the government wants to produce in order to bring about a whitewash.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice raises objection. I saw him on television last night, and after listening to him I can only conclude that the Liberal philosophy today is that it is a greater offence to criticize wrongdoing than to commit it. The day before yesterday the minister said there was nothing to this matter, that it was false that anybody in his department was involved, but yesterday he had to back down. I can understand the annoyance of the government, because after all when wrongdoing is found out then there is immediate repentance, but we do not intend to have the matter swept aside in that fashion. What is the wording of this order in council? The wording of the order in council-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-
IMr. Diefenbaker.]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Labour on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: He has some papers to produce.
Another hon. Member: Produce your papers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order based upon the motion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition had the floor, but the minister is raising a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: He is raising a point of order on something that did not arise out of my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I have the co-operation of all hon. members. The understanding of the Chair is that a motion has been made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and hon. members of all parties have the opportunity under the rules to address the Chair on the question of urgency. While they are doing this I believe it is not against the rules for a member to rise on a question of privilege or a point of order. It is my understanding this is what the Minister of Labour is attempting to do at this stage, and I feel he should be recognized by the Chair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, all I ask is a ruling on a very simple point. I understand that when a motion of this kind is urged under standing order No. 26 the only possible discussion than can take place is whether the regular business of the house ought to be set aside, whether the proceedings set down on the order paper to occupy us today should be set aside, and that there is no alternative opportunity for debating the matter sought to be raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I understand that is the only point before the Chair, and we are ready to argue that point. But I suggest that for the Leader of the Opposition to debate the whole attitude and conduct of the Minister of Justice is out of order, that he has been trespassing on the rules of the house, and that he ought to be asked to confine himself to the specific point whether the business of the house should be set aside for this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the Chair mentioned a moment ago, and all hon. members

will recognize this, the point at issue is simply the question of urgency of debate for the guidance of the Chair in reaching a decision whether standing order 26 should be applied in this case. I would invite all hon. members who participate in the debate at this stage to confine their remarks to this limited point, that is the question of urgency of debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had been doing a remarkable job of keeping to that point. To return once more to the question of urgency, I said at the beginning that had it not been for the explanation by the Secretary of State for External Affairs I might have understood the objection, but he made it very clear that we are not to have the opportunity tomorrow of dealing with this whole question and bringing forward further allegations, if we so choose, regarding matters that have remained hidden and would have remained hidden but for the hon. member for Yukon. If the government will say now that tomorrow when the estimates of the department of defence are called-


An hon. Member:: Department of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: The Department of Justice; it is the justice that needs defence at the moment. If the government will say that tomorrow when the estimates of the justice department are called-


An hon. Member:: 


John George Diefenbaker: They are going to be called tomorrow, I understand.


Guy Favreau: I asked for it yesterday. They will be called because I asked for it myself.


An hon. Member:: Did you tell the Prime Minister?


John George Diefenbaker: I am going to pay my tribute to the Minister of Justice. He is most anxious to have these things called now, and all I ask him is this.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Stop smearing.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not know of anybody better at that than your whole group.


John George Diefenbaker: Will he give the house the assurance now that tomorrow we will have the opportunity to discuss fully not only the contents of this order in council but as well such further matters arising therefrom as we think advisable? If he will, I will immediately say there is no urgency and that the matter can be discussed tomorrow. Will the minister say this?
Administration of Justice


Guy Favreau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, within the rules of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The same old bunch.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that indicates exactly what the government intend to do, to put the lid on this thing and cover it up. That is what they want to do. In view of the answer of the minister I say we will not have the opportunity tomorrow as was suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The answer of the minister is a fine revelation. They intend to hide behind the rules, to cover this thing up, to conceal it.


An hon. Member:: Smother it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What are they afraid of?


John George Diefenbaker: Never was the question of urgency more completely uncovered and supported than by the interruption by the Minister of Justice. It is obvious now that if we do not get at this matter today we are not going to have a chance tomorrow because the minister has refused to say that he will permit us to discuss it. Sir, the Canadian people are not going to be deluded by a scheme such as this to cover up evidence and to continue the concealment that characterizes the Department of Justice and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as well as a parliamentary secretary in the Prime Minister's office. There has never been a case where there has been less communication among members of the government or between departments.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: We want to get to the bottom of this matter. It is urgent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has been going far beyond the prescribed limit of this debate, which is concerned with the consideration of the question of urgency. I am not going to deal with the irrelevancies

Administration of Justice that my right hon. friend introduced. I am sorry he wrongly said that the government is not prepared to face any other suggestions with regard to the inquiry. The Minister of Justice was as forthcoming-	.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend laughs. What did the Minister of Justice say? The Minister of Justice said "Of course, within the rules". Surely the Leader of the Opposition, who is a custodian of the rules by virtue of his office, would not object to that addition. Of course we must act within the rules. There is nothing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is nothing within our rules that will prevent-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is nothing within our rules-


Colin Cameron: I rise on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the
Acting Prime Minister is speaking to a point of order. We should hear him first and the hon. member can speak to the point of order thereafter.


Colin Cameron: It may be a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs rose and got recognition at a time when it should have been the turn of this party to be recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I want to say in fairness-and I know what the hon. gentleman has said-that in the normal routine it would have been h:s party's turn. I just thought that as leader of the house, and in view of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, it was only right to emphasize what had been said by the Minister of Justice, that he would be prepared to meet-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: -this further inquiry; and he added, "within the rules of the house". I say that no hon. member can, on reflection, take exception to that. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he will look at the order now as drawn, he will see it was not hastily drawn.


John George Diefenbaker: No, it certainly was not.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: He will find that, within the context of the matters charged in this house, it is as open as any terms of reference could be.


An hon. Member:: This is not a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the
Acting Prime Minister is relinquishing the floor to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam on a point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Whether he is or not, I am rising on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Acting Prime Minister is now proceeding to discuss the order in council and the terms of reference, the very thing he denied me the right to do when he asked Your Honour to intervene and prevent me from doing that. The rules ought to apply, since he pays such tribute to them, to both sides of the house. I was denied the right to discuss this order in council and the terms of reference. Now the leader of the government gets up and says the Leader of the Opposition should read the order in council, then he proceeds to discuss the order in council under the pretext of raising a point of order which is no point of order at all. He rose on what was allegedly a point of order and proceeded to take part in the debate. It seems to me that if Your Honour is going to allow the Acting Prime Minister to discuss the order in council, then it would be very wise to accept this motion and let us all discuss the order in council.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member is well taken. The Chair has invited hon. members to limit their contributions to the motion now before the house and to the question of urgency. Going back five or ten minutes, I believe the right hon. Leader of the Opposition had the floor, and I suggest if all points of order have been taken up and exhausted, we should return to him.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the time I was so cavalierly interrupted I was trying to point out the urgency, and established the urgency out of the mouth of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as well as the Minister of Justice. His interruption cleared up the matter absolutely. What

the government intends to do, having secured this order in council, is to take the stand when the subject comes up on the justice estimates that we shall not be able to discuss these matters because, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, they are sub judice.
Well, sir, that was one of the major reasons that yesterday I asked the government to refrain from tabling the order in council until there had been an opportunity to bring out further revelations if we chose to do so. That has now been denied.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no, they say. Well, if they are changed tomorrow, I can only say that their attitude for the last several days has been the very reverse. Since August 14 they have hidden everything. Now that revelations have taken place they do not want parliament to discuss the matter any more. The Minister of Justice admits that tomorrow, within the rules-and the rules have already been set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-we would be denied this opportunity. In other words parliament is being throttled. Members of parliament are being denied the opportunity to place before parliament and the country additional matters which may be of interest; matters, I am sure, that will reveal to any objective individual further support to what has already been advanced in the past two days.
I am surprised the government is not anxious to discuss this, because I would have thought the Minister of Justice would be the first to say "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall". That is one thought that should certainly apply when political considerations are being considered or have been considered by the government.


An hon. Member:: Justice will be done.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Liberal justice. [Translation]


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, once more we see that the house is wasting valuable time that should be normally spent on the estimates of the various departments in order to discuss a matter which has been discussed since the beginning of the week.


An hon. Member:: Move over.


Marcel Lessard: Just a minute and you will find out.
Administration of Justice [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what do we see today? Two political parties trying to make political capital for the forthcoming election, to the detriment of Canadians who have to witness relatively sterile debates.
Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing a motion by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) to ascertain whether the business of the house for today should be set aside in order to consider the motion of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) to set up an inquiry commission to look into the case already mentioned.
I do not see any purpose in spending two hours today to reconsider that matter.
A commission will be set up and each and every hon. member of the house who wishes to do so can appear before that commission. If the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) wish to appear before that commission in order to present new facts which have apparently not been drawn to the attention of the house, they will have an opportunity to do so, and I hope they can bring forward evidence to support the charges they have made.
You may hear this later if you so desire.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we will gain nothing if we spend two and one half hours today listening to discussions on this matter.
In closing, may I make this suggestion to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). Since, apparently, we must hear the remarks of some hon. members on this question, I suggest that the estimates of the Department of Justice be discussed today.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to that.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The Minister of Justice has said he will take his estimates today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am wondering whether the house has taken official notice of the statement just made by the Minister of Justice, which might have some bearing on the decision of the Chair.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-

Administration of Justice


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Justice.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I want that to be very clear. I have not turned down any suggestion that my estimates be examined immediately, if the Conservative opposition and the other opposition parties feel this could help the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I would like to ask the
minister a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have a question for the Minister of Justice which is quite relevant.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It will determine how we vote, obviously.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. For the last 40 or 45 minutes the Chair, pursuant to the rules of the house and pursuant to the special order adopted during the current session of parliament, has given the opportunity to hon. members of the house to take part in the debate and express their views as to the question of urgency of debate. Without trying to go into the matter in great detail, perhaps for the record I should refer to the oft quoted ruling of Mr. Speaker Black, as recorded in the Journals of the house of March 31, 1931, at page 50:
The reason for allowing such a motion for the adjournment is to afford members an opportunity of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance which they could do In no other way-
The matter raised by hon. members is, of course, of very serious importance. It is also urgent; but in view of the fact that the estimates of the Department of Justice will be called later on today, to my mind this ought to have an important and essential bearing on the question of urgency of debate. It is not for the Minister of Justice or the Acting Prime Minister to determine for the Chair in anticipation whether any subject matter, any question, is debatable. It is for the Chair to decide in due course whether a particular subject matter is relevant or irrelevant, and whether it can be debated under the rules.
In view of the fact that there will be a possibility for hon. members to discuss the


matters referred to in the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I suggest that there is no urgency of debate as implied by standing order 26 and, with regret, that must be the decision of the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, there is just one question I think should be cleared up.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Bow River knows the rules. Perhaps he will have an opportunity later on to ask his question, but the point has been disposed of. If his question is allowed it may be very relevant and important, but I am sure he would agree it would not be conducive to the good order of the house if he pursued the debate, once a decision has been rendered by the Chair on the question of urgency. I think we should continue with the regular procedure of the house, which is now motions for the production of papers.

On the orders of the day:


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. We have now had a return in connection with motion No. 186, in which there is no report of any cheques being found within the Department of Labour. Is there not a working paper left by A1 Watson in the Department of Labour known as H-12 which shows that those cheques in question were handed over to the trustees?
Question No. 2, or a related question-you might as well answer both questions while you are on your feet-is this. In view of the admission of the Prime Minister on November 22 on the Pierre Berton show, found at page 33 of the script, and I quote; "There seems to be evidence that individual members of this union or the union itself have contributed to individual members of parliament in Montreal where the S.I.U. had its headquarters"- and the Prime Minister says "evidence"- would the minister be prepared now to give us the names of the members who received those cheques and the purpose for which those cheques were given, which are now in the hands of the trustees according to that working paper?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, of course the order that was passed by the house and for which I made a return with respect to the Department of Labour and the board of trustees had to do with cheques or photostats thereof. A diligent

search of our flies revealed no such cheques or photostats, and the board of trustees advised me likewise with respect to their records. I would say that the perfectly accurate answer to the first question, as I understand it- it was a rather long question-is no, taking into account all aspects of the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I would like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said there was evidence that cheques were paid to individual members of parliament by Banks or the S.I.U., would the minister now tell us to whom those cheques were paid and for what purpose they were paid?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge, nor has any information ever been drawn to my attention, identifying contributions made by the S.I.U. to any individual member of parliament either on this side or the other side of the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said there was evidence, would take the question as notice and advise us-and this is the question again-to whom the cheques were paid and for what purpose.


John George Diefenbaker: And for what amount.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And for what amount. Also, whether there is a working paper known as H.12 in the labour department files showing that those cheques were forwarded to the trustees, and what has happened to them since the time they left the Department of Labour and were handed over to the trustees.


John George Diefenbaker: They must have gone with Banks.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, i wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
Could he tell us if document H-12 referred to by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) mentions the documents handed to the board of trustees and also that cheques were handed to the board of trustees and to whom they were made payable?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is the understanding of the Chair that this is information that has been requested in a motion for the production of papers.


Gilles Grégoire: No.
Administration of Justice


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, this is the type of information that could be requested or required in a motion for the production of papers, rather than sought at this time on the orders of the day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to answer, with the greatest respect to you, and I think he should answer if he has this information. We would certainly like to have it on this side of the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire, wish or determination to conceal any information within the possession of my department with respect to the S.I.U.; but I suggest-and this is the perfectly regular way to do it-that my hon. friend place a motion on the order paper requesting this particular document which he has described as H-12, and we will deal with it in the normal way.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question-


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Lapointe has already posed a supplementary question. The time is limited, and we will come back to the hon. member for Lapointe. The hon. member for Cape Breton South on a supplementary question.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour maintains that there is no evidence available. Why, then, did the Minister of Labour find it necessary to defend the idea of accepting cheques from Mr. Banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the second part of the question. If it was repeated I would be glad to deal with it.


Malcolm MacInnis: The second part of my question was why, then, did the Minister of Labour find it necessary to defend the idea of accepting cheques from this particular labour leader?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour made no such defence at any time or in any place.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.

Administration of Justice
Since the estimates of the Department of Justice will be considered this afternoon, for the last time possibly, and since those cheques are directly related to other operations of the Department of Justice, namely the Banks case, could the Minister of Labour table this afternoon document H-12 which gave the names of those who received and those who signed the cheques handed to the board of trustees?
Could the minister produce that document this afternoon?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This question has already been answered by the minister-


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -and it is the suggestion of the Chair that this is not a proper question on the orders of the day since the information sought by the hon. member for Lapointe and other hon. members would normally be sought and, I assume, obtained if available, through a motion for the production of papers. The hon. member for Halifax.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question-


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I understand that the production of that document may be asked for if a notice of motion for papers is presented, but then our work would be greatly alleviated, because when the document is tabled the estimates will have been adopted, and we will not have had the occasion of performing our duties thoroughly.
That is the reason why I believe that the tabling of this document constitutes a question of privilege and that we are entitled to ask for its production before the estimates of the Department of Justice are passed.
That is why I am asking the Minister of Labour if he can table that document before the estimates of the Department of Justice are carried.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is merely repeating the question he has already asked, and it is the opinion of the Chair that this question cannot be asked at this moment.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Bow River. I would like to direct this question to the Secretary of State; however, in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that certain returns have now been made in relation to notice of motion for the production of papers No. 186, and that these returns come from just two government departments, the office of the Prime Minister and the privy council office and state there are no such cheques in the custody of these offices, can we expect that further returns will be made in relation to this order, or are we to understand that this is the completion of the returns?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the return submitted yesterday, which is a nil return in its entirety, covers the Department of Labour, the maritime board of trustees, the Department of Justice and the office of the Prime Minister. It can be regarded as a partial return. It was submitted because of the urgent request of the hon. member for Churchill. To assume that the return is not only complete, as I believe it now is, but that it is also obviously complete, the order has been sent to ail departments and agencies of the government, and just as soon as their returns to the order have been received those returns will be added to the papers that have already been filed.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the same subject. Possibly I have not looked over the return carefully enough, but I can see nothing about the board of trustees in these returns.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this question was dealt with earlier by the Minister of Labour, who indicated that his return covered not only his department but also the trustees.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In order that we may evaluate the seriousness of the situation, I wonder whether the minister can tell us how much money the government paid in fees to Mr. Lamontagne's firm in 1964; in other words, the amount of Liberal patronage that might be cut off if he insisted on doing his duty to his client?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, of course no minister of justice car-

Motions for Papers
ries in his head these figures as to fees paid out throughout the years. I think that is a question for the order paper.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, certainly this is a question that has been discussed by the minister and the personnel of his department. I am also sure that the happenings in regard to that firm have been discussed thoroughly, and if the minister's estimates are to come up later today I am sure this information is readily available so that he may give it later.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member how he knows that I have discussed this matter, and with whom.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has pointed out that this is the type of question which could be asked during a consideration of the minister's estimates. I suggest that it is certainly not the type of question to be asked at this stage of our proceedings.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Yesterday the Prime Minister, answering a question asked, I think, by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, said that Mr. Joseph Sedgwick was a commissioner involved in examining certain aspects of the work of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and implied that he, that is Mr. Sedgwick, would be investigating the activities of Mr. Raymond Denis in the department.
The question I wish to ask the minister is this. Is it not a fact that Mr. Sedgwick is not a commissioner but simply a legal adviser to the department, and is it not also a fact that he has not been asked to inquire at all into the activities of Mr. Denis in the department?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the setting up of a special inquiry commission under Chief Justice Dorion, as decided by the cabinet, leads us to hope that all the aspects of the problem raised in the house where the name of Mr. Raymond Denis was involved, will be considered and therefore there is no reason now to believe that Mr. Sedgwick would have to conduct an investigation with regard to Mr. Denis' activities since they will be covered by that inquiry.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, motion 189 is acceptable to the government. Motion 192 is acceptable subject to the usual reservation concerning the consent of the provincial government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the house agree to the passing of these motions subject to Ihe restriction mentioned by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, motion 193 is acceptable on the assumption that it refers to the blank forms used by the department in the case of persons applying for the status of landed immigrant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to the passing of this motion subject to the limitation expressed by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Will Your Honour please call motions 190, 191, 194, 195 and 196?



CORRESPONDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 187-Mr. Brewin:
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 exchanged during the past year between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general or other provincial ministers regarding methods of amending the constitution of Canada; and also for other papers and documents prepared for and presented to the meeting held in October between the Minister of Justice and the attorneys genera! relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada.
Guy Favreau: Could this motion be stood for a week?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes.
Motion stands.



MEDICAL SERVICE. MILLBROOK INDIAN RESERVE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 189-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a list of the names and addresses of each medical doctor who attended Indians on the Millbrook Indian reserve in Nova Scotia since January 1, 1955 to whom payments were made for medical services, showing for each calendar year, by name of the doctor the amount so paid.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 190-Mr. Douglas:
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 exchanged between the city of Saskatoon and any minister of the government regarding the federal property and housing units at the Saskatoon airport since January 1, 1964.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there would be no objection to this motion on the understanding that the government would not produce any correspondence regarded by the city as confidential, if there is any such correspondence. So long as it is not confidential it is quite acceptable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to the passing of the motion subject to the reservation mentioned by the Minister of Transport?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 191-Mr. Douglas:
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 exchanged between the rural municipality of Cory and any minister of the government regarding the federal property and housing units at the Saskatoon airport since January 1, 1964.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the same reservation would apply to this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservation mentioned by the Minister of Transport?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 192-Mr. Douglas:
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 exchanged between the government of Saskatchewan and any minister of the government regarding the federal property and housing units at the Saskatoon airport since January 1, 1964.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 193-Mr. Pascoe:
That an order of the house do issue for a true copy of documentation papers of landed immigrants now in use by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 194-Mrs. Jones:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the house a copy of any bid, offer or tender received from the city of Saskatoon by any department of the federal government in connection with federal property at the Saskatoon airport.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the same exception could apply as in the case of the motions of the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), namely that any correspondence which the city has not treated as confidential would be produced, but if there is any that is confidential we would not feel we were entitled to produce it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservations and limitations prescribed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 195-Mrs. Jones:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all letters, telegrams, offers or bids received by any department or agency of the federal government from McNab Park Development Corp. Ltd., in connection with property owned by the federal government at the Saskatoon airport.
['Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman says that all of us in the house regret very much the incidents at Stanleyville, and in particular those that now seem to apply with finality to the Rev. Mr. McMillan. I need not emphasize that we on this side of the house have been greatly concerned about this problem, as was made known by us during the past week. I simply wish to point out that we are not yet sure of the situation as it applies to some of the other Canadians. The suggestion made by the right\nInquiries of the Ministry hon. gentleman is one which I shall be glad to discuss with my colleagues.\nI will only add that the report about Reverend J. Hector McMillan, who was stated to have been slain, appears unfortunately to be true. He represents those fine individuals in our country who are prepared to dedicate themselves to their religious beliefs in their effort to impress on others in other parts of the world the validity of those beliefs. It is also reported that two of his sons were slightly wounded. We have not as yet received any information that any other Canadians were killed or wounded.\nA number of Canadians have been safely evacuated to Leopoldville. They include Mrs. J. Hector McMillan and six children; Mrs. Marshal-Southard and child; Miss Grete Bjerk-seth; Miss Viola Walker; Mr. and Mrs. D. L. Grant; Dr. and Mrs. Melvin Loewen and five children; Sister Suzanne de Notre Dame; Sister Stanislas; Sister Anne de Ste. Marie; Sister Montfort de la Croix. By this morning it appeared that more than 800 hostages had been evacuated by air from Stanleyville to Leopoldville. I hope that within the next day or so I shall be able to report on the welfare and the whereabouts of all the remaining Canadians. I am sure I express on behalf of all members of the house our gratification with regard to those who have been liberated and our sincere regret at the passing of Mr. McMillan.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could make the same reservation in respect of this matter, that anything that is public correspondence we would be happy to produce, but should there be any confidential correspondence we think that should not be done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservation prescribed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

SASKATOON AIRPORT PROPERTY-CONTRACT WITH McNAB CORPORATION Motion No. 196-Mrs. Jones:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any agreement or contract entered into between McNab Park Development Corp. Ltd., and any department or agency of the federal government relating to federal property at the Saskatoon airport.
['Agreed.']
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you call this motion perhaps I could save a little time by assuring the hon. lady that there is no correspondence relating to this motion, and perhaps the motion could therefore be dropped.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the motion withdrawn?


Mrs. Jones:: Yes.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs and all members of the house will want to extend their sympathy to those who were so wantonly murdered in the Congo, and in particular our sympathy to the family of the Rev. Hector McMillan of Avonmore, Ontario. I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, having regard to the circumstances under which this missionary met his death, the government would give consideration toward a grant or pension or ex gratia payment to the widow and six sons?
I think generally there would be acceptance by Canadians of this, because certainly the reverend gentleman stayed on in order to help, in order to succor and in order to bring about peace-his divine mission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman says that all of us in the house regret very much the incidents at Stanleyville, and in particular those that now seem to apply with finality to the Rev. Mr. McMillan. I need not emphasize that we on this side of the house have been greatly concerned about this problem, as was made known by us during the past week. I simply wish to point out that we are not yet sure of the situation as it applies to some of the other Canadians. The suggestion made by the right
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. gentleman is one which I shall be glad to discuss with my colleagues.
I will only add that the report about Reverend J. Hector McMillan, who was stated to have been slain, appears unfortunately to be true. He represents those fine individuals in our country who are prepared to dedicate themselves to their religious beliefs in their effort to impress on others in other parts of the world the validity of those beliefs. It is also reported that two of his sons were slightly wounded. We have not as yet received any information that any other Canadians were killed or wounded.
A number of Canadians have been safely evacuated to Leopoldville. They include Mrs. J. Hector McMillan and six children; Mrs. Marshal-Southard and child; Miss Grete Bjerk-seth; Miss Viola Walker; Mr. and Mrs. D. L. Grant; Dr. and Mrs. Melvin Loewen and five children; Sister Suzanne de Notre Dame; Sister Stanislas; Sister Anne de Ste. Marie; Sister Montfort de la Croix. By this morning it appeared that more than 800 hostages had been evacuated by air from Stanleyville to Leopoldville. I hope that within the next day or so I shall be able to report on the welfare and the whereabouts of all the remaining Canadians. I am sure I express on behalf of all members of the house our gratification with regard to those who have been liberated and our sincere regret at the passing of Mr. McMillan.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I underline the word "specific" when I ask now whether the Canadian government is preparing specific proposals relating to commonwealth trade to present to Prime Minister Wilson and his colleagues at the time of their visit to Ottawa next month.


Mitchell William Sharp: I understand that Mr. Wilson will be here for a very short time only. I expect that during this time we shall have an opportunity of talking about many matters relating to commonwealth trade. I am satisfied Mr. Wilson will raise with us certain complaints which the British government has against the treatment of British exports to Canada. We, in turn, will raise with the British government the question of the duration and

Inquiries of the Ministry application of the 15 per cent tax. I have no doubt that we shall also be talking about the whole problem of stimulating commonwealth trade. But in the short time available I do not think there will be an opportunity to open up any broad issues for lengthy examination.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Labour a question.
As this year's winter works program has already started and as I understand that the federal government still owes the Quebec government over $2 million with regard to last year's contribution to winter works, which creates hardship in some municipalities, which were unable to receive their share of that federal contribution, can the minister tell the house whether his department has not yet paid its contribution and is keeping back this amount due to the Quebec provincial government for last year's work?
If the government has not already done so, when is it hoped that the amount can be paid? [Text]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall be glad to inquire and give an authentic answer tomorrow. I understand we make payments just as soon as the applications come forward in regular form from the province. But I will make inquiries and satisfy the hon. member.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question. I hope the minister can make a full inquiry, because it appears that the province of Quebec government has sent in its applications to the federal government and the latter is delaying its payments.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and in his absence I would direct it to his parliamentary secretary.


Gilles Grégoire: Where is the minister?


Gerald Augustine Regan: In view of the fact that the increase in veterans pensions has now been approved, will the minister make every effort to see to it that the increase, including the retroactivity-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -is in the hands of pensioners in time for Christmas, because of the need of pensioners in that regard?


Mr. C. W. Carter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, every effort is being made to have these cheques in the mail before Christmas.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question related to the increase of the interest rate to \\ per cent announced yesterday by the Bank of Canada.
Does not the Minister of Finance think that this move will result in a tighter money situation, a tight monetary and credit policy in general and an economic paralysis more serious than the present one, contrary to what the president of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Louis Rasminsky, stated yesterday?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister with reference to a statement by the Minister of Agriculture, in which he said:
I understand far better now than I used to what Prime Minister Pearson means when he says Canada needs some new politics.
My question is this. Would the Acting Prime Minister say that the actions of the government in the last few days represent the new politics referred to by the Minister of Agriculture?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I would say this. It is incumbent on all of us in this house to act in a manner conducive to the high traditions of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That applies to the government, but let me remind my hon. friend that it applies in equal measure to hon. gentlemen who sit opposite.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after that pious ejaculation all I can say is "Physician, heal thyself".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he is now in a position to advise the house regarding the conviction of two members of the R.C.M. Police. As far back as July 15 or 16 last they were convicted of an offence concerning the misapplication of funds, and their sentences were under review. Is the minister in a position now to give the house an answer to a question that has been asked several times in this regard? If he has no answer to give at this time, will he explain the very long delay that has taken place in his department?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, my estimates will be before the house in a few minutes, and I think that is a good question to ask at that time.



COMPENSATION FOR STAFF WITH REGARD TO LATE SITTINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council and relates to some of our proceedings during the last few days when we have, by tacit consent, extended the sitting hours. I should like to know whether the staff-the protective staff, pages, interpreters and all others affected by this action on our part-are to
Inquiries of the Ministry receive extra pay for the extra hours they have been obliged to put in.
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy
Council): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand they are. The system involving compensatory leave and extra pay is rather involved, and applies in a different way to different parts of the House of Commons staff. I will obtain full information in this regard and provide my hon. friend with the information.
As far as the protective staff are concerned, for example, if they put in up to two hours of overtime this is covered by an internal arrangement, but if the overtime is more than two hours the employees are credited with a full half day extra pay. I will give complete details to my hon. friend.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I believe the minister has received a telegram from an association representing a very large number of service station operators, informing him of a price war resulting from the dumping of European gasoline at distress prices, which is being sold at 9 cents per gallon under the normal price. Has the minister been able to take any steps to meet the requests of these operators and other interested parties?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman has said I have received representations from the Ontario retail gasoline association, and today I replied as follows:
Thank you for your telegram November 20. I already have the situation referred to in your telegram under active investigation with a view to relieving the present hardship being experienced by members of your association in the metropolitan Toronto area.
The course of this investigation, Mr. Speaker, has been this. I have been meeting with representatives of all the companies engaged in the petroleum business in Canada, and I have informed them that the government continues to support the national oil policy and will, if necessary, take steps to prevent the disruption of that policy by imports of gasoline from Europe at distress prices.

Supply-Veterans Affairs EDUCATION



STUDENT LOANS-DESIGNATION OF CREDIT UNIONS TO OPERATE AS BANKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has the answer today to my question in relation to the student loans plan and credit unions, which he said he would obtain.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to my hon. friend for not having answered this question yesterday, but I was very busy and concerned with a number of things, particularly with the financial situation in the world.
The answer is that 47 credit unions have been designated to operate as banks under the Canada Student Loans Act so far. Two of them are in Nova Scotia, four in Ontario, four in Manitoba, 26 in Saskatchewan and 11 in British Columbia.

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


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, last night when we were dealing with the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs one item was carried, and I should like to draw the committee's attention to it. In the supplementary estimates (C) at page 5, item 10c under the heading "Schedule B" in the third column the word "annual" is used. The word should be "monthly". This is a rather obvious typographical error which does not affect the amount of the item itself. However, I wanted to mention this fact so the appropriation bill itself will be completely accurate. I have inquired and I am informed that no action is needed other than to be sure it is correct in the appropriation bill when it comes forward.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Vote No. 1-


George James McIlraith: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Howe's arrogance but none of his brains.


George James McIlraith: I think the assessment of brain power will be made by hon. members of the committee on the strength of the remark of the hon. gentleman.


William Heward Grafftey: I regret I said that. I am very sorry.


George James McIlraith: In any event, I want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that when I announced the business of the house last night I indicated we would call first the estimates of the Minister of Forestry, the unemployment insurance item, public works and national revenue. Today at the motion stage of proceedings suggestions were made about proceeding with the Department of Justice immediately. I must admit frankly that I did not hear all that was said on that point, but I am in the hands of the committee with regard to whether they wish to proceed with justice or forestry.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I wonder whether the minister could answer this question. This is going to be a very short day and wre have many matters to discuss in justice. Will we go on with justice tomorrow too? It is important to know now.


George James McIlraith: I do not know. That is up to the committee.
Mr Fairwealher: We want to know now.


George James McIlraith: All I can say to the committee is that certain arrangements were made and the understanding last night and up until the proceedings on motions today was that justice would be called tomorrow instead of today, because today is a short day. I do not know what those who asked to have the forestry and national revenue items brought forward will say about this. It is a matter purely for the opposition groups.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point that the government house leader has raised, Mr. Chairman, may I say it is not up to the committee. The government calls the business of the house. We have had good co-operation this week in respect of the business of the house, and under the circumstances I think the government house leader should say that the estimates of the Department of Justice will continue as the first item tomorrow. In view of what we achieved yesterday we might be able to complete justice and deal with forestry and the other items tomorrow evening.


George James McIlraith: I am quite agreeable to that as long as none of the other opposition groups raises any question about proceeding with ARDA and national revenue.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed any further, it has been drawn to my attention by a colleague that in the last question I put to the Minister of Justice there may have been an imputation in my words that

I certainly did not intend. What I meant by my words was that when the Minister of Justice heard of this affair I was sure he would have ascertained that Mr. Lamontagne was indeed a crown agent and that it would have been natural for the minister to find out whether the department had made use of his services only once or had been using him for some time. I intended to imply nothing further in my remarks.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration Including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or other dependants of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,109,600.


Lucien Lamoureux: When this vote was being considered on November 23 an amendment by the hon. member for Yukon was before the committee. Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, since the announcement by the Minister of Justice yesterday that there would be a judicial inquiry into the matters which I raised on November 23 I have been considering very carefully whether or not my responsibility should be to continue with the matters I raised on November 23 and to expand upon them. I have come to the conclusion that that is precisely my responsibility and that is my intention today.
On November 23 the minister made certain replies to the matters which I raised and I think these replies are deserving of careful examination and criticism. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Dollard is not in his seat. He was here this afternoon but he is not here now. Obviously the remarks affected the hon. member in view of his subsequent action. In view of the remarks which the minister has made publicly over national television networks I say to him again and I assure all members of the house it is not my intention in raising these matters to cast innuendo or smear on anyone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Supply-Justice


Erik Nielsen: The minister laughs. He made such an accusation last evening on national television and he made it on Monday. I say to the minister that instead of launching upon personal attacks against me he would be following a more proper and prudent course if he would make the explanations which this house and the country demand of him.
Several questions have arisen in the minds of a good many, I am sure, with respect to this whole affair that must be explained. The Minister of Justice is under obligation to explain them and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is also under such an obligation. I would put some of these questions to the minister arising out of his remarks. I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is in his seat.
I am sure members of the committee will be interested to know that there are others involved in this affair. The minister knows this, as a matter of fact, because it is in the police report. I believe the minister knows full well that a certain Mr. Gignac has been arrested in Montreal on a charge of capital murder and I give the minister this opportunity to explain to the committee, if he will, what connection Mr. Gignac has with this whole affair. These remarks should not be taken as carrying any inferences at all.
I think the minister should explain to the house what, if any, connection Mr. Gignac has with the bribe offer itself, what appears to be a bribe offer particularly in view of the remarks by the solicitor, Mr. Lamontagne, to whom I referred. The minister is quite aware now that Mr. Lamontagne has substantially supported what I had to say on November 23. He has said indeed that a bribe was offered to him and he has also said that he had received telephone calls from others. The press reports I have read contain some conflicting quotations from Mr. Lamontagne. Some of these refer to Mr. Lamontagne as having stated that he did not recognize Mr. Lord's voice on the telephone and others express the contrary view.
I believe that either the minister or the Prime Minister is under obligation to explain fully to members of the house now the connection that the hon. member for Dollard has with the whole affair. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has several questions to answer. He should explain whether or not he had any part at all, and I do not suggest from that remark that he did have any part at all to play in this matter.

Supply-Justice


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: You would not know much about that over there.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend is a lawyer, and he will appreciate this. This royal commission is going into this matter-


Some hon. Members:: Here it comes.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The Leader of the Opposition, who has had a lot of experience in the law, knows quite well that what I am saying now is on the soundest ground. It is absolutely wrong to discuss now the kind of action-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is a trick.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The hon. member says it is a trick. He was a distinguished attorney general and knows, in his heart, it is no trick.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Let us discuss the whole thing.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend asked for the investigation, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked for this investigation and the government has acceded to this investigation. Now, under our system, once a judicial function has been created the legislative does not interfere within the areas assigned to the judicial function. It would make a mockery of the bill of rights.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: It would make a mockery of our judicial system, I am sure, inasmuch as the implications refer to persons alleged to be involved in these matters that now can be reviewed only by a judge. Surely that is clear, Mr. Chairman, otherwise our system of justice means nothing; otherwise the rule of law means nothing; otherwise the bill of rights means nothing. Surely this is clear. I know that the hon. gentleman, who is a good lawyer himself, and who was on his feet before I rose, will find it difficult to take issue with what I have said, unless he can explain that what he is dealing with now is outside the context of the inquiry established today by the governor in council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and it will only take two sentences. I cannot allow the Acting Prime Minister to use me as a refuge behind which to hide when he says that I asked for this inquiry.


An hon. Member:: You did.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is true, I asked for a judicial inquiry, but I also urged first that there be the widest possible terms of reference. I also supported the contention of the Leader of the Opposition that this inquiry should be established immediately after we had disposed of the justice estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just say to the hon. gentleman, what could be wider than the terms of reference that are before us now?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Let us debate that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us debate that. Let us see what could be wider than the terms of reference before us.
First of all, my hon. friend asked for an inquiry and we instituted an inquiry. Then, we outlined the terms of reference that we had in mind and we are told that they are too circumscribed. We bring forward terms of reference that provide for the fullest inquiry.


Francis Andrew Brewin: You know they are restricted terms.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is a shocking cover-up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says it is a shocking cover-up. I would remind him that this kind of observation is designed to create an impression.
I should like to remind this house what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was dealing with a matter-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; my understanding is that the Acting Prime Minister is on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: I think a question of privilege can be raised-


Lucien Lamoureux: No. The hon. member is wrong on that point. The point of order must be heard first and the question of privilege will then be studied when the minister resumes his seat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to take to heart the words of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, words which he uttered in the house in connection with matters of this sort.


An hon. Member:: You did not take them to heart half an hour ago.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I refer hon. members to page 4410 of Hansard, volume IV, 1959, where the present Leader of the Opposition is reported as saying:
Mr. Speaker, I know of no contradictions such as are suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. I may say a committee is not set up for the purpose of resolving contradictions. The circumstances under which a committee is set up are very clearly shown to be based upon a charge or charges made by a member of this house. All of us know what happens when charges are made.
I would ask my hon. friend who intervened a moment ago to recall that.
If charges are made, the house has the opportunity of determining whether they should be submitted to a committee. And if any hon. member makes a charge he, of course, has to substantiate that charge and if he fails to substantiate the charge the parliamentary tradition, indeed all the experience of the past, indicates that such a member having made a charge unconfirmed and unsupported may be himself adjudged guilty of a breach of the privileges of the house.
Then, the right hon. gentleman quoted from Sir Wilfrid Laurier as follows:
The house, I hope will not depart from the sound traditions which have come to us from England and according to which there could be no inquisition into any man's conduct or standing except on charges made specifically.
Now, there were charges made with regard to one aspect of this matter and those charges have now gone before a judicial commission. I say that in the name of justice now, for us, having asked for this inquisition to take place, to indulge in an inquiry of our own with regard to these matters, is not following the rules of this house or the sense of justice under which we operate.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the right hon. Leader of the Opposition rising on a point of order? Perhaps I should mention that the hon. member for Lapointe wanted to raise a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like first of all to refer you to standing order 17 which states:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
The standing order applies even if the question of privilege is raised during consideration of a point of order. I think that has always been the practice in the house except in the ruling you have just given.
This is my question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I feel the house leader, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) misled some hon. members when he asked that a time limit be set for consideration of remain-
Supply-Justice
ing estimates, because he stated that we would have full opportunity of examining those estimates.
And now, we have a week, seven full days to consider the estimates.
As house leader, the President of the Privy Council had told us that we would have full opportunity to do so, but at the same time other members of the government, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), raise points of order without any reason.
The day before yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) rose twice on questions of privilege which were not in order. The house leader had promised us that we would have full opportunity to consider the estimates, but since his colleagues of the cabinet unduly delay the discussion of the estimates, we are being prevented from dealing with those matters.
That is why I say that the house leader misguided the members of the house, that he had us concur in a motion to restrict the discussion of estimates under false pretences.
And today, because of the deceit of the house leader, we will no longer be in a position to discuss the estimates as we would have liked, especially those of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), following the doings of other members of the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it required no particular precision to realize earlier today that what the government intended to do was go through the pretence of calling the estimates of the Department of Justice this afternoon, and then endeavour to cover up and conceal the facts and deny parliament the right of discussion. As a matter of fact the members of the government knew that the attitude of the opposition was that the government should refrain from passing the order in council until we had a full opportunity of discussing these matters in the house.
This morning my office got in touch with the privy council office and found that no order in council had been passed as at ten thirty o'clock. It is obvious, as evidenced by the quotation brought in by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the government rushed on with the appointment of the commission so as to be able, not to make a mockery of the bill of rights, but to make a mockery of parliament. The hon. gentleman talks about making a mockery of the bill of rights. He used to ridicule it, but now the heresy he ridiculed becomes the cornerstone of his argument.

Supply-Justice
This is an obvious attempt to conceal and to cover up because the other day the Minister of Justice made statements in the house regarding this matter, while the hon. member for Yukon was speaking, that were not true, period; and I am going to quote from the minister's statements.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: If it had not been-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor.


Lucien Lamoureux: When the right hon. gentleman began, the Chair thought he was rising on a point of order. Before he rose the hon. member for Yukon had the floor. It may very well be that he has relinquished it-


John George Diefenbaker: No, he has not relinquished it.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the Leader of the Opposition speaking to a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely.


Lucien Lamoureux: Then the Chair would like to know what the point of order is.


John George Diefenbaker: I am pointing out what is behind the objection that is raised-the desire on the part of the government to get it swept away, to cover it up.
Only the day before yesterday, when the hon. member for Yukon was speaking he used these words, as recorded at page 10380 of Hansard:
The minister knows as well as I do that the offenders in this case, and I do not hesitate to name them, were actually employees, one of the minister's office and one of the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Both of these employees have now left.
What did the minister say? He told what was untrue. He would have deceived the house-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The comments of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition may be relevant to the substance of the debate but it does seem to the Chair that he is going beyond the terms of the point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I was trying so hard to keep within the rules-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -but the interruptions, and the facial expressions and the contortions opposite induced me to make that observation, and everybody will be able to identify the source of the contortions. The Minister of Transport was the first to do so.

We submit we have every right to make an examination of this question. We have an order in council before us. It is one that pretends to be general but is in fact so restrictive that many of the things which will come out, in the event that we have the opportunity of presenting them, cannot be brought before the commission. Yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam reasonably argued that the government should wait until the house had an opportunity of suggesting what might be included in the terms of reference.
What are the terms of reference? The order in council says, and I do not read it all:
-to inquire fully into allegations about any improper inducements having been offered to or improper pressures having been brought to bear on counsel acting upon an application for the extradition of one Lucien Rivard and all the relevant circumstances connected therewith, and in particular but without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider fully the reports submitted to the Minister of Justice by the R.C.M.P. and the evidence laid before him in connection therewith and any further evidence elicited by or laid before the commissioner-
And there is this limitation:
-to consider such other matters as may appear to the commissioner to be relevant-
If the commissioner says those other matters are not relevant that is the end of it. In other words, it is restrictive. Why was the power not given to inquire into any further matters?


Lucien Lamoureux: Again it seems to me that the right hon. gentleman is going beyond the limits of the point of order. The argument he is making now may be a very good one and quite relevant in the course of the discussion, but I suggest to him that he is going beyond the terms of the point of order raised earlier.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On this point of order, it has been stated by the Acting Prime Minister that the hon. member for Yukon could not discuss or bring forth any further revelations because of the order in council passed today.


George James McIlraith: No, no.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Well that is the whole point raised by the Acting Prime Minister. Beau-chesne, in citation 48(c) says that we must not discuss or refer to any matter where a judicial decision is pending. In this case no judicial decision is pending. The commissioner has not yet been seized with the matter.

I have gone into this question a little further and May, at page 358, paragraph 6, says there is a prohibition on discussing matters reflecting on the decision of a court of law or likely to prejudice a case which is under trial. That is not the situation here. Then at page 400 he says that it is against the rule-


Guy Favreau: What edition?


Paul Raymond Martineau: The sixteenth edition. He says it is against the rule to bring up a matter while it is under adjudication in a court of law. Again, at page 547, it is stated that matters awaiting the adjudication of a court must not be discussed.
The situation which faces the committee is that there is an order in council the terms of which have been announced. What the hon. member for Yukon is trying to do is to bring to the attention of the committee, and also to the attention of the commisioner, matters that should be considered by him in his investigation. He is not in any way reflecting on a decision that is going to be rendered by the commissioner, but is endeavouring to bring to the attention of the commissioner and the committee matters that should properly be the object of his investigation. Therefore he is strictly in order in bringing them up.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wish to make a brief contribution to this discussion on the point of order. As I understood the Acting Prime Minister he was saying that the remarks made on these estimates by the hon. member for Yukon should not be made and were out of order because the judicial inquiry directed by the order in council covered these matters, which were therefore to some extent sub judice and should not be discussed.
I will say frankly that I think there is nothing in that argument. It is completely specious. The fact of the matter is this: If one takes a careful look at this order in council, which no doubt has been drafted with a fair amount of care, although in haste, we find that its terms are strictly limited. On the face of them they go no further than to permit inquiries about improper pressure brought to bear upon counsel. I have been engaged in enough cases to know that any judicial officer looking at these terms of reference would be bound to give them a careful and narrow interpretation,
I am not responsible for what the hon. member for Yukon intends to say, but there is no excuse for trying to prevent his speak-
Supply-Justice
ing on the grounds which have been mentioned. The Acting Prime Minister spoke very eloquently, using such terms as "justice" "the bill of rights" and so on. I suggest these have nothing at all to do with the issue. There is nothing in this order in council which could prevent the hon. member for Yukon from developing other matters which are not covered by the order. I suggest we have the right to hear what he has to say. I have no doubt he will speak responsibly. If he makes smears and innuendos without substance, then of course all the proper means will be available to try to prevent his addressing the committee on these matters. But he should not be silenced on the fraudulent pretext that these matters are covered by the order in council, and to attempt to do so is not worthy of the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There was no exception taken to the introduction of matters not covered in the order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: There was not. The objection I took was taken because the hon. gentleman was discussing the hon. member for Dollard.


John George Diefenbaker: That has not been revealed up to now.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The right hon. gentleman knows it was-


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman
panicked and rushed in and made a statement.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I do not believe that the hon. member for Greenwood, for whom I have great professional regard, wishes to leave the impression that what was said here was that we could not discuss matters which were not encompassed by the order, because that was never said.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Has the chief justice of Quebec received a copy of this order in council.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The terms of the order in council have been discussed and read to him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The member for Greenwood put his finger on the crux of the matter. Until the court has interpreted the meaning of these terms of reference we are not to interpret what the order in council means. That is for the judiciary to interpret. I should like to support what was said by the

Supply-Justice
hon. member for Greenwood. These are new matters which are not covered by the order in council. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs takes a different position, it is obvious he wants to sweep under the carpet the things we want to bring out into the open. Why the secrecy? If you want justice, why the secrecy? What are you trying to do? I will coin a phrase. It is a new kind of judicial closure applied to the House of Commons. Members opposite want the judiciary to run the House of Commons because they cannot do the job themselves.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a few words about the order in council-


Lucien Lamoureux: I take it that the hon. member for Villeneuve wishes to speak to the point of order-


David Réal Caouette: Yes, on the point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the hon. member wish to make a contribution to the discussion on the point of order?


David Réal Caouette: I wish to speak to the point of order raised a few minutes ago to the effect that the question cannot be discussed at this time because it is to be referred to a royal commission of inquiry.
If the government decided to pass orders in council concerning just about anything, would it mean that parliament would have to bow before the government and refrain from discussing an issue while it would be referred to a judge of the superior court?
Might the way suggested by the government today not create a precedent?
I feel, in fact, that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-regardless of whether we share or not the same political ideas-is perfectly entitled to discuss new developments with regard to some members of parliament.
It is interesting to note at this time that there are several ministers in their seats. We do not usually see many of them in the house at ten minutes to five in the afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: This afternoon there are more of them. Why? Because things are getting hot and because irregularities have been discovered.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems to me the hon. member should limit his remarks to the

point of order raised by other members who preceded him in the debate.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, in order to comply with your suggestion to restrict myself to the point of order, I will say, like the previous speakers, that the hon. member for Yukon, in my opinion, is perfectly right in raising those points, as he did a while ago, when he was interrupted by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin).


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, I must say that I completely agree with the claim of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), to the effect that as far as a discussion, allegation or accusation was made, such as the one expressed by the hon. member for Yukon, that is outside the terms of reference of the commission which has been set up and that there is nothing irregular or abnormal in discussing it in this house.
However, now that the commission is set up-and it has to be admitted that the establishment of that commission was made following the immediate reaction to the suggestion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas)-I think that each and every member of the house, under his responsibility, must explain that what he wants to discuss is not one of the questions respecting the evidence, testimonies, interviews or reports contained in the R.C.M.P. file which the hon. member for Yukon knows so well. In each case where, under his own responsibility, an hon. member can assert it, well the decision can obviously deal with something that is foreign to the facts under which the charges were laid.
You see, Mr. Chairman, the responsibility for discussing further the kind of charges laid by the hon. member for Yukon.

A few minutes ago the Leader of the Opposition suggested that we had things to hide and that the order in council was a device to hide the truth.


John George Diefenbaker: You hid the facts from one another and hid them from the Prime Minister.


Guy Favreau: I say, Mr. Chairman, that had the Leader of the Opposition been in power, never would he have acted so quickly as we have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It did not happen in our day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Guy Favreau: My assertion in this house was that the allegations to be found on page 10380 of Hansard, of the hon. member for Yukon, were untrue as being out of order or as being an attempt to circumvent the truth or otherwise. My reaction was against the allegation made in the matter concerned with a criminal offence made by the hon. member for Yukon and to the fact that the hon. member said:
The minister knows as well as I do that the offenders in this case-
It is the word "offenders" that I was rising against in this case.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Guy Favreau: No, no. I am on a point of order at the moment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege arising out of the point of order-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. In spite of the obiter dictum of the hon. member for Lapointe, who suggested a moment ago that a question of privilege can be raised on a point of order, I understand that the Minister of Justice is still on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: He is out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: He is trying to establish an alibi.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Minister of Justice should be heard out, and the hon. member who wants to raise a question of privilege can raise it afterwards.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We just want the facts.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I bring to the attention of hon. members standing order 12, paragraph 3, which says:
When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.
This standing order says nothing about a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I can therefore think that standing order 17-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe will kindly resume his seat. The Minister of Justice had the floor on a point of order. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) wants to rise on a question
Supply-J ustice
of privilege and he is ready to do so when the Minister of Justice finishes his remarks. [Text]


Gilles Grégoire: That is supposed to come first.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think I rightly and fairly objected to the assertion that offenders were in my office, especially when the hon. member gave the name of young Guy Lord, who is now a student at Oxford.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, we are no longer on a point of order.


Guy Favreau: Yes, we are. I want to point out the gravity of this assertion.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It seems to the Chair
that the minister is now raising a point of debate, a contribution which might be made in the course of the debate. If he is still on the point of order, I would ask him to come to the point as quickly as possible.


Guy Favreau: I have one sentence more, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: Break the rules.


Guy Favreau: At noon today I received a phone call from London, and there today, at Oxford, is a young man who is married, has a child-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: -and who in the headlines of London papers stands charged that he offered a bribe to somebody. This is the result of the smearing attack-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice went far and beyond any question of order. His own deceitfulness caused him to make statements that are not well based. I rise on a question of privilege respecting the remarks he read a moment ago; the minister started to read from the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon:
The minister knows as well as I do that the offenders in this case, and I do not hesitate to name them, were actually employees, one of the minister's office and one of the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Both of these employees have now left.
Now, listen to the answer:


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, that is an absolute lie, because nobody involved in this case, implicated

Supply-Justice
as an offender by the hon. member, is a member of my department or has ever been a member of my department.


Some hon. Members:: Who lied?


John George Diefenbaker: I ask, who told the truth? No amount of equivocation and endeavour to stifle this thing on the part of the Minister of Justice can conceal the fact that he deceived parliament with that answer. Indeed, he deceived the Prime Minister by concealing the facts from him, as did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. They would not even let their Prime Minister know what they allowed in their departments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the Minister of Justice rising on the question of privilege?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He has had another telephone call.


Guy Favreau: I hope I do not receive another one which is as tragic, due to the words of the hon. member for Yukon.


An hon. Member:: Is this a point of order? [Translation]


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the allegations made yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon, there is no doubt that the commission's terms of reference are as wide and as broad as any that could be laid down.
One does not have to try very hard to understand. It is said, first, that the commissioner:
-is empowered to inquire fully-
-let us not forget those words-
-into allegations about any improper inducements having been offered to or improper pressures having been brought to bear on counsel acting upon an application for the extradition of one Lucien Rivard and all the relevant circumstances connected therewith-
Especially, we add:
-without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider the reports submitted to the Minister of Justice by the R.C.M.P. and the evidence laid before him in connection therewith and any further evidence elicited by or laid before the commissioner, to consider such other matters as may appear other questions which might seem relevant-
In this regard, we have to rely upon the sound judgment of the chief justice of the Quebec superior court not to place any limitations upon himself in the consideration of a question once so deferred. What I do know, Mr. Chairman, is that if the investigation is conducted by the chief justice of the superior

court, the very next day a young man in London will not be tragically and wrongly accused of libel in the newspapers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I must rise in protest of these phony points of order that seem to be designed for nothing else than to prevent the hon. member for Yukon going ahead with his speech. I have been waiting to discuss the terms of reference, and I am prepared to do so as soon as the hon. member for Yukon has completed his remarks, but one member after another has risen on points of order which are not really points of order at all, but obvious attempts to make speeches. I think they should refrain from doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: A point of order is not to be used to delay procedure in any way. My conclusion as to the several contributions which have been made to the discussion is that there seems to be substantial agreement among members about what can and cannot be discussed. My understanding of the main objection taken in the point of order, as raised originally by the Acting Prime Minister, is that it was related to the reference to the hon. member for Dollard, and that point might have been well taken. For the time being I would suggest that as far as the Chair is concerned, the only point at issue at this stage of the discussion is whether the hon. member's remarks are relevant to the matter now before us, namely item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice. The hon. member must conform to standing order 59(2) as to relevancy.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I take it that I must be careful to be relevant in view of the fact I am discussing matters of a similar nature to those originally raised on November 23. Again, I must say that I do not know why the hon. member for Dollard is not in his seat. He should be there. It is not the customary practice in this house to discuss an hon. member or his activities when he is not in his place. Surely he knew the estimates of the Department of Justice were coming up this afternoon.


Guy Favreau: He did not.


An hon. Member:: Tell us another one.


John George Diefenbaker: He was here this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Send for him.


Erik Nielsen: The minister has told us that he did not know these estimates were coming before the house this afternoon. My information is that the hon. member for Dollard was sitting up in the gallery to my left a few moments ago but that he has now left.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: I think he should be in his seat to hear what I have to say. Before I proceed I want first to deal with the matter raised on a spurious point of order by the minister. He may search the record of November 23, and for subsequent days, as he will, but he will find that at no time-I was very careful to avoid making such a reference-did I charge that Mr. Lord offered any bribe to anyone. I never once made that charge and I still do not make that charge. I still refer to Mr. Lord as an innocent dupe of the others involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I may be allowed to ask the hon. gentleman a question?


An hon. Member:: No, sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just want to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that he referred to him as an offender, which is a term meaning someone convicted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I did not say that the gentleman


An hon. Member:: You had better go back to your law books, Jack. You are an offender of the rules.


Erik Nielsen: In the studies of the law, which the Minister of Transport has made, there must have been a gap at some time or other, because that has never been my understanding of the term "offender". I think the minister is suffering from a high degree of lack of self-control in this matter, because if he wanted to state the facts accurately he would not suggest for a moment-the Minister of Justice laughs when I refer to an accurate statement of the facts.


Guy Favreau: I did not laugh.


Erik Nielsen: I challenge him to rise now and challenge the accuracy of any of the facts I placed before the house on November 23.


John George Diefenbaker: He did the other day, and had to swallow it.


Guy Favreau: I did not.
Supply-Justice


Erik Nielsen: In reference to the young lawyer in Montreal, I paid the highest tribute to this young member of the bar.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By calling him an offender?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You are all mixed up.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Transport interjected the words "by calling him an offender" immediately after I had made reference to a young lawyer in Montreal. If the Minister of Transport would contain himself and listen for a moment or two he will realize that the reference I made was to Mr. La-montagne.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was he an offender?


Erik Nielsen: I cannot praise that gentleman too highly. Perhaps in the eyes of the Minister of Transport he is an offender because he stuck by his guns and backed up what was said in the house on November 23. I suggest to the Minister of Transport that he ought to exercise a little more self-control, prudence and discretion before he makes reference to remarks I have made in this house, because I have not overstated them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of personal privilege. The hon. gentleman has contradicted what I said, and to support my point of privilege I should like to read precisely what the hon. gentleman said, as recorded at page 10380 of Hansard. He said:
The minister knows as well as I do that the offenders in this case, and I do not hesitate to name them, were actually employees, one of the minister's office and one of the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Both of these employees have now left.
In other words he was referring to Mr. Lord and Mr. Denis, and he called them offenders. They have not been convicted in any court so I would called them accused-accused by innuendo. According to my understanding of British justice-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, Jack.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You do not want to listen to the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.

Supply-Justice


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The minister has risen on a question of privilege. I do not consider that there is really a question of privilege, but judge that he is correcting a statement which has been made or attributed to him. Surely that cannot be considered a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest it is a question of privilege, sir, because in one of the leading newspapers of this country I have been accused of an untruth, based on this particular passage, because I agreed with the Minister of Justice. I have said it was untrue, and for exactly the same reason the Minister of Justice said it was untrue.


John George Diefenbaker: You did not know anything about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, these men are not offenders, and no one in a British country with British justice is an offender until he has been convicted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Do not become hysterical.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, after that lesson in the law may I ask the hon. gentleman whether the minister of immigration, or the Minister of Justice told him anything about these things between August and November 23?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to answer the right hon. gentleman's question if I am allowed to do so. They did not tell me anything about this, and I see no reason why they should have done so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They did tell me that under the bill of rights in this country a man is innocent until he is proved guilty in the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: You are going to blow a gasket.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I intended to ask the Minister of Transport that very question, as to how he would know whether or not the individuals were offenders. Has he seen and read the complete police report?


William Heward Grafftey: Perhaps he has read the Anglican prayer book.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can answer that question very easily, sir. I am quite sure there would be a series of newspaper articles
[The Chairman.]
about these young men if they had been convicted in any court of law. In view of the fact there have been none, I assume they have not been convicted in a court of law. Therefore they are not offenders, and the hon. gentleman was not telling the truth when he called them that.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be sidetracked here by the fictitious and hysterical arguments of the Minister of Transport.


John George Diefenbaker: He has a guilty conscience.


Erik Nielsen: I should like to make one other point regarding the reference to the presence of individuals in this house, made by the Minister of Justice and others who have participated in these spurious points of order. They say they have acted quickly on the matter, and the imputation was that they acted much more swiftly than the Leader of the Opposition would have acted when he was prime minister. I ask the Minister of Justice and those opposite: Why is the Prime Minister not in his seat today when a question of such seriousness is being discussed?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: He is campaigning.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago they complained there were too many ministers and now they complain that the Prime Minister is not here.


Erik Nielsen: I do not think the minister will ever find anybody on this side of the house complaining about the presence of ministers of the crown in the house. They should be here to answer questions. The Minister of Justice has dozens of questions to answer, and he cannot allow the judicial inquiry to go further until he has made further explanations to the house. These explanations must be forthcoming from the minister and certainly in the interests of justice, in the interests-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You are not interested in justice.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Kootenay East has interjected that I am not interested in justice.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Just smears.


Erik Nielsen: I suggest to the hon. member that such interjections should not be made. I have attempted throughout to place the facts on the record in a very dispassionate way.

Some hen. Members: Oh, oh.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Listen to the monkeys chatter.


Erik Nielsen: I have exercised the utmost care as to accuracy, and this is evident not only from the confirmation of the counsel involved in the narcotics case but also from the fact that Minister of Justice himself has not denied the allegations that have been made. The minister cannot deny them because he knows that all of these facts are in the police report which he has studied at length, according to the expression he used himself, and he also knows that there are additional facts-[DOT]


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Would the hon. member tell us whether he has seen the police report and, if so, how it was made available to him?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say what he did with the cheques of Banks?


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Labour surely is not asking that question-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Can you state you have not seen the report? Obviously you cannot.


Erik Nielsen: The minister would dearly love to know the answer to that question, I am sure, just as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice would like to know where I obtained a photostatic copy of a letter advocating patronage which I read into the records of the house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Maybe Chief Justice Dorion will ask you before the inquiry. Will you tell Chief Justice Dorion?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, is there not a much more appropriate question, namely, why is it that none of the ministers across the way knew the contents of that R.C.M.P. report?


Howard Russell MacEwan: The minister had better stick with the Banks case.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister apparently was late in being advised, to say the least, because at 3.10 p.m.-I think the minister should explain this-almost immediately after the matter was raised in the house, radio station CHUM in Toronto reported the matter in this fashion, and may I say I obtained a copy of the report over CHUM. The report was in these words:
20220-666J
Supply-Justice
Rumours are alive in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto concerning interference in an important judicial proceeding, rumours that so far have failed to be squelched by the federal government.
They have still failed to squelch them.
From what is going around as fact, these questions are waiting for answers from the government. Was there a $20,000 bribe offered in a recent judicial proceeding? What was the result of that bribe offer? Who was offered the bribe and who offered the bribe? Following this, were there threats made to a crown official involved in the proceeding? Was the government aware of any such bribe offer or threat?
This is the type of questions the minister should be answering instead of dragging a red herring across the trail with his spurious questions of order, privilege and the like. Here we have this radio broadcast being released at 3.10 a.m.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A.M.?


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry-3.10 p.m. Here we have the Prime Minister not knowing what a Toronto radio station already knew, obviously not knowing what a particular member of the press gallery, Mr. Akehurst, who works for radio station CHUM, knew. This might give the Minister of Labour some idea as to how information comes to opposition members. You have all sorts of people visit you when matters of this kind arise, people in the press gallery, people from other cities, all sorts of people.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Did you see the R.C.M.P. report?


Gordon Minto Churchill: You look for your cheques.


Erik Nielsen: I am in a position-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I say to my hon. friend-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Unless the hon. member for Yukon relinquishes the floor he should not be interrupted.


Erik Nielsen: I am in a position to be able to say that the minister cannot deny my facts. The Minister of Labour can draw his own conclusions because the Minister of Justice has not risen once to deny the substance of the charges I have made, not at all.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He does not dare,


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: What are you up on?


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the minister rising on a question of privilege or a point of order?

Supply-Justice


Guy Favreau: The member for Yukon said I had not denied the facts-this is a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The minister says he is rising on a question of privilege.


Guy Favreau: I said that the assessment of the evidence did not justify a prosecution in the circumstances, and for the rest I am not going either to confirm or deny whatever the member for Yukon may say because I am not going to be responsible for and guilty of smear and innuendo.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The point made by the minister is debate, not a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: The minister seeks refuge in personal charges instead of making the explanations he should be making. This has been his favourite pastime throughout this whole sordid affair. He has not made a clean breast of it to the house and he should do so. He should make a clean breast of the whole thing to the Canadian people, all of whom are wondering about the minister and the procedure he has followed in this case. Likewise the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should rise and tell the committee what he knows. I challenge him to rise now and tell the house where he was when the bribe was offered. I challenge him to rise now and tell us where he was when the bribe was offered.


Mr. Cashin:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the question has been asked of a minister of the crown where he was when the bribe was offered. It has not been proven in a court of law that that is the fact. What is in fact happening here is McCarthyism and extremism, it is attack by innuendo. He is subverting British justice. In other words-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Let him make charges.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; I ask for the cooperation of all hon. members of the committee. I ask them to resume their seats when the Chair attempts to make a contribution.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I challenge him to make charges.


An hon. Member:: Go change your diapers.
[The Chairman.]


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; I do not believe that the hon. member for St. John's West had a legitimate question of privilege. It was again a point of debate. He may be dissatisfied with what has been said by the hon. member or he may disagree with him, but that is not a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: I think-


Lucien Lamoureux: A question of privilege.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the question of privilege.
The hon. member for Yukon, in his question put to me, made an innuendo in trying to know where I was at the time that supposed offer was made to Mr. Lamontagne.
I want to tell the hon. member and the whole house that at no time before the occurrence of those supposed events, have I been aware of anything with regard to that matter. Therefore I could not, on any account, have taken part in that supposed bribery offer.


Erik Nielsen: That still does not answer the question I put to the minister.


An hon. Member:: Where were you?


Erik Nielsen: If the Minister of Fisheries, who I understand is very fond of interjecting just loud enough so I cannot hear, has some threatening charges of his own he wishes to make, why does he not have the courage to get up on his feet and make the charges that he wants to hurl across the floor?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest that we revert to a discussion of the item now before us, vote No. 1 of the Department of Justice.


J.-E. Bernard Pilon: Get on with the facts.


An hon. Member:: Here is the new leader.


Mr. Greene:: Perhaps the hon. member can tell us where he was when the R.C.M.P. report, that he has apparently seen and is familiar with, was either stolen or illegally copied.


Erik Nielsen: I can tell the hon. member immediately that I am surprised that thus far I have not been asked one single question by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I have not been telephoned, in my office, by the Minister of Justice. Is he not interested in the security of these matters? I should think he

should be interested enough to give me a call on the telephone.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Answer in the open; you do not have the courage to tell us.


Erik Nielsen: I do not think the Minister of Transport can make any charge about my lack of courage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has not got the courage to tell us how he got that document.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to hon. members that we are obviously straying away from the matter which should be of concern at this stage? Now, I ask the co-operation of all hon. members to give the hon. member for the Yukon an opportunity to continue his remarks.


Erik Nielsen: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Justice must rise and make these explanations to the house. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and I intend no innuendo in asking this question-


An hon. Member:: Oh no; throw some more mud.


Erik Nielsen: I ask the Minister of Justice to deny that it is not in the police report that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was in his office at the time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question, yes or no.


Guy Favreau: These will be things-

Mr. Chairman, I think that perhaps the worst possible practice to follow in the House of Commons is to proceed by way of such insinuations against a minister of the crown whom the hon. member for Yukon knows to be honest.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) told us a moment ago that he never had the remotest opportunity of knowing that such an offer had ever been made. I believe that it is up to the hon. member for Yukon to stop his insinuations and to accept the minister's word.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.
Supply^ Justice


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said what he has had to say and I accept it completely, as a member of this house is required to do. I have no hesitation in doing that.


An hon. Member:: Stand up and say that.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; I think it is the duty of the Chair to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the hon. member for the Yukon started speaking at 2.45. I realize there have been many points of order, questions of privilege and so on and the hon. member for the Yukon should be given the opportunity to say what he wants to say. However, the fact is that he has had the floor for an hour and five minutes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am saying this with the full knowledge that he has not taken anywhere near that time. However, it is impossible for the Chair to keep track of the exact time used by an hon. member. It is my duty to bring this to the attention of the committee and ask for unanimous consent if the hon. member is to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: There is the fact that even if hon. members object, he may not have used his full 30 minutes. I suggest the hon. member keep that in mind and continue his remarks.


Erik Nielsen: I will yield the floor to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, but I am going to make this last appeal to the Minister of Justice. Tell us the circumstances, give us your explanations and make a clean breast of the whole thing now. He cannot deny-I do not impute anything to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-that what I have said is a fact. There is contained in the police report a reference to the fact the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was in his office at the time the bribe was offered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In whose office?


Erik Nielsen: In his own office in Ottawa. Now, I ask the minister to make this explanation. I will agree to sit down and allow the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to participate now because I do not think I have taken up a lot of time. I hope that the Minister of Justice will make these disclosures. Do not let us drag them out of him, and do not place me in the position where I have to make these.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Make a charge.

Supply-Justice


Erik Nielsen: Do not place me in the position where I have to state these matters.


Gilles Grégoire: State them or stop making innuendos.


Guy Favreau: I tell the hon. member for Yukon: make a charge. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was not involved. I again tell the hon. member for Yukon if there is anything in what he says which, in his opinion and under his accusation, is connected with the alleged bribe, make the charge. Otherwise he is infringing a basic rule of the house besides infringing fairness and any sense of justice.
Mr. Speaker Michener, as reported at page 493 of Hansard for June 19, 1959, stated the point thus:
In my view, simple justice requires that no hon. member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the house or a committee until he has been charged with an offence. Must this charge be made by another hon. member on his responsibility? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) raised this same issue in the question which he put to me in the following words-
It was there the principle was formulated, as it was again a few minutes ago, and it seems to me the hon. member for Yukon just cannot understand that type of principle and of justice.


Erik Nielsen: On the question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, obviously the Minister of Justice did not hear me when I said I accept the word of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I did that, as is the practice in the house, and he knows it. I am sure he heard me. But what I say to him is, instead of again dragging a red herring across the trail by his spurious points of order and privilege, produce the report and we will see who is telling the truth. I leave the minister with that and I leave him with the appeal that he should get up and make a full breast of all the circumstances, because it is true.


John James Greene: On the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon-


Erik Nielsen: I did not raise it.


John James Greene: Yes you did. You don't even remember.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, the Minister of Justice raised the question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: Whether raised by the Minister of Justice or the hon. member there is a question of privilege raised, but I might say there is some doubt in the mind of the

Chair whether it is a question of privilege or not. However, the hon. member for Renfrew South should be given an opportunity to make his comments.


John James Greene: On the point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the rules are quite clear as enunciated by Mr. Speaker Michener and referred to by the Minister of Justice. The hon. member raising these innuendos must make a charge and have the courage to stand behind them, or any further remarks on the same point are out of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I have never seen hon. members opposite so jumpy as they appear to be today, and I have never seen so many red herrings dragged across the trail. They keep asking the hon. member for Yukon how he got access to a report of the R.C.M.P. What they should really be asking is how a report like this was apparently kept under wraps so that members of the government did not have access to it, and the Prime Minister apparently was not aware of its contents, despite the fact that senior civil servants and a parliamentary secretary were named in it. That is what they should be asking themselves.
The first point I want to make is that I do not propose to be a bomb proof shelter for the government. Members of the government have said several times today that I asked for a judicial inquiry, that they are complying with that request and everybody should be happy. This is true; I did ask for a judicial inquiry because I do not think parliament is the place to try a case, and I think that condemnation by declamation is always a dangerous business.
I am anxious to see this judicial inquiry, and I welcome the fact that the government is prepared to have it, but I raise two points. The first is that I feel very strongly the government should have waited until these justice estimates were disposed of, because there may be other matters that ought to come before this inquiry. We as members of the House of Commons have a right to know a great deal more, not about this particular case so much as about the procedures that were followed by the Department of Justice in handling it.
There is information which I would like to have about this matter, but if I may judge from the statement of the Acting Prime Minister this afternoon, this order in council is to be used as a muzzle, to muzzle parliament and keep us from asking questions and getting information. I am not talking about any of

the people implicated; I am talking about the procedures of government.
For instance, I would like to know what was the date upon which the counsel in Montreal is alleged to have been offered a bribe. I would like to know the date when he reported this fact to the R.C.M.P. I would like to know something about the reason for the gap between those dates. I would like to know something about what happened between the period September 18 up to the present time.
An hon. member across the way says we want to have the trial here. I am not proposing a trial. I am not proposing to try the people who are implicated, but I am proposing to ask whether or not the Department of Justice carries out the administration of justice in a proper manner.
I would like to know why this whole thing came up to the Minister of Justice in the first place. I have a suspicion that if I had a complaint laid against me back in Burnaby the chances are that the R.C.M.P. would take it to the crown prosecutor for the area and he would decide whether or not he had a prima facie case to lay a charge against me. I doubt very much if it would be sent up to the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. and he and the Minister of Justice would have a secret conclave to see whether or not they would prosecute.
Are there two sets of laws? Does the process of the administration of justice travel one route when one group of people are involved and a different route when an ordinary group of citizens are involved, those who are not within the hierarchy of the Liberal party? That is the kind of question I want to see dealt with, and I think this order in council should have been held up until after the estimates of the Department of Justice were passed. For instance, one of the reasons is that I understand, if I recall correctly, the hon. member for Yukon had moved what is virtually a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Justice. The only way in which members can decide whether or not to support such a motion is by giving the Minister of Justice every opportunity to discuss fully his handling of the matter. For this reason I do not believe the committee of the whole when it is discussing the estimates of the department should be precluded in any way from discussing this question-not the persons involved; that aspect will be dealt with by the commission, but the whole procedure of the administration
Supply-Justice
of justice in this country and whether it has been carried out in a fitting and proper manner.
The second proviso I put when asking for a judicial inquiry was that it should have the widest possible terms of reference. And this is what the Prime Minister promised as recorded at page 10427 of Hansard. My question was:
May I ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to see that in the order in council containing the terms of reference there is provision for an investigation into the propriety of the procedure followed by the Department of Justice following the reception of the R.C.M.P. report on September 18.
To which the Prime Minister replied-I will read the latter part of his answer:
The evidence that has been referred to will be before the commission. Any other evidence bearing on what was mentioned and alleged yesterday will be before the commissioner. I am perfectly certain that the commissioner will undoubtedly, in considering the evidence, inquire into the propriety of any action which has been taken.
And, as reported on the next page, when I asked the Prime Minister again whether he would undertake to widen the terms of reference, the right hon. gentleman said:
I believe the terms of reference are wide enough to deal with the matter referred to by my hon. friend but of course there is no desire on the part of the government to hold back anything from this inquiry. We want to make this inquiry both full and fair and I will look at the terms of reference with that in mind.
Well, let us consider these terms of reference. Both the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have told us they are in the widest possible terms. As the Prime Minister said, there is to be a judicial inquiry. The recommendation is that a commissioner be appointed under part I of the Inquiries Act-
-to inquire fully into allegations about any improper inducements having been offered to or improper pressures having been brought to bear on counsel acting upon an application for the extradition of one Lucien Rivard and all the relevant circumstances connected therewith-
May I pause here to point out that so far this has to do only with improper inducements offered to counsel or improper pressure on counsel. Now, may I go on:
-and in particular but without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider fully the reports submitted to the Minister of Justice by the R.C.M.P. and the evidence laid before him in connection therewith and any further evidence elicited by or laid before the commissioner-
Let me pause at this point. The commissioner may look at any information contained

Supply-Justice
in the R.C.M.P. report or at any other information laid before him as a commissioner. It goes on:
-to consider such other matters as may appear to the commissioner to be relevant, and-
Here is the real power which is given to the commission:
-to report whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant any prosecution for offences that may be involved.
I submit there is nothing in these terms of reference which specifically authorizes the commissioner to look into the propriety of the procedures which were followed so as to ascertain whether or not the department behaved properly in not taking action on the basis of the report it had received; whether the minister was derelict in his duty in not notifying the ministers whose staffs were involved; or the Prime Minister, whose parliamentary secretary was mentioned in the report. There is no specific authority given to the commissioner to do this, though this is exactly what we asked for. There is nothing here to follow up the suggestion made yesterday by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, I believe, that the commissioner be allowed to look into the operations of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration inasmuch as they might be affected by the fact that one who had been employed there for a considerable period of time was mentioned in the report.
What did the Prime Minister say about this yesterday? On page 10429 of Hansard, the following exchange took place:


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister include in the terms of reference of this judicial inquiry, authority for the judge or commissioner to thoroughly examine the affairs of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration during the employment of Mr. Raymond Denis, in view of the fact that Mr. Denis served in that office for a rather lengthy period of time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is now a commissioner inquiring into certain aspects of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration:	I
refer to Mr. Sedgwick. The particular man in question who worked in the department of immigration most certainly will be under investigation by the commissioner.
Today, when my hon. friend from Greenwood asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether Mr. Sedgwick was indeed a commissioner and whether he had any authority to investigate the activities of Mr. Denis, the minister had to admit, of course, that he was not a commissioner; that he was brought in as an adviser to advise on the overhaul of the immigration regulations. He

was never a commissioner. There has been an attempt to evade the question completely. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration told us today that Mr. Justice Dorion, the commissioner, would be able to look into this matter. I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration where under these terms of reference Mr. Justice Dorion has any authority whatever to look into the activities of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or into the activities of Mr. Raymond Denis during the period when he held high office in that department.
This whole attempt to evade questions and sweep these things under the rug arouses suspicions in my mind which were not there when this business began. Criticism was directed toward the hon. member for Yukon. Members opposite said: Produce charges. But if he had not pursued the matter the other day and if I had not asked the minister whether an R.C.M.P. report was in his possession regarding the allegations of Mr. Pierre Lamontagne, this house and the country would still be in complete ignorance of what has transpired.
It is all very well to say: "Make charges". Members of parliament do not have investigative facilities or powers. We have to rely on the good sense and devotion to duty of the Department of Justice. But, so far, everything we have been able to gather we have had to dig up; we have had to dig it up in spite of every conceivable kind of evasion. Today a minister stands up and tells us: "My department will be investigated by Mr. Justice Dorion." I say an examination of these terms of reference completely refutes that statement. Mr. Justice Dorion will have no power other than the power to look into the allegations about improper inducement and improper practices, to look at the material contained in the R.C.M.P. report, and to consider any subsequent material, and to report whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution for any offence which may be involved. That is all.
I will not be satisfied until there is placed in the terms of reference a specific instruction to the chief justice to ascertain whether or not the due processes of law were followed and the proper practices respected with reference to the handling of this whole case. I would think that for the sake of the government itself it would have made these terms as wide and sweeping as possible so as to remove any shadow of doubt that may linger in any person's mind to the effect that there

is something amiss in the higher echelons of government administration.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, surely.


John James Greene: Does the hon. member not feel that in making terms of reference for a judicial inquiry too broad there is the danger of bringing in names of innocent persons who may have no guilt whatsoever but whose names can be brought in if the terms are too broad, and this will do the very harm that too broad inquiries of this nature have done in the past, namely impugn the good names of persons who cannot defend themselves, are guilty of nothing, but by the very broad terms of the commission may be brought in? Does the hon. member not think that narrowing the commission to this extent will preclude that very real danger, that has occurred in particular in the land to the south in their broad commissions of inquiry?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not have that fear, because I am not asking that a great net be cast to deal with every insinuation or innuendo that may be tossed out. I am asking that in addition to these narrow, specific terms of reference which will cover the allegations about improper inducements and improper pressure and will look into the contents of the R.C.M.P. report, there be an investigation into departmental administration. That is not going to deal with innocent persons; that is going to deal with ministers and senior civil servants and the people who are responsible for administering departments, and whether or not they have discharged their duties with propriety, uprightness and proper dispatch. That is all I am asking. That need not bring in any innocent persons.
I just want to close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I hope that even though the order in council has been passed-and I have the uneasy feeling that it was passed in some unseemly haste in order to, if possible, curtail any further discussion on this matter- the government will give some consideration to widening the terms of reference as to the propriety of the procedures that have been followed, and also with reference to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, particularly during the period that one of the gentlemen under discussion was employed in that department. As far as I am concerned, I get no pleasure whatsoever in pointing any 20220-667
Supply-Justice
finger at any person, and least of all people who cannot defend themselves.
I have been, until this matter came to the fore, scrupulously careful not to mention names, although I was in possession of these names when I raised this matter on the orders of the day on Monday. But as a member of this house I have a responsibility, as has every other member, to make sure that the due processes of law are carried through and that when the police report regarding allegations made and complaints submitted concerning certain people in high places, that there shall be no suspicion whatsoever that those persons are being protected and that the charges are being swept under the rug; because it seems to me that any minister of the crown who gets an R.C.M.P. report in which a reputable legal counsel alleges that he was offered a bribe and was subjected to intimidation must know that the person who makes those allegations must have very serious reason for doing so. He had nothing to gain personally by making the allegations, except to protect his good name, and he must have known that this would involve him in publicity and investigation.
Therefore it is a serious matter and I am not convinced that proper attention was given to it and that the proper haste was shown in prosecuting the matter in the manner in which it should have been prosecuted. It is an old saying, Mr. Chairman, and it is still true, that not only must justice be done, but it must appear to be done. For that reason the government would be well advised to widen these terms of reference in order that we may have a full and uninhibited investigation into this whole affair.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has just made a most eloquent appeal, when he asked the government to extend the terms of reference of the commission, whose purpose will be to get at the truth of the matter.
Of course, when we consider the number of ministers present now in the house and who stayed here all afternoon-we are not complaining about it, on the contrary-and the number of Liberal members who sat here all afternoon, which is unusual for them, when we consider the number-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -when we consider the repeated interjections of the kind they are trying

Supply-Justice
to make now, we cannot but wonder what nigger is In the woodpile, what is happening in that whole business.


An hon. Member:: More insinuations.


Gilles Grégoire: Personally, Mr. Chairman-*


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I think-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes is raising a point of order.


Vincent Drouin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lapointe attributes unspeakable feelings to most other members, which is entirely unacceptable. He may have such feelings himself, but no honest and sincere member could possibly have them.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I suggest to the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes that his intervention perhaps exceeded the remarks he intended to make. I do not think it in order for an hon. member to mention or suggest that another member is dishonest, and I am asking the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes for a rectification.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Chairman, I maintain what I said, namely that it was a despicable feeling that the hon. member might be having. I did not say that he was dishonest and that he had that feeling but that he might.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order raised by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes.
In my opinion, that hon. member's intervention is completely illogical; it is dishonest.
This afternoon we listened, in what I feel is a democratic and civilized way, to Conservative members and to the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas). And now when a member of our party rises to speak, French Canadian members from the province of Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: -try to prevent him from expressing his views.
Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to that fact and ask you to get hon. members like the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes to remain seated and listen, as they should, to the hon. member for Lapointe who has the floor now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that I was not bothered at all by the remarks

of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes.
Yet, there is something which is remarkable. I have never seen-if the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes wishes to deny it, he can stand up and do so, I will allow him to do so-12 ministers in the house at the same time to consider the estimates of a department-


Lucien Lamoureux: May I ask the hon. member for Lapointe to limit his remarks to the resolution now before us?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I only want- [Text]


Mr.   Maclnn@: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. You have just made a ruling and asked the hon. member from the other side of the house to withdraw a statement he made in reference to the hon. member for Lapointe. You asked him to withdraw his remarks because he had gone beyond what the rules of this house permit. In his remarks he suggested that what the hon. member for Lapointe was saying was something that the hon. member for Lapointe could accept, but that honest members of this house would not accept it. That cannot be interpreted in any other way than as a reference to the hon. member's remarks being dishonest, and he certainly should be made to withdraw that reference. I think he should be made to do so now.


Vincent Drouin: Would the hon. member tell me exactly what words he would like me to withdraw?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: May I point out to the hon. member that the Chair took the liberty to call to the attention of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes that he had probably not meant to go that far. He put the record straight by making a distinction a little subtle, no doubt, but which seems to satisfy the hon. member for Lapointe.
I suggest that we resume the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied. I was going to prove that honesty is lacking in that hon. memeber's mind.
The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes should be honest enough to recognize that since we started considering the estimates this year there has never been twelve ministers here at the same time in the House of Commons.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to point out where resides true honesty and dishonesty-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member rose on a question of privilege, but in my opinion he was not justified in doing so.
The hon. member for Lapointe has had the floor for approximately ten minutes, and I would ask him to take into consideration the question we are now discussing, that is, item No. 1 of the Department of Justice.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, respecting my question of privilege, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes made a charge. You asked him to withdraw it, and he did not do so. I am proving that he is the dishonest member.
In my opinion, this is a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. When the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes used a word which was unparliamentary, in the opinion of the Chair, he was asked to withdraw it.


Gilles Grégoire: He did not withdraw.


Lucien Lamoureux: I realize that but I had the impression that his explanations were considered satisfactory. If they were not, then I will ask him to withdraw the implication that the hon. member for Lapointe is dishonest. At the same time, I would ask the latter to do likewise concerning the word he used with respect to the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling with pleasure and, in accordance with standing orders, I am glad to say that I do not consider the hon. member for Lapointe dishonest.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. In my opinion, this is the best speech the hon. member has ever given.


Vincent Drouin: I say as much for you.


Gilles Grégoire: At any rate, Mr. Chairman, the circumstances and the atmosphere which have surrounded the debate oblige us to examine more closely the estimates of the Department of Justice.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Vincent Drouin: If my memory serves me right, Mr. Chairman, your observations had a double
Business of the House
objective and concerned two members. In my opinion, one complied with your decision and the other still has to do so, namely the member for Lapointe, whom you asked to withdraw the disobliging words he spoke against me.


Lucien Lamoureux: Unfortunately, I do not recall the exact words used by the hon. member for Lapointe, but I am sure that if they were unkind, the rules of the house would not have permitted him to use them in this debate and that, in such a case, he should withdraw them.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you may very well not be sure about my uttering unkind words because, as a matter of fact, I did not utter any.
I think the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes is somewhat touchy. Indeed, it is noticeable today that some hon. members' nerves are on edge, that they are excited. Look at the nervous hands; we can notice the tension on the Liberal side, the members are uneasy in their seats-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I remind the hon. member that we are sitting after six o'clock for the purpose, I presume, of considering item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice.
I, therefore, invite the hon. member for Lapointe to restrict himself to the subject matter.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that if we want light to be shed on the attitude of the Department of Justice and if we are to have a commission look into a problem such as the one now being discussed by the committee, we ought to change the terms of reference that have been decided upon when the privy council met in November 25, 1964
What strikes me in these terms of reference is-


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. In view of the present atmosphere of this house there is only one thing to do, and that is draw your attention to the fact that it is now past six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, tomorrow we propose to call the estimates of the Department of Justice first, and if they are completed perhaps hon. members would then be ready to deal with other estimates.

Business of the House


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that there have been many questions of privilege raised during our discussion this afternoon, and I am sure there have been abuses, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will consider establishing a small committee comprised of himself and three or four of the outstanding lawyers of international repute in our midst, to attempt to decide upon some change to the order in council under discussion, so as to satisfy the many objections raised this afternoon. I would suggest the members of that committee might be the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand, the hon. member for Royal, the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Lapointe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the name of the hon. member for Lapointe for the simple reason that he does represent the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: I make this suggestion, Mr. Speaker, because some of the members of this House of Commons are involved in this serious situation, and certain reputations may
be at stake. Many of the questions raised have personally involved a number of people, and I think a thorough but careful investigation should be undertaken. I think such a committee could perhaps resolve the difficulties members have outlined. The members of that committee could be those members of this house who are outstanding lawyers, capable of assisting the minister in working out some solution so as to relieve some of the tensions and problems which have been so eloquently outlined this afternoon by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). Will the minister consider that suggestion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has asked me, as the senior minister in the house at the moment, to say what must be said about this suggestion. All I can say is that this is something the government as a whole would have to consider. I could not be expected to commit the government at this time. I will undertake, however to bring the hon. gentleman's suggestion to the attention of my colleagues early tomorrow morning.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 26, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton) presented the fourth report of the special committee on food and drugs, and asked for unanimous consent to move that the report be concurred in.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question. Did I hear right that there is a request to reduce the quorum of the committee from eight to five?


Mr. Speaker:: The report was as follows:
Your committee recommends that its quorum be further reduced from eight to five members.


Harold Edward Winch: Then personally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that any time a committee of this major importance has to request a reduction in its quorum from eight to five it is a disgust to democracy and a disgrace to the House of Commons, and I oppose it.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been moved by Mr. Harley, seconded by Mr. Mackasey, by unanimous consent, that the fourth report of the special committee on food and drugs presented this day be now concurred in. Is it the pleasure-


Harold Edward Winch: No, sir, I do not give unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: It is moved that the fourth report of the special committee on food and drugs be now concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the house-


Gilles Grégoire: No.


George James McIlraith: I want to raise a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to proceed with the report this day?


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The day before yesterday the president of C.M.H.C. announced the withdrawal from the market of the twelfth offering of N.H.A. insured mortgages on the ground that the market was unsettled. Would the minister please advise the house what were the unsettling conditions in the market to warrant the withdrawal of this purely domestic issue of Canadian mortgages?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would be glad to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask whether he has had time to consider the suggestion made last night by the hon. member for Timiskaming about an all party committee of lawyers to consider a draft of expanded terms of reference. May I also ask whether the government is prepared at this time to give any consideration to expanding the terms of reference for the judicial inquiry which was announced yesterday.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acling Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to my colleagues about certain features of this proposal. We have carefully examined the terms of reference which were passed yesterday by the governor in council, and while I appreciate the arguments that were made yesterday I feel, and so do my colleagues, that the terms of reference are wide enough to comprehend the matters that it is felt should come before the inquiry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether his department or the board of

Inquiries of the Ministry trustees, who have in their possession the documents and exhibits of the Norris commission, have found the voucher to which I referred the other day, namely the voucher signed by Hal C. Banks and made out to one Raymond Denis?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. As I understood the hon. member's question the other day it was to the effect that if any such voucher existed it should be turned over to the commission of inquiry. If such a voucher exists, that request will be carried out. But I have no knowledge at the moment that such a voucher does exist. As a matter of fact the presumption is that no such voucher exists-


Some hon. Members:: Whose?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because of the order of the house asking for cheques or photostats thereof. If such a voucher had been in existence it would likely have been drawn to my attention. However, I will be glad to make a special effort to satisfy the hon. member on this point.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certain press men have been told, I am informed, by those in charge of the documents that such a voucher has been found. I should therefore like the minister to inform the house on this point, because if it is true this would give the government a serious reason for reconsidering the terms of reference of the commission and extending them to permit an investigation of the activities of Mr. Denis during the time he was in the employ of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Certainly no official of the Department of Labour and no representative of the board of trustees has indicated to me in any way that such a voucher exists.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Did you ask them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was on the understanding that if it existed it would be transferred to the commission that I made my reply the other day. But I will have no hesitation about asking immediately that if this voucher is available it be turned up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Am I to take it from the minister's answer that the hon. gentleman has not made any inquiry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I undertook the other day to forward this voucher, if it did exist, to the commissioner, and I will carry out that undertaking. I will now make an inquiry, if the

hon. member asks me this as an independent question, to see whether the voucher does exist. If it does, and if he wishes to have it produced, I will be glad to do it.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether in the course of his researches to find the unfindable, though known to exist, he would communicate with Alan Watson of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company of King street, Toronto. It was Mr. Watson who examined all the papers which were brought before the Norris commission. I have not been in communication with him either indirectly or directly but I think this would be the best source, because he kept a record, apparently, of all the documents which came before the Norris commission or which were desired to be brought before the commission but which the commission decided did not come within the ambit of its authority. I am sure the minister will immediately and with alacrity make a request to ascertain this information, because everybody seems to know of the existence of these things except the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister this. In view of the statement of the Minister of Labour that he is prepared, if this voucher exists, to turn it over to the commission, are the terms of reference sufficiently wide to enable the commissioner to take cognizance of this voucher and investigate the activities of Mr. Denis during the period he was employed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The commissioner, who is a judge, will have to determine-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it is a fact. But there is no doubt in my mind about the comprehensive character of the terms of reference for the particular purpose mentioned by the hon. gentleman. All one has to do is to look at the terms of reference and see.
The committee of the privy council on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advises that the Honourable Frederic Dorion, chief justice of the superior court of the province of Quebec be appointed a commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire fully into allegations-
Then it says:
-and in particular but without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider fully the reports submitted to the Minister of Justice by the R.C.M.P. and the evidence laid before him in connection therewith and any further evidence elicited by or laid before the commissioner, to

consider such other matters as may appear to the commissioner to be relevant-
And only he can determine this in the final analysis:
-and to report whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant any prosecution-
And so on. I would think there is not any doubt.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the-


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I would say this further-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: -that if in the course of the inquiry it should appear that there are limitations, counsel who will be acting for the commissioner and with the commissioner has the powers to fulfil and carry out the purposes of the order in council.


John George Diefenbaker: And the government passed the order in council.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he did not receive from me this morning a specific request that the terms of reference should include the power of the commissioner to inquire into and report on the activities in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration of Mr. Raymond Denis, and whether he did not reply a few moments ago saying definitely no, that there was not intended to be any change.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not understand what I was saying.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Did you?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Let me read the reply I made. My hon. friend wrote to me under today's date, as Acting Prime Minister:
Dear Mr. Martin:
During the debate on the estimates yesterday Mr. Douglas, the leader of the New Democratic party, expressed the view that the terms of order in council P.C. 1964-1819 were unduly restrictive and in fact would confine the commissioner to the allegations relating to the inducements offered or pressures to be put upon counsel acting on behalf of Rivard.
I have accordingly redrafted the order in council in such a way as to clarify beyond doubt two further matters:
1. That the commissioner should inquire and report on the way in which the allegations when brought to the attention of the R.C.M.P. and the Minister of Justice were dealt with:
Inquiries of the Ministry
2. That the commissioner should inquire into and report on the activities in the Department of Citizenship and Xmmigraton of Mr. Raymond Denis.
You will recall that the-
I take it that when my hon. friend was asking me a question a few moments ago he was not referring to the person that we are talking about in this letter, Mr. Denis. The question my hon. friend put a few moments ago, I take it, did not have reference to Mr. Denis:
You will recall that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicated that this latter matter would be within the purview of the inquiry, but I see nothing in the terms of reference as presently drafted which would permit this.
It is our belief with these expanded terms of reference a full and adequate inquiry would be possible and that no suspicion could arise that there was any intent or desire on the part of the government to limit the inquiry unduly.
And there is no intention on the part of the government to limit the inquiry. Now here is my answer of November 26:
Dear Mr. Brewin:
I have carefully considered your letter expressing the view that the terms of the order in council P.C. 1964-1819 are unduly restrictive and suggesting two amendments thereto.
Your first suggestion is "that the commissioner should inquire and report on the way in which the allegations when brought to the attention of the R.C.M.P. and the Minister of Justice were dealt with". The incorporation of this suggestion in the order in council would be a specific direction to a commissioner who is not a member of parliament to pass a judgment upon a minister of the crown whose responsibility under our system of government is to the House of Commons. After careful consideration, therefore, we felt that we should ask the commissioner to inquire into all the facts and all the relevant circumstances connected therewith and to consider such other matters as may appear to the commissioner to be relevant, to present a report upon these facts and his conclusions to the government and to leave to parliament the responsibility of deciding, as is its right and duty, whether the Minister of Justice had acted reasonably in the matter.
We cannot think that adding to the terms of reference "and into the manner in which the R.C.M.P. and any officer thereof and the Department of Justice and the minister thereof dealt with the said allegations when brought to their attention" would in any way increase the scope of the inquiry, and we would feel that the exclusion of a specific direction to the commissioner to report "whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant any prosecution for offences which may be involved" would be to ignore the original allegations made in the House of Commons respecting the Minister of Justice.
Your second suggestion "that the commissioner should inquire into and report on the activities... of Mr. Raymond Denis" brings in a matter that is not connected in any way with the allegations that have been made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I can assure you-

Inquiries of the Ministry
This is the real point, and I am sure my hon. friend, as a devoted upholder of civil rights, will subscribe to this.
-that if any member of the House of Commons, or anyone else, is willing to take the responsibility of making any specific charge of wrongdoing against Mr. Denis, the government will not hesitate to have such charge inquired into fully, but we do not feel that we should set aside the ordinary rules for the protection of the civil rights of an individual and authorize any general inquisition into his conduct when no specific charges or even allegations have been made respecting it, apart, of course, from the one matter which is specifically referred to in the order in council.
And I would add in a parenthesis of my own "based on a charge that was made". The letter continues:
It is our opinion that the order in council is drawn broadly enough to enable the commissioner to inquire and report fully upon all the circumstances relating to the only allegations which have been made in this matter.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this is not the time to comment on the correspondence which the minister has read; nevertheless I do want to ask him one question arising out of it. I understand he has made it perfectly clear that under the present terms of reference the commissioner is not required to consider the conduct, or indeed even permitted to consider the wisdom or the conduct, of the Minister of Justice after he received the allegations in question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have said all I can.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I have answered in a way which recognizes that if anyone has a charge to make there is a way of dealing with it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. The Acting Prime Minister wants a charge to be laid. May I point out that a charge has already been laid by Mr. Pierre Lamontagne of the city of Montreal, and that is exactly what we are complaining about. I am asking whether the document the minister has just read does not clearly eliminate any opportunity for, or any authority to, the chief justice to investigate the voucher which the Minister of Labour says, when he finds it, will be turned over for his perusal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend puts a question, couples several things with it and then jumps from one quickly to another. There is no doubt that the charges made by Mr. Lamontagne with regard to Mr. 
Denis are encompassed by the order in council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then may I ask the minister my second question, and I will not jump about but will put a separate question. Is the minister now saying to the house, as a result of the statement he has just read, that this voucher when it is presented to the commissioner cannot be considered by the commissioner, and cannot be part of the question before him?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is a hypothetical question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know how one can deal with it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
Could the minister tell us whether he had an inquiry made within his department to find out if there was a document bearing No. H-12 indicating that cheques signed by Mr. Hal Banks and payable to the order of some federal members had been handed over to the board of trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised yesterday and I agreed that if the regular course were followed and a motion for the production of this alleged document were put on the order paper it would be dealt with in the ordinary way and I would be glad to do that, as enjoined by the Deputy Speaker yesterday.


Gilles Grégoire: A further question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Minister of Labour tell us whether such a document exists or if a certain document bearing No. H-12 is used in his department?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker; but when the question was asked yesterday it was the first time I had been aware that a document, H-12, was alleged to exist in my department. I have no knowledge that it does exist, and I have instituted inquiries.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.

On page 10384 of Hansard for Monday, November 23, 1964, we see that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) stated that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police took statements from Mr. Lord and his new executive assistant, Mr. Letendre, as well as from Mr. Denis.
This morning, the newspapers reported from London that Mr. Lord stated:

"I certainly did not do this and 1 do not know anything about this business," said Lord, now a student at Nuffield college, Oxford.

I should like to ask the Minister of Justice about the part played by Mr. Letendre, inasmuch as he was mentioned in the statement made by Mr. Nielsen, as recorded in Hansard of Monday, November 23.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us about the part played by Mr. Letendre, his present executive assistant, in this matter?


Guy Favreau: This, Mr. Speaker, is a very fair question and I wish to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for asking it.
It is quite clear that Mr. Letendre played exactly the same part as Mr. Lord did, and by that I mean that he is not referred to directly or indirectly in the statement made by Mr. Lamontagne in connection with this bribe offer.
What Mr. Lord has said on his own behalf also applies to Mr. Letendre, with regard to the statements that have been made.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, is the minister prepared to assure the house that Mr. Letendre did not telephone Mr. Lamontagne in Montreal and exercise any influence in any manner whatsoever to influence the bail proceedings then pending?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this is another of these questions, another of these smear questions. I said that Mr. Letendre was not mentioned directly-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh.


Guy Favreau: -or indirectly, nor involved by Mr. Lamontagne in his allegations, directly or indirectly, in relation to the allegation of a bribe which has been mentioned. But as in the case of Mr. Lord-and I learned this when the report was made to me by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.-subsequently Mr. Letendre did in fact call Mr. Inquiries of the Ministry Lamontagne in relation to the possibility of setting a bond in the case of Rivard. So far as passing judgment on the acts of any individual is concerned, I will leave that to the commission.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question I ask the minister now whether Mr. Letendre phoned Mr. Lamontagne as the executive assistant to the Minister of Justice?


Guy Favreau: Yes. The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, and I just said it was in the same context as the reference I made to Mr. Lord. [Translation]


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Since the Minister of Justice referred to the report from the R.C.M.P. commissioner, should he not table it in the house?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I just said I would not pass judgment on an individual and that this would be for the commissioner to do.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I did not suggest that the minister pass judgment on anyone. I only asked whether, in view of the numerous references he made to this document, he should not produce it before the house.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I did not mention this document. However, I said that Mr. Letendre was not involved directly or indirectly in the statement made by Mr. Lamontagne, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Yukon.
In view of the insinuations made against whomever it may be, it was my duty to say what I said.
It will be up to the committee to study, examine and report upon the circumstances mentioned in that report.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister answer this supplementary question? Does he think-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is certainly not the purpose of the Chair to stop proper proceedings in the house, of all places, but it seems to me this type of question, if it should be asked at all, should be asked at the proper time on the estimates of the minister, which I understand will be up for consideration in a few minutes.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the importance of the whole question the Chair has been as lenient as possible, but I would call two citations to the attention of hon. members. The first is a ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener which is to be found in the Journals of the House of Commons, Canada, 1959, at page 583, and the second is a statement I made myself on October 30, 1964, following along the same line as Mr. Speaker Michener, to the effect that if a charge is to be made against a member in the house, a member should take his own responsibility, should stand in his place and make that charge rather than by making miscellaneous remarks which tend to inculpate an hon. member. It is the only fair and proper way or, putting it in another way, in the words of Mr. Speaker Michener at page 584:
In my view, simple Justice requires that no hon. member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the house or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have not levelled accusations at any hon. member of the house. The question upon which Your Honour just delivered a rather lengthy opinion had nothing to do with any accusations which may or may not be made. I do not intend to make them against any hon. member in the house. The question upon which Your Honour was giving a decision was a supplementary question being asked of the Minister of Justice not regarding the conduct of an hon. member of the house, but rather the conduct of one of his executive assistants, and I see no connection between the two.


Mr. Speaker:: I would just like to clear up one point. I was making a suggestion for the consideration of the house, not rendering an opinion.


Erik Nielsen: May I put the supplementary question, sir, and I won't go into the matter any further on orders of the day. This is my supplementary question, if the minister will answer it. Will he rise in his place and tell the house that he handed the question that was asked by the hon. member for Sherbrooke to him and asked him to ask it?


Guy Favreau: Is the question whether I asked the hon. member for Sherbrooke to rise in the house and put that question?


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


Guy Favreau: To that assertion I say no. I did not ask him; only his sense of justice directed him to do that.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I simply want to say to the house that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is not the only one in the house with new ideas who can, at the given moment, provoke the anger of the whole country by making assertions for which he does not assume responsibility and which he does not have the courage to make in public, because he could be personally charged for making such charges.
I simply wish to say to the house that the question I asked a short while ago was only prompted by a sense of justice, since the hon. member for Yukon mentioned the name of Mr. Letendre, another person he wants to smear, but without taking legal action, for he will not make those accusations publicly, outside the house.
Furthermore, I am informed that he was invited to appear on television but refused to be questioned by newspapermen, because he does not want to say outside the house what he has been saying in the house. If he is going to continue to sully reputations without taking any responsibility, then members of the house must rise to intervene and put an end to such activities which, for my part, I qualify as dishonest.


Erik Nielsen: On the matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, a member who has not attended the debates in this house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Despite all the noise on the other side they will hear what I have to say. Let me say to the hon. member for Sherbrooke and to all hon. members in this house that not once, until the hon. member for Sherbrooke himself introduced it into the proceedings this afternoon, have I mentioned the name of Mr. Letendre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest we proceed with the business before the house.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is one question of privilege before us now.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of privilege I raised earlier, I have correctly quoted Hansard of Monday, November 23, 1964.
Earlier, in putting my question to the Minister of Justice, I quoted from page 10384 of Hansard of that date the exact words of the hon. member for Yukon which can be found at the top of the left hand column. If he would care to look up his copy of Hansard, he will clearly see the name which he himself mentioned and I quote:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police took statements from Mr. Lord. They took a statement from his new executive assistant, Mr. Letendre.
It is perfectly clear that this man was mentioned by the hon. member for Yukon. Even if he suggests that I am not often present in the house, he might realize that I still can read Hansard and the newspapers, because this whole story is now all over the country. I am still able to read and I can assure him that I am clever enough to realize that the tactics he is using now tend only to promote his activities and his personal aspirations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to all hon. members that we go on to the other matters before the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps I might be allowed to conclude, since this matter affects me.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Erik Nielsen: No. I have nothing to withdraw but I have a mistake to admit. I have been at all times meticulous and scrupulously careful-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I did not recall having mentioned Mr. Letendre's name. I still have not checked Hansard, but I accept the hon. member's reading of Hansard in this regard.
The circumstance still remains that Mr. Letendre's name in connection with this particular case and the replies of the minister was introduced in the house today by the hon. member. All I said apparently, according to the quotation which was read from Hansard, which I have not yet read because of the pressure of work in my office, was that a statement had been taken by the R.C.M.P. I did not implicate him in any way-


An hon. Member:: The minister did.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: -in the circumstances surrounding these rather shocking charges.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think all hon. members have had sufficient opportunity to-well, I was searching for a polite word. May I suggest we go on to the business before the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it true that six lighting ships of the Royal Canadian Navy are laid up in Halifax and are likely to be laid up there indefinitely because of a shortage of technical personnel which would enable them to be kept at sea?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the report appearing in this morning's Globe and Mail is essentially correct. The action taken does not reflect an over-all shortage of men in the Royal Canadian Navy but rather the lack of sufficient numbers of personnel in certain skilled trades resulting from the introduction into service of new ships and new equipment in ships already built which would require both a higher level of skill in tradesmen and more of them.
This problem has been building up over a period of several years, and a solution would be to increase the number of personnel signing on for re-engagement. Some success has been achieved in this area but not sufficient to fill the gap, and with the requirement for crews for H.M.C.S. Annapolis and Ottawa plus the fact that H.M.C.S. Bonaventure has completed a minor refit, action was taken to tie up six older ships in order to release necessary manpower.
These ships, which are about 20 years old and nearing the end of their usefulness, are nevertheless being maintained in a constant state of operational readiness, and should an emergency arise the crews would be immediately augmented with trained personnel now employed in naval training schools ashore.
We realize that this is by no means a satisfactory state of affairs, and every effort is being made to retain in the navy the necessary number of highly skilled tradesmen. If we are to do this, career opportunities and conditions of service, including living accommodation, must be made more attractive. This

Inquiries of the Ministry is being given serious consideration within the department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that during the past year a considerable number of naval vessels have been taken out of commission altogether, is this shortage not in fact due to the departure of technical personnel because of a decline in morale and a general lack of confidence on the part of these people with regard to their future in the navy because of the way in which the present government has so drastically reduced the navy, has failed to institute a building program and has generally indicated that it is not prepared to see the navy maintained in the way it has been for many years past?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is not a new problem. The hon. gentleman will recall that when he was minister there were allegations that some of the ships were not kept in a satisfactory state of repair because of insufficient technical personnel in order to do so.
A new system of rotating crews on a cyclical basis is being put into operation and it is hoped that this step, along with others which are being taken, will overcome the problem. But the problem is not new. It is not going to be solved overnight, but I can assure the hon. gentleman and other members of the house that every step necessary will be taken to man the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and to keep them operationally ready.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If an emergency should arise within the next few days or in the reasonably near future, would these ships be able to put to sea in a state of top fighting efficiency?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They would be in as top a state of efficiency as ships of that age and capability can be.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister then saying that in fact right at this moment there are trained personnel to fill the gaps on these ships?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have already said that the crews could be augmented from personnel serving ashore.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A further supplementary question. Unless I am mistaken the minister said a moment ago that the crews would be augmented from trained personnel ashore who are learning their trades in training schools. Surely there is some discrepancy here.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said "who were serving as instructors". I think the hon. gentleman will find that to be so when he has a chance to check the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


Gerald Augustine Regan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for Vancouver East twice on a supplementary, and following that the hon. member for Halifax will have his turn.


Harold Edward Winch: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of what I am certain I heard the minister say a few moments ago about the lack of certain technical staff or technicians for all the new ships, may I ask him what new ships there are except Provider? Will he give us the names of the other new ships and their class?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There were two ships of the Nipigon class that came into service this year. One of them is being commissioned next month.


Harold Edward Winch: And are you still short of technical staff?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are just getting the crew ready for the second one.


Gerald Augustine Regan: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Inasmuch as the minister has indicated that one of the problems in retaining trained men in the navy has been housing, will the minister make every effort to see that a policy is brought into force whereby housing facilities-


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -are provided for naval personnel scattered throughout the civilian population so they will not have to live in a ghetto, or in an area where there are only military people?


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


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to debate the matter at ten o'clock.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a follow-up question for the Minister of National Defence with regard to his report on the Halifax situation to the effect that this does not affect the over-all strength of

the navy. What kind of rotation program has the minister in mind-


Gerald Augustine Regan: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: I do not know about the other members in the house, but I am getting sick and tired of the noise from the member representing Halifax.


An hon. Member:: So is everybody else.


Malcolm MacInnis: What kind of rotation
program has the Minister of National Defence in mind in order to make up for the 700 technicians we will be short in a complement of 1,000 men?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question requiring considerable detail, research and explanation, and it should be put on the order paper.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the minister's tinkering with the naval service has apparently brought the emergency effectiveness of that service to at least partial paralysis, will the minister undertake to this house to give immediate priority to a review of and a remedy for the regrettable circumstances that have created this alarming state of affairs?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I not only categorically deny the statement implicit in that question as it was put, which was completely contrary to the rules of the house, but I make the categorical statement that the Royal Canadian Navy has a more effective surveillance, antisubmarine and kill capability today than it has ever had before in history.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister how this can possibly be true when there is a total of something between 12 and 15 fewer vessels available to do the work than was the case a little over a year ago.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, perhaps more than anyone else in the house, should be familiar with the surveillance and kill capability of those particular vessels, and it should not be necessary for me to explain to him why this is so.



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON NAVAL SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Russell MacEwan: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence, now that the late fall is here, when he ex-
Inquiries of the Ministry pects to make an announcement regarding a new naval shipbuilding program.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Quite shortly, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister advise if the leader of the nazi party of the United States, Mr. Lincoln Rockwell, has again entered this country and, if so, would he indicate just how such an obvious persona non grata qualified for admission to Canada?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He is appearing on the C.B.C.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I have seen a news report from the Vancouver office of the Canadian Press according to which Mr. Rockwell would have entered Canada at Windsor to proceed to Vancouver and then left the country. Following that report, I asked the officials of my department to make the necessary investigation to find out if Mr. Rockwell did come to Canada and if he did enter in the alleged way.


William Skoreyko: supplementary question on this point, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he can assure the Canadian people that he is going to keep Mr. Rockwell out of the country, in view of the fact he was not able to keep Mr. Banks in?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I already stated that every officer in the department of immigration in this country was informed that Mr. Rockwell should not be admitted in Canada. Consequently, I do not know what happened, but we must take into consideration the fact that over 60 million persons cross the borders between Canada and the United States every year, and it is quite possible that Mr. Rockwell came to Canada.
However, I have no information on this matter at the present time.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
Did he inquire if the person who claimed to be George Lincoln Rockwell and who was heard over the Douglas radio station in British Columbia was held for violating the Immigration Act?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it was only after Mr. Rockwell left Vancouver that we learned that he had been there, that he had appeared on a program and that he had returned to the United States.
Therefore, no proceedings were instituted against Mr. Rockwell, since he had returned to the United States.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice a question on a matter which was raised a while ago respecting the fact that Mr. Rockwell, who is considered as undesirable in this country, apparently, last night or on the previous day, gave an interview over a Vancouver radio station? I would like to ask the minister if he intends to instruct the R.C.M.P. to arrest Mr. Rockwell, if he is still in this country, and have him charged before the courts on a count of illegal entry into this country?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I might perhaps answer that question, since it concerns two departments.
Instructions have been issued to all our immigration offices, and we also have the
R.	C.M.P's help, to arrest Mr. Rockwell as soon as he sets foot again in Canada, should he ever do so.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
supplementary question?
Should Mr. Rockwell be in Canada at the present time, would the Department of Citizenship and Immigration propose to arrest and imprison him on the charge of having entered into the country illegally?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, according to the information I have, Mr. Rockwell is said to have returned to the United States immediately after.



LABOUR RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
S.	I.U. ELECTIONS-APPEARANCE OF MARITIME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the Norris

commission recommended that the newly elected president of the S.I.U., Mr. McLaughlin, be charged with an offence, is it the government's intention to do so now and to attempt to put an end to Hal Banks' control of the union in question and its influence over the trustees?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, in my opinion this question is not in order.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps I can ask one that will be. In view of the fact that apparently McLaughlin has been elected president of the S.I.U., does the minister agree that such a man should be president, especially in view of the findings by Mr. Justice Norris who stated that the abuses by Banks in connection with the handling of union funds were never checked by McLaughlin, and that from the evidence he collaborated with Banks? He further stated:
McLaughlin gave evidence for 16 days and proved himself to be throughout a clever, resourceful and untruthful witness on any matters in controversy...
Is this man, who is to be charged with an offence and who was found to be untruthful and unworthy of holding any position in labour circles, now to receive the approval of the board of trustees and of the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the house wishes to pass the motion on the order paper at once, we can meet the board of trustees and some of these questions can be asked directly.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, when are you going to bring the board of trustees here? We have been looking for them for weeks. When are we going to see them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is a motion on the order paper empowering the committee on industrial relations to meet the board. If the house will agree to pass the motion now, then we will.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: The opposition agrees, because we do want to see McLaughlin. We want as well to see Mr. Hall and find out what, agreements were made regarding McLaughlin in connection with Banks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to revert to motions so that we can deal with this motion?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to revert to motion No. 82 on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the standing committee on industrial relations be empowered to hear and to examine members of the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions concerning the acts performed and the facts found in carrying out the duties entrusted to them by the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act and to report to the house from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received representations from local 22, U.A.W., London, Ontario, dealing with the fact that Canadian locomotive crankcases are being shipped to the United States for repair?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: On Friday last the hon. member for Bow River made an inquiry concerning the sale of some 20 acres of land in the city of Longueuil and suggested I had been dealing with an individual instead of the city.
The lands concerned have been under the administration of my department for an extended period, but were reserved for use by national defence since 1939. In 1960 the municipal officials made application to purchase the property through their member of parliament, Hon. Pierre Sevigny, who was then associate minister of national defence. The military authorities finally agreed to relinquish their interest in the lands, subject to certain conditions, on the express understanding that they would be made available to the national harbours board and the municipality, in that order.
Pursuant to established policy, various agencies were contacted to determine if there were any continuing federal, provincial or municipal requirements for portions of the site, and the public works department selected about 100,000 square feet for an unemployment insurance commission office. The national
Inquiries of the Ministry harbours board waived all further interest in the property, and the only outstanding application was the one filed by the city of Longueuil, formerly the town of Montreal South. In accordance with the principles which were later advocated by the royal commission on government organization, my department undertook to fulfil the commitments made to the civic administrators by national defence in 1960.
However, in view of the fact that the lands were to be used for commercial development, rather than public purposes such as parks, etc., no special concessions were made, and the sale price was established on the basis of recommendations by several accredited appraisers of the soldier settlement and Veterans' Land Act administration. Two offers were rejected because the bids from the city were not commensurate with our equity in the lands, until the municipal council finally agreed to pay the full appraised value of $870,000, which was arrived at by an exhaustive analysis of sales of comparable lots in Longueuil over an extended period. This transaction was formally authorized by order in council P.C. 1964-406, of the 19th March, 1964, and, as soon as a resurvey of our property is completed the sale will be finalized.
Our negotiations have been carried out direct with the municipal council and the city manager and, if successful, it is our intention to convey title in fee simple to the city of Longueuil. Once the lands have been alienated from the crown, resale will be subject to the discretion of the elected representatives of Longueuil and we will have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Neither I nor any officer of my department has been contacted by Mr. Jean-Paul Auclair, as mentioned by the member for Bow River, and it is apparent that any interest which he might wish to acquire must be secured from the city of Longueuil.



SYDNEY, N.S.-SALE OF CABLE IN HARBOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister think it proper that the Department of National Defence, through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, should try to sell equipment of which they have no record?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the question is beyond me. I wonder if the hon. member would mind repeating it.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Malcolm MacInnis: I asked the minister whether he thought it proper that the Department of National Defence, through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, should be trying to sell equipment of which they have no record.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentleman is referring to, unless he means some old cable line across the harbour down there. If he would be a little more specific and put his question on the order paper I would be pleased to answer it or refer it to my colleague the Minister of Industry.


Malcolm MacInnis: The minister hit the nail on the head, but it took a couple of questions to do it. I would ask, then, why was it necessary for him to write me a letter inquiring as to the exact location of that cable; and then he wants to sell it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Because I have a high regard for the taxpayers' money, and if the hon. gentleman can tell us where it is without spending further public funds we will be very grateful.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question. What was the government's regard for the taxpayers' money when this cable was allowed to lie under Sydney harbour from the end of the war right up to the time they went out of office in 1957?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will have to refer this matter to some previous generation, Mr. Speaker, and see if we can find the answer.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely the hon. member has made his point.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question. My question referred to the fact that this cable has been lying under the harbour since the war. The minister says he will have to refer the matter to another generation. Is this another way in which the minister calls attention to his war record?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Robson Muir: I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question I asked him on November 12 with regard to the hunting rights granted to our Indian people
IMr. Hellyer.]
under treaty. At that time I asked him the following question:
Owing to the increasing number of treaty Indians being required to stand trial for alleged hunting infractions, would the minister assure the house that the hunting rights granted our Indian people by treaty will be protected?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, last week I had a number of statements to make about the fishing and hunting rights of the Indians. I hoped to use this document when my estimates came up, but unfortunately I did not have time to tell the house about it.
I would be most happy to outline the main points concerning the attitude of the government and of my department on Indian rights from the point of view of hunting and fishing.


George Robson Muir: As a supplementary question, when does the minister intend to give this summary?


René Tremblay: Tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question concerns an area of confusion in the world other than the one in which we find ourselves just now. It is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Due to conflicting reports in the press that further Canadians held as hostages in the Congo have reached safety, and in view of the fact that further rescue operations have taken place, together with the fact that a senior Canadian foreign service officer is now in Stanleyville, can the minister bring us up to date on this situation and tell us whatever definite information he may have about Canadian nationals who may have reached safety from the rebel areas, or who may be known to be dead, other than those whose names appeared on yesterday's confirmed list.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The embassy in Leopoldville has been handling reception arrangements for those Canadian citizens being flown in from Stanleyville. As the hon. member knows because of his recent and valuable services in this area, Mr. Michel Gauvin who participated in the recent talks in Nairobi

arrived in Stanleyville yesterday. He attempted to recover the remains of Reverend Hector McMillan, but found that the village where this missionary was killed was still in rebel hands.
Six Canadians who were believed to be in the Stanleyville area have not yet been accounted for. In addition, three Canadians were last reported in August to be in Ulele province, including one in the town of Paulis and 13 may be in Kibali-Ituri province, both of which, as the hon. member knows lie to the northeast of Stanleyville. We have not yet received any information about these people, but every endeavour is being made through every source to obtain it.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I might have asked my question as a supplementary question half an hour ago but the Conservative members took almost all the time of the house.
In the absence of the Secretary of State, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Acting Prime Minister.
Has the government received representations or a request from Mr. Richard Ballan-tyne about the film "Mr. Pearson" which was not shown by the C.B.C. and for which Mr. Ballantyne or his organization have offered to pay the C.B.C. $35,000, what the film had cost, provided that the C.B.C. would allow them to show that film over a private network throughout the country?
Has the Acting Prime Minister any knowledge of that letter, which would be dated November 19, just a few days ago?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about this matter, but I shall inquire and give an answer later.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: A supplementary question. In connection with the C.B.C.'s second attempt to produce a government endorsed "Mr. Pearson" film, can the house be informed who the Prime Minister was referring to when he stated "We cannot live crooked and think straight"?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not hear the hon. member's question but if I judge it right I do not think it really matters.


Robert Carman Coates: It is most important that we as Canadians should know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just did not hear the question. If it had to do with what I thought, my answer was a correct one.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to ask the Minister of Justice; it is not controversial. Two or three weeks ago I asked the minister whether he could tell us when he was going to act on the report of the restrictive trade practices commission with regard to the alleged tied sales of tires, batteries and accessories. He said he had recommended a policy to the cabinet and expected an early decision. I may have missed it, but I have heard no announcement since then. I wonder if the minister is in a position to report today what is the cabinet decision.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is too regular an attendant in the house to have missed such an important announcement. My submission is still before one of the committees of cabinet.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or perhaps the Minister of Transport, what if any representations the government have made to the United States authorities in support of the protests of Canadian trucking companies over the various tariffs and charges now being levied on them by United States authorities and which they feel are unfair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this question is being looked into by the departments concerned, with regard to the representations which may be made in the matter.

Supply-Justice


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could keep us informed and give us some kind of information within the next few days about the justice or the fairness of the position of the truckers and the American position.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may be assured that we will.



WHEAT-SUBSIDY ON EXPORTS BY UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce; it is in reference to a question I asked him the other day about the dumping of United States wheat. At that time the minister stated that he would get in contact with the Canadian wheat board and the United States authorities and would report back to the house. Can he do that now?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a series of questions either yesterday or the day before I gave a report on my conversations with the under secretary of agriculture of the United States. If the hon. gentleman will look at Hansard he will find it there.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or other dependants of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,109,600.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman,-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me just to say that the minister was called out of the chamber very suddenly about an absolutely personal matter. He will be back in a minute or two. He asked me to make his excuses.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, even though I have no personal knowledge of this thing

and did not have the opportunity to consult a thick file on the matter we have now been discussing for a week, I feel that the announcement of a judicial inquiry would have been welcomed if the terms of reference had been adequate.
In appointing Hon. Frederic Dorion, the chief justice of the Quebec superior court, to preside over the inquiry, I think the government made a very good choice. Because of his reputation, the appointment of Mr. Justice Dorion will surely be well received and guarantee that this inquiry will be conducted conscientiously and honestly.
However, Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the terms of reference that have been laid down and under which the inquiry will be held.
A summary of those terms of reference is found in the last three lines of the order in council setting up a commission of inquiry which read as follows:
-to report whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant any prosecution for offences that may be involved.
Well, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) stated many times that sufficient evidence was lacking until now. The inquiring commissioner will therefore have to decide, in other words, whether or not the minister was right in stating that sufficient evidence was lacking. What will then be the minister's role in that connection? As I said the other day, the officials of the Department of Justice will try to prove that there was not enough evidence.
Then, the Minister of Justice puts himself in an extremely weak position because he takes it upon himself to prove that there is not sufficient evidence, whereas he should try to supply sufficient evidence, if possible. But, as he assumes the position that he was right, that there is a lack of evidence, he, therefore, sides with those who might be implicated, if there was sufficient evidence.
Mr. Chairman, you will admit that such an attitude is not normal, that it even means depriving justice of the impartiality which it should have. Under the circumstances, the crown attorney, and the officials of the Department of Justice take it upon themselves to defend those who might be implicated, whereas the opposite should be the case.
Mr. Chairman, we do not want to lay charges. However, some have been laid, explanations have been asked for, and there has been a request that the terms of reference of this commission should be broad

enough to allow a full study of the facts in this affair.
For instance, two days ago, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Rouleau) resigned as parliamentary secretary. We would not have asked him to resign, since he is innocent until he is proved guilty and since to this date, no charge has been laid against him. What amazes me most in this matter is that his resignation was accepted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). If the Prime Minister had trusted his parliamentary secretary, if he had been convinced that he had nothing to do with that matter, it was his responsibility to turn down his resignation. That is how we would have conceived the role of a leader who has confidence in his parliamentary secretary. But his resignation was accepted. On the other hand, why such haste in resigning?
What amazes me also in this matter is that everything is connected with fairly serious problems. All this is related to an investigation on narcotics smuggling and all those things are brought together.
At the same time, the same individuals on the Liberal side can all be suspected, because it was suggested that six hon. members from the city of Montreal had received $1,000 cheques from Hal Banks, another tie with the criminals and the acts of violence in the Montreal region. But when the 22 hon. members from the island of Montreal are placed under suspicion, we do not approve of such an attitude. Why not name the individuals who are said to have received cheques in an attempt to clear up the situation for the 16 other members? We are told that six of them are supposed to have received cheques, but no names are given and then 22 hon. members are suspected.
We find that it is always the group of hon. members from the island of Montreal who are implicated in such things. Why is it always the same group who get cheques and payments? And, at a certain time you do some people favours contrary to the administration of justice; perhaps too many Montreal members are exerting undue pressure on officials of the Department of Justice in order to allow favours to some of their friends or to people who have rendered them certain services.
When a Liberal member or candidate receives $1,000 from an individual such as Hal Banks, toward his election, that person surely has a claim on him for having paid him that amount and when we find, later on, one year later, that this same Hal Banks gets
Supply-Justice
special consideration allowing him to elude Canadian justice, then we cannot help but relate the two things.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
Since I know the state of mind and the fairness of my friend, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I want him to assure me that he is not suggesting, I hope, that in any case, any member of this house, on whatever side of the house he is sitting, intervened with me with respect to the Banks case.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if one will consult the shorthand takes, one will see that I did not name the Minister of Justice, but what I did say: "the department". And that is precisely because I wanted the insinuations to stop and the facts to be given. But if a commission is set up which is limited in its terms of reference and cannot investigate all those matters, then it cannot be satisfactory. There is only one possible conclusion: efforts are made to hide the truth.
When we have been asking for the names of those who received $1,000 cheques from Mr. Hal Banks for more than three weeks already and they have not been given, then we have to wonder what is going on, because it is well known that the consideration of the estimates will end tomorrow night and that we will have no subsequent opportunity to obtain the names we want; we will have no other opportunity to discuss the way the Department of Justice is administered. That is the problem. It is all those facts which create bitterness and lead us to entertain some doubts.
Why keep secret the names of those who received $1,000 cheques?


An hon. Member:: Why give them?


Gilles Grégoire: Because if they are given, then the commissioner will be able to investigate the corruption which may exist- I repeat, which may exist-within the department.
Then an inquiry could be made, but if they do not give the names, how can you conduct such an inquiry, since it would be restricted by the terms of reference as set forth?
They refuse to provide the names and that gives us some doubts.
It is just like some Liberal members who declined to disclose the source of their election funds. If I were asked where my election funds come from, I would be ready to answer

Supply-Justice
at any time, and the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) is ready to do the same thing.
I made a statement in connection with my election expenses and the treasurer of the riding organization can vouch for this; we are not embarrassed in doing so.
Is it so embarrassing for the Liberal members? If it is so embarrassing that they will not divulge any names, what does that mean? What lies hidden behind all that?
I will not blame the Minister of Justice himself, far from that. Nor will I accept the kind of innuendoes made yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon; for a while I was disgusted myself by this type of innuendo.
However, there is one thing which is imperative. What we are asking-these are not innuendoes-is two clear and precise things:
1.	Who are the six members from the island of Montreal who received $1,000 cheques from Hal Banks?
2.	Would the Minister of Justice object to broadening the terms of reference of the commission investigating those matters, so the investigating judge would be free to inquire into the interventions by certain hon. members with the Department of Justice concerning the narcotics case and the flight of Hal Banks? Let them broaden the terms of reference of that commission and divulge the names of the members of parliament involved, and we will be satisfied. Those are not insinuations; they are definite facts we are asking for.
See the form I received yesterday, stating that there are no photostatic copies of such cheques with the Department of Justice.
We never said anything like that. We never said either that they could be found in the offices of the privy council. We are told what does not exist but not what does.
That is the set of circumstances which raises grave doubts in the minds of the Canadian people.
The only way to clear those doubts is to produce the documents requested and give names. The judicial inquiry commission must be given terms of reference broad enough to enable it to study any representations made by some members to the Department of Justice, and which might have thwarted the course of justice, if there were any.


Auguste Choquette: Are you stating that some members interfere, yes or no?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I contend that members do intervene; I have

done it myself but certainly not in the case of drug traffic or in a matter involving Hal Banks.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
Is the hon. member for Lapointe contending that members have intervened in matters dealing with narcotics?
Are you laying a charge against members of the House of Commons who might have intervened in drug matters?
We are not asking you if you have received money yourselves.


Gilles Grégoire: Please note, Mr. Chairman, how clever is this interruption. This is an innuendo-


Auguste Choquette: This is no innuendo, it is the truth.


Gilles Grégoire: -just as dishonest as the one he made yesterday to blame me.
Liberal members are the ones who are making dishonest insinuations and giving a bad example to the House of Commons. Speaking of those who are dishonest, the one I would put at the top of the list, way ahead of the hon. member for Yukon, would be the hon. member for Lotbiniere; he would be ahead of everybody.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Lapointe has, in no uncertain terms, just accused me of being dishonest. I ask that he withdraw his statement and I would ask him, while doing so, to deny that he has received money from the Union Nationale.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
Three days ago I told the hon. member for Lotbiniere that he had royally lied on two occasions.


Auguste Choquette: On a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: I am speaking on a question of privilege and I cannot be interrupted.
At that time the hon. member for Lotbiniere did not rise to ask that I withdraw my statement. The day before yesterday while I was away to give a talk at Sherbrooke university he rose on a question of privilege. He did it in a cowardly way when I was not in the house. But the first time I told him that he was royally lying, he did not ask for any withdrawal. But he was cowardly enough to repeat his accusation when I was away.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe said that I have royally-lied and I demand that he withdraw his statement because:
1. To tell a member that he has royally lied is unparliamentary. 2. To deny that he was given money by the Union Nationale and Jos. Begin, as was the case, is contrary to the truth for he did in fact receive money from the Union Nationale and Jos. Begin.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will allow me to give some explanations in connection with the last sentence spoken by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the hon. member for Lapointe wish to comment further on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere?


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I notice one thing: that in rising on a question of privilege the hon. member for Lotbiniere tries to attract attention in order to see his name as often as possible in the newspapers.
The other day he put some accusations on the record. As Hansard will also show, I told him that he royally lied. He neither protested nor demanded that I withdraw that remark.
Today, he is trying to provoke me and I shall repeat what I said to him once before. I know very well that the expression is unparliamentary even though it is well deserved. Consequently, you would have been justified to ask me to withdraw my remarks, not because I was wrong but because, the expression used is unparliamentary. However, I shall not fall into the trap laid for me by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. He repeated the same accusation while I was absent. That is cowardly, in my opinion, and I will not follow his example.
Members who make innuendos through cowardice, in the house, are people like the hon. member for Lotbiniere-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The chairman feels that the two hon. members, the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the hon. member for Lapointe, have both used language which goes beyond parliamentary usages.
In my opinion, both hon. members should be respectful of our usages in the committee of the house and avoid using the terms they have used.
The hon. member for Lapointe will certainly admit with me that it is not customary in our debates to tell another hon. member
Supply-Justice
that he was lying. This is a term which the standing orders of this parliament do not accept.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere has also used terms and made suggestions absolutely out of order in the committee.
The fairest and most equitable way of settling the dispute between the two hon. members would certainly be to set aside this question and to invite my hon. friend from Lapointe to revert to item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice now before us.


Gilles Grégoire: You will agree, Mr. Chairman, that I was speaking on item No. 1, but a not too clever interruption led us astray.
However, I want to say this. These words I have said and which are unparliamentary, I did not say them today. Therefore, if the hon. member for Lotbiniere had some complaint to make, he should have made it then. But today, it is the hon. member himself who has used antiparliamentary language, and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to have him withdraw his remark.
Personally, I used none of those words and I only repeated those I had used two days ago. If the hon. member for Lotbiniere thought that I should withdraw them, he should have asked me to do so at that time. But he did not. However, the words he used himself are unparliamentary and I am taking this first opportunity to ask him to withdraw them. You agreed yourself, Mr. Chairman, that they were unparliamentary.


Lucien Lamoureux: I also said that the words used by the hon. member for Lapointe were unparliamentary. He cannot, today, in this indirect way, use words which are not recognized by the customs of the house.
I might remind the hon. member that one cannot say that another hon. member has lied.
One may suggest to an hon. member that his allegations are inaccurate or untrue, but not that he has lied, because that would mean that he did so wittingly.
I think that if the hon. member for Lapointe wishes to co-operate with the Chair and the other members of the committee, he should forget the incident and come back to the matter we should be dealing with at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Chairman, I shall forget that incident because I will ignore the hon. member who intervened. But I point out that we were given an example of

Supply-Justice
how one can be impolite in this house and make ridiculous assertions. Therefore, the members of the cabinet should not be surprised if we proceed exactly as the Liberal members do sometimes and as the hon. member for Lotbiniere proceeds quite often.


Auguste Choquette: What I said is true.


Gilles Grégoire: I will ignore the hon. member for Lotbiniere; he is not worth any consideration. I will forget him.


Auguste Choquette: What I said is true.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, will you call the hon. member for Lotbiniere to order or will you let him repeat himself like a parrot?


Lucien Lamoureux: I would suggest to the hon. member for Lotbiniere to co-operate with the committee and respect the rules which prescribe that an hon. member who has the floor must not be interrupted.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say something on the point of order.
The hon. member for Lapointe has all the required latitude to insult and abuse us, but we are not entitled to reply. Now, he received money from Jos. Begin and he does not want to admit it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, you have heard the last sentence of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. He is merely looking for publicity. He is a publicity maniac.
But I will not be caught by his tricks. I told him once as recorded in Hansard-and if I quote Hansard, then it is not I who speaks- that he had royally lied, and he did not object-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, if it is recorded in Hansard that I had royally lied, that should be withdrawn, because to link royalty with a lie is a crime against Her Majesty. On the other hand, I am not a royalist-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the committee could not get back to the item before it. You have given a ruling, Mr. Chairman, which I am sure meets the consensus of the committee. I would ask that it be obeyed and we get back to the item before us.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, that suits me perfectly. If the house leader will only introduce a little measure of discipline into his party, we shall revert to item No. 1. Even
[Mr. Gregoire.!
if it hurts, we can put questions and request particulars regarding those facts.
We will not be bothered too much by some people's touchiness.
As I said, we want to know the names of the six persons who received $6,000 from Hal Banks, even if the confession may hurt. We insist that the terms of reference of the investigating commissioner be broad enough to enable him to learn the whole truth.
We want to know whether those terms of reference are broad enough for the commissioner to examine all aspects of the case and to determine whether Liberal members of parliament intervened with the Department of Justice, in that connection, and I say department not minister.
If the people concerned feel completely innocent, they will not fear a full investigation. I say once again, that if we are refused a full investigation, it will mean that some people have a guilty conscience and are afraid of having the true facts made public.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal in a general way with the matters that are particularly before the committee. The hon. member for Lapointe has just made a request regarding these cheques that allegedly were given by Hal Banks to various Libera] members or, I presume, their official agents. These elusive cheques which were available a few short weeks ago have suddenly found themselves absent without leave. It would be an interesting thing to speculate as to what happened to them, why they disappeared; and whether they went on their own. There is no limit to the speculation in which one could indulge while attempting to trace these cheques, which some hon. members must realize would not be particularly beneficial to them were they located.
I am surprised that the Minister of Labour, who is usually a most assiduous and dedicated member of the treasury benches, as yet has not found anything relating to these cheques. It is a strange thing, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, sure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the right hon. gentleman any knowledge whatever that any such cheques exist?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman knows of course, Mr. Chairman, that they do exist. When he asks me, I say to him, inquire

amongst the treasury benches. Let us bring a little more communication between ministers and the Prime Minister than the silence of recent days. Just make some inquiries in that area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked the right hon. gentleman if he knew whether these cheques existed or if he is just engaging in the speculation about which he was talking?


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to be led down alleys. We know that the cheques were there.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The same old bunch.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, the truth squad
speaks up. All I have to say in this regard is that the truth squad functioned for two days and then it disappeared, just like the cheques. It is very clear, and the judge has so stated, that there were matters brought before him-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is this: the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out to us yesterday an eloquent passage from a speech by the right hon. gentleman concerning a rule of the house that if any assertions are made about hon. members which reflect upon their conduct, a specific charge must be made. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he name names and make his charges or that he desist from this smear campaign.


John George Diefenbaker: I will deal shortly with the question of smear, but at the moment I am pointing out that Mr. Justice Norris said these matters had been before him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the right hon. gentleman show-


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to be interfered with by this-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, sir, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman precisely where Mr. Justice Norris said that because I read the clipping and there was no such statement in it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I would ask also that the hon. gentleman communicate with the Prime Minister. When he spoke the other night on t.v., he said that these things existed. Perhaps somebody could slip out and get that speech. He said they existed, and he was speaking with that bland friendliness which revealed itself then. I have not taken
Supply-Justice
the trouble to bring down his speech, but I think it can be secured and I will be able to quote from it in due course if there is any further reference thereto by any minister.
It is a strange thing, this government of silence. They do not communicate with one another. They do not tell one another what is going on. The Prime Minister has not told the Minister of Transport that he knows the cheques exist. Neither did the Minister of Transport nor the minister of immigration let the Prime Minister know regarding the matters in that statement made by the hon. member for Yukon. Is this not a strange thing? A conspiracy of silence exists amongst the ministers of this government to hide from the Prime Minister the facts. It is a most unjust thing that only the day before the matter was raised in the house, the Prime Minister was informed. They never thought of saying anything to the Prime Minister. After all, these were only allegations. There were statements made. There was evidence taken and it was of such importance that the commissioner of the mounted police came into it. This is how important it was. Yet, nothing was said to the Prime Minister.
Just imagine his feelings when the other day he learned, for the first time, that his parliamentary secretary had some knowledge of these matters. Is it not a strange thing that the minister said nothing to the Prime Minister regarding the fact that his parliamentary secretary had given a statement to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Why all this silence? Why all the contriving that has been going on? I am going to deal one by one with the explanations given by the Minister of Justice. After all, as I re-read, as I did this morning, the course taken by the Minister of Justice and the minister of immigration in connection with this matter, I am surprised they have not resigned. I am surprised that in the face of a situation which embarrasses the Prime Minister and the government, these ministers, instead of following the course that would be followed under the British constitutional practice in similar circumstances, continue to try to explain and, with some of their minions, to howl down those who would bring out the truth.
I do not often quote from newspapers but I think the best summary I have seen is in a paper that for years has never seen anything right in the Conservative party, the Montreal Star. What does it say?
This smells-

Supply-Justice
"This" being the events in connection with the peregrinations of ministerial assistants in connection with this matter.
Attempted bribery and attempted subversion are serious criminal charges. When those alleged to be involved are close to the centre of power in politics the charges are doubly serious.
Members of the government think that by raising the cry of smear this can erase the points the hon. member for Yukon brought before the house. It is the old story. They talk about McCarthyism and they practise it themselves. They try to smear the hon. member for Yukon. They ridiculed him the other day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I will be glad to have any of your interruptions from a standing position today, and possibly some who interrupt will get answers they will appreciate.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh no.


Mr. Munro:: You said to get up.


John George Diefenbaker: When a big hunter is after big game, he does not allow himself to be diverted by rabbit tracks.
If the hon. member for Yukon had been a weakling and had a kind of resilient backbone when he was laughed at, when he first spoke, he might have felt ridiculed. But following the look which appeared on the faces of hon. members opposite, including cabinet ministers, I began to wonder what was the reason for this. Did the Minister of Justice know anything about it? Did the minister of immigration know anything about it?
They finally had to admit by their own conduct that the statements he made were well founded. Now they try to smear him and I want to answer that smear business by referring to the Montreal Star. I may say I can quote other papers across Canada as well. The Montreal Star said:
Mr. Nielsen has proved the value of an opposition. If he had not raised the matter there would never have been an inquiry When all the facts are out the Conservative member for the Yukon may merit even greater praise. Those Liberals in the house who raised the cry of ''smear" and "McCarthyism" against him had better think again and. this time, think straight.
To suggest Mr. Nielsen was guilty of McCarthyism is to distort the meaning of the word. He was guilty of no such thing. The guilty ones-
Do you know who they are? Can some of you guess?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]


John George Diefenbaker: Somebody hissed over there. Mr. Chairman, there are only a few animals that hiss-snakes, geese and fools. Would the hon. gentleman step up and be identified? I am ready for all interruptions today. The Montreal Star continued:
The guilty ones were those who, aware of the facts,-
Possibly the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration can identify themselves in that picture.
-proceeded to sit in judgment on the case and decide in private that there was no case to answer.
I do not hear much applause from over there on that observation. Then it goes on to say:
Mr. Favreau's motives may have been of the highest-it would be proper to say they were-


John James Greene: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: You have still got one applauder, the hon. member for Renfrew South.
-but what he did was wrong and cannot be written off to naivete.
Petty chiseling, squalid acts-in this case criminal acts?-and sleazy excuses are intolerable anywhere, and particularly they are intolerable in public life.
It goes on to say:
It is not too much to ask of politicians that they refuse to tolerate a rotten smell or even the suggestion of a rotten smell.
Why all the secrecy? Nobody would have ever known about this if an hon. member had not stood in his place, and because he dared to do so he is execrated and condemned. The statements made by the Minister of Justice indicate that the real issue before parliament is the manner in which these matters have been shrouded in secrecy from August 14, when the minister first heard of them, until November 23 when they were brought out in the open by the hon. member for Yukon.
I am not going to say anything about the Prime Minister in this connection because he is absent. But I say this, the Prime Minister of Canada should be in his place today and he should not have left while a matter such as this is before the House of Commons. I know he has capable assistance in the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but this was a matter that demanded his presence after the extraordinary action taken by the hon. member for Dollard. No mention had been made of him. There had been some questions but no mention had been made of

him. He has not chosen to speak in the house and make an explanation-


John Carr Munro: He did.


John George Diefenbaker: -other than just a perfunctory explanation-exculpation would be better. But he did give an interview to Le Soleil and he set out the facts in detail. He said:
Like all my colleagues in the chamber, I am frequently called upon in my capacity as member of parliament to make representations to the justice department in cases involving persons who claim to be victims of unjust treatment by the crown.
It is thus that a few months ago I received a telephone calx from the chairman of the school board at Mille Isles asking me to intervene with the Department of Justice in order to obtain bail for a certain Mr. Rivard.
Who was the chairman of the school board? -a brother of the hon. member for Dollard. Reviewing the statements of the minister on Monday and Tuesday-


An hon. Member:: That is what he said.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear that observation.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is what the hon. gentleman said.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes. I am glad to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who hopes to be Prime Minister soon, interrupting me; this is one subject he does not know anything about. When he smiles that way he has the same expression as he had the other night on T.V. when he was asked "Have you ever said you would make a better Prime Minister than Mr. Pearson?" And he smiled-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, the past tense of "smile" according to the best etymological consideration, is "smole". That is what he did.
Anyway, in reviewing the statements of the Minister of Justice on Tuesday one is led irresistibly to the conclusion that all these events would have remained in the dark. That is where hon. members opposite wanted them to be. Hide it. Conceal it. Cover it up. Don't tell the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Like Courtemanche.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I want to tell you that the hon. gentleman could learn something from Courtemanche, because as soon as a finding was made he resigned his position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Supply-Justice


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad of that suggestion, of that fine advice to the Minister of Justice and to the minister of immigration. I tell hon. members opposite that I welcome their participation in my speech today. That was a very helpful suggestion.
This was an affair involving trafficking in narcotics. It was a serious affair. Yet we have the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: That was Pallett.


John George Diefenbaker: -making representations. He did not let the Prime Minister know. He just used his office in regard to a man, Mr. Rivard, who had a good reputation, he said. It involved conversations, both personal and by telephone, by members of ministerial staffs and the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. All this is now admitted. Is it not strange how, after my hon. friend from Yukon had spoken, though the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister was never mentioned, either indirectly or at all, the next morning that gentleman should suddenly have found it necessary to advise the Prime Minister that he wanted to be relieved of his post? Why did not the Minister of Justice speak to the Prime Minister about it? Was he afraid the right hon. gentleman would act? The minister of immigration is usually a very voluble person in both languages. Why did he not speak to the Prime Minister and tell him the situation? Why? We never had an explanation. I will be glad if the Minister of Justice will tell us why. Was it because they were afraid the investigation might be interfered with if they were to reveal the facts?
An attempt was made to bring in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that great force, and the Minister of Justice tries to use the commissioner of that force as a crutch to explain his failures. Let that be very clear and definite. He is trying to use the man occupying the position of commissioner. All parliament is concerned with is this: Why are these things being hidden? If there was nothing to hide, why did you keep these facts from the Prime Minister? It is not a question of legality; that is a matter for judicial inquiry. I do not agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the terms of reference are wide enough. I think they were deliberately made narrow so that it would be impossible for a presiding judge to look into some of these other hidden channels. I think that is the reason.

Supp ly-J ustice
Remember this, Mr. Chairman. I asked: why the rush? There was all that time between August 14 and November 23 during which nothing was done. I knew that after the order was passed immediate objection would be raised if we dealt with facts in connection with this matter; I knew arguments would be advanced that the question was sub judice. That is why I raised it. Those sitting on the benches opposite knew that. They rushed in and had the order in council passed and they have been able, as a result, to throttle the House of Commons, to prevent its discussing various matters which are part and parcel of this transaction.


Guy Favreau: On a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman
sit down?


Guy Favreau: I will speak.


An hon. Member:: Arrogant.


An hon. Member:: You can't take it.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege and on a point of order.
I have the right to ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) whether he is saying that, at some time, I even suggested to the R.C.M.P. that that file be concealed or put away in any way. I stated that the file in question was not closed and that, should any additional evidence be uncovered, the appropriate charges would be made.
I asked, and I have the right to ask the right hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he is insinuating that, even indirectly, I suggested to the R.C.M.P. that they conceal the file?


John George Diefenbaker: That is neither a point of order nor a question; it is just evasive nonsense. I intend to review what the minister said. I wish to follow the minister in the devious paths that he took because they reveal that he set out to hide, to conceal, to cover up. It was only after he found he could not do so that, finally, we were given bits and pieces. As I said a moment ago, this is not a question of legality; that is a matter for the judicial inquiry. The question we are considering is not one as to guilt in the judicial sense, which is a matter for inquiry. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, what is at issue is the propriety of the means taken by this government to play with parliament-the propriety,

and I repeat this, of two ministers concealing from parliament and, as I have already said, from the Prime Minister-I do not blame him for being out of here-if he has chosen the easiest way out-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Smear.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a matter which, quite possibly, involves interference with the course of justice by two men with highly placed connections and it also involves, as I say, the propriety of the Minister of Justice sitting on a report from September 18 to November 23. We do not yet know why this was done.


An hon. Member:: Sixty days.


John George Diefenbaker: We have not been told. We may be able to infer. The Prime Minister would never have known about what went on if it had not been that it was wrenched-the information was wrenched from ministers opposite when their consciences were exacerbated by the statements made by the hon. member for Yukon. Their attitude was, parliament must not enter here; it must not discuss these things; it is a smear if it is done; parliament should not be concerned. Mr. Chairman, the newspapers of this country, without exception, reveal that parliament should have been concerned. They cannot understand the subterfuge, concealment and evasion. They cannot understand a government with ministers in it who believe that they have a right not to place the facts before parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would let me ask him a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Sure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he thinks that parliament should be informed by the government of allegations and accusations with regard to which there is no justification, or hope of making any kind of charge. I ask the right hon. gentleman if that kind of thing should be made public in parliament, and if he, as the responsible prime minister of this country, when he was prime minister did not try to safeguard the reputations of people until they could be accused and tried in the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, those pious platitudes-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a question.


John George Diefenbaker: -are almost on a par with the expression of the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday when he wrapped his arms around the bill of rights. They are almost on a par with the stand taken by the Minister of Justice when he spoke in those touching words and compared himself to a modern Pilate. He said, "I wash my hands of this. I did not do it." I have never heard so much scriptural allusion on that side of the house. They talk of reputations. Certainly I agree; but I now ask the minister this question: Did Denis deny that he had been in touch with Mr. Lamon-tagne? Did he deny that?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, again somebody is trying somebody by insinuation; again although the matter is going to a commission. Denis denied his guilt, of course.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Chairman, that answer indicates he did not deny-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -and if he did not deny, they had a complete case. Corroboration is not needed in this case.


An hon. Member:: Make a charge.


John George Diefenbaker: That is my understanding of the law. I have not looked it up. I used to practise law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Does anybody say corroboration is needed under the law?


Mr. Ryan:: When you have two men and neither has any record of any kind against him whom are you going to believe; and have you any hope of making a charge stick, whether it is before a jury or before a judge alone?


John George Diefenbaker: Knowing Mr. Lamon-tagne's reputation, on the basis of how he acted here, there is not a jury in this country that would not believe the representations that he made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: He had no axe to grind. Hanging over him was the sword of Damocles. The loss of possible legal retainers; that was the suggestion to him. He was a man of principle; a man who was not going to be pushed around.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Are you now sitting in judgment? I will ask you this question-
20220-668J
Supply-Justice


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the Minister of Justice interrupted, because he made that very clear. Let us follow him now on Monday and Tuesday. On Monday, before the orders of the day the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked the minister a specific question, as reported at page 10366 of Hansard:
I want to ask the Minister of Justice whether any complaints have come to him that persons in high positions in Ottawa have sought to bring influence to bear by calling on Mr. Pierre Lamon-tagne, who is a lawyer acting for the United States government, in order to grant these men bail.
The minister knew the answer to that question. What answer did he give parliament? He said, "I will report in my estimates in half an hour".


An hon. Member:: He did.


John George Diefenbaker: Why didn't he come clean on this? Was this part of the course of concealment? The hon. member for Yukon therefore asked for a full statement regarding all the circumstances connected with the allegations.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, will the right hon. gentleman allow a question? Is the right hon. gentleman ready to assure this house that when he leaves the house he will accuse me outside of having tried to conceal the facts?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Make your charge.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with parliament and what is dealt with in parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am pointing out the deception practised on parliament by the Minister of Justice; and I am going to say more. Let me point out this-


An hon. Member:: Make your charge.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Your turn will come later.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know how the reporters have the capability of taking down all the noises from the opposite side of the chamber that have all the appearance of coming from a menagerie. What did the minister say? Let me read from Hansard at page 10390. The minister deals with seeing the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., and says:
I must say that when the matter was referred to me very confidentially by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.-

Supply-Justice
Why very confidentially? Other matters are not referred very confidentially. They are all confidential that pass between the minister and the commissioner; but this was very confidential. He went on:
-around the 15th of August-it was the 14th of August-one of the persons involved was in Ottawa-
The minister referred to one of the persons named and then said:
After the commissioner had explained to me the seriousness of the allegations made, it did not take two minutes for me to tell him that he should have the people involved interviewed that day-
What speed regarding very confidential matters. Why was there less speed thereafter? Why was there less care thereafter? Why was there so much concealment thereafter? I am going to go on, Mr. Chairman. He said:
When I say "interim reports'' I mean transcripts of interviews which had been had, and a full report was made to me and discussed with the commissioner on September 18 of this year. I do not want to mislead the house and give the impression that the commissioner has made a decision. It was not up to the commissioner to decide. We discussed his views on the matter from the standpoint of police investigation and fact finding as a result of the investigation. With regard to any decision respecting the lodging of a complaint in the light of the report and that conversation, I, of course, must take responsibility because under the statute the legal adviser to the crown is the Minister of Justice, and not the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.-
With regard to the third question, was anybody higher up in the government involved in the declaration made to the police either by the counsel who made the complaint or the person directly involved in the allegation of bribery, I must say that the allegation was violently denied by Mr. Denis, and nobody else in the government was involved by him in so far as the allegation of bribery or attempted bribery was concerned.
Then an hon. member asked:
Were members of parliament involved?
I want to be fair to the minister in this, Mr. Chairman. There are interruptions from time to time that you do not hear and they are uttered at a level that cannot be heard; but certainly as of that date, November 23, when he was pretending to tell the story of what happened, he did not mention the hon. member for Dollard; he did not mention the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. I cannot understand that.


An hon. Member:: Because he was not involved.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly the hon. member had been interviewed.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Are you suggesting the hon. member for Dollard is involved in the bribery case?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have never seen so many straw men put up. The hon. member for Dollard said that out of the goodness of his heart, and moved by the desire to see justice was done-


An hon. Member:: Innuendo.


Mr. Starr:: No, that is what he said.


John George Diefenbaker: -the chairman of the school board got in touch with him and said that this man Rivard was a man of fine reputation. Why did the hon. member not say something about it if there was nothing in it? If that is all that happened-I am not suggesting it was not because we do not know -then why did the minister not tell us about it? The further one goes into this the more it becomes clear that there was reason for concealment. We are now beginning to understand something of the concealment in the case of the notorious Hal Banks.
I did not intend to come back to this but one of the ministers in the cabinet asked me what I knew about this. I said the Prime Minister had dealt with it, but apparently this minister had not listened to the Prime Minister or fully apprehended what he said. Here is what Mr. Berton said:
Let me ask you another contentious question about Hal Banks and the S I.U. It is true that Canadian corporations and unions and other organizations contribute campaign funds to political parties. Is there anything unusual in the fact that Mr. Banks and his S.I.U. appear to have contributed only to the Liberal party?
Then the Prime Minister replied:
But who says they contributed only to the Liberal party?
Mr. Berton said:
Well, the newspapers, which are pretty good at unearthing things, have only been able to discover that they contributed to the Liberal party. Are you suggesting that they contributed to the Conservatives?
The Prime Minister replied:
Well, I am suggesting that you should not say they contributed only to the Liberal party because that may or may not be the case, but there seems to be evidence that individual members of this union or the union itself have contributed to individual members of parliament in Montreal where the S I.U. has its headquarters.
When the Minister of Transport asks me "What knowledge have you of this?" I simply place before him the words of the Prime Minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I know the right hon. gentleman never likes to denature my words.


John George Diefenbaker: Really, Mr. Chairman, these interruptions.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is the minister rising on a point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I know the right hon. gentleman does not want to denature my words. I did not ask the right hon. gentleman what he knew indirectly. I asked him whether he had any knowledge of any cheques sent to members of parliament, and I ask him that question again.


John George Diefenbaker: I do have the knowledge, Mr. Chairman, because the Prime Minister told the Canadian people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, I am not going to join with the minister and cast doubts on the integrity of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, there is a question of personal privilege there. So that the record will be straight-and I am not going to interrupt the hon. gentleman further-


John George Diefenbaker: I am always glad to have interruptions from the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the Prime Minister made no assertion at all. All he said was "there seems to be evidence". The right hon. gentleman referred to Mr. Justice Norris. There had been stories about this in the Toronto Star, and the Prime Minister said there seems to be evidence that individual members of this union or the union itself had contributed to individual members of parliament in Montreal where the S.I.U. had its headquarters. The Prime Minister did not profess to have any personal knowledge of this, as the right hon. gentleman seems to claim, and I would now suggest that he tell the committee what he knows and make some charges.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is a strange thing-"there seems to be evidence". What does the Prime Minister mean by that? Is that to be denatured by the hon. gentleman? Will he ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard about what I read in the press where-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the right hon. gentleman making a charge?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-
Supply-Justice


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman please sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, they do not believe their own members. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was quoted as saying he was one of the recipients, and I am sure there are others. There may or may not be others who were the voluntary recipients of help from a man whose reputation was known to all Canadians. But I simply ask them: Where are the cheques?


Mr. Macaluso:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard stated he received from individuals who were union members who worked for him in his campaign; but he was not the recipient of funds or help from the man referred to, Mr. Banks.


John George Diefenbaker: Help from the members of the S.I.U. is help of value, no matter whether in cash or nuts. I do not see why there should be any necessity to get excited about this. All we ask is: Where did the cheques go? Where are they? Is it not a strange thing that they are gone with the wind? A government which will conceal the facts as it has in the case we are now discussing, Mr. Chairman, would not be too surprised if cheques such as those given, according to responsible press sources, to Liberal members were to disappear. It is just part of a picture.
Now I think I ought to trace for a moment the course taken by the minister. I have already mentioned that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had raised this question, and then the minister mentioned that the minute details and names of individuals just formed part of the report, as he put it. As reported at page 10379 of Hansard he said that it would be a betrayal of his position as minister to reveal more details. What details did he reveal? He did not tell us anything excepting that which was already known to the hon. member for Yukon. Everything was to be very confidential.
The course of action taken toward the mounted police is beyond me. The minister said he discussed with the mounted police commissioner the question whether or not a prosecution should take place. Why were the law officers not consulted? Was it because the minister feared that they would say there was enough evidence? Or was it because he knew that as soon as the law officers got it

Supply-J ustice
the whole story would be out and that he would not be able to cover it up?


Guy Favreau: That is not so.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman sit down; he is a valued member of the back benches. The question of whether or not prosecution should be taken is decided on the basis of consideration by the law officers. In this case the Minister of Justice acted as a grand jury. And I can only ask, if he was activated differently then than now, why was it that he kept this to himself? He considered the evidence and he decided not to proceed. Hon. members opposite say you cannot lay a charge unless you are sure of a conviction. Mr. Chairman, that is what the courts are for-the preliminary hearing, the enquete, the grand jury -to ensure that anyone who is charged wrongly shall not be brought to trial. No doubt the doubt in the mind of the Minister of Justice was given added importance by the view of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the view of the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. Was he consulted on this matter? Was he asked what he thought with regard to whether there was any evidence? He would have certainly given an entirely unprejudiced opinion had he had the opportunity. It happens all the time that charges are made and those who are so charged are entitled to have competent authorities, and I mentioned the competent authorities a moment ago, study the facts and act on them.
What happened here is that the Minister of Justice shortcircuited the procedure that should be followed, and then had to shortcir-cuit parliament with half the story instead of the full story.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: May I ask a question?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman has some questions I suggest he pass them on to the Minister of Justice. He may get answers that we have never been able to get. I am going to paraphrase the minister's words but I will quote if it is desired. The minister said that the commissioner and himself did not believe there was sufficient evidence to justify the laying of an information. Why only those two, Mr. Chairman? Why? As found on page 10380 the minister went on to say, and this is a most unusual answer:
However, as the matter involves-I do not say implicates but involves-certain persons who were at the time in the employ of the government of Canada, I think I have the right to disagree with the suggestion which has just been made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. If he has in

mind that, because of the delicate nature of the facts and the possibility that certain people may be judged in a way which would be tantamount to making useless smears or innuendos or insinuations-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. gentleman but there are members making remarks on both sides of the aisle which makes it very difficult for the Chair to follow the right hon. gentleman, and I would ask the co-operation of all hon. members on both sides of the aisle.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there is silence on this side. I was just quoting one of the reasons why the minister said that even if there was an investigation it should be in camera. He said it should be in camera because it would implicate persons who were at the time in the employ of the government of Canada. That is a very good reason why it should be public, so that the people of Canada will find out what is going on.
The minister said that it would not be fair to lay charges where there was not sufficient evidence, that this would involve smears, a lack of charity, and injustice. Over the years I have been counsel in numbers of cases where charges laid by the mounted police died at the preliminary hearing. That did not smear anyone. These are the kind of explanations that one wonders about. Everything was to be very confidential. Sir, what about Denis?


An hon. Member:: "Denis the menace."


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear that squawk. I thought it was the hon. member from Hamilton but he indicates it was not. I want everybody who makes sounds like that identified. What about Denis? The members of the government have a lot of compartments where they sit, and none of them lets the others know about anything. The Prime Minister sits in his office and they never think of shocking his finer sensibilities by revealing the fact there is evidence that an executive assistant has acted in a way that is contrary to the criminal law of Canada. That was on the 18th of August. He was still there in October and finally he resigned. Is not the solicitude for Mr. Denis an amazing thing?
Here is a case where the commissioner of the mounted police and the Minister of Justice had before them, I am informed, a police report in which it was indicated that Mr. Denis had offered $20,000. That is a lot of money for an executive assistant to be able to offer. This was a big money business. This was the great narcotics gang. They had money. I wonder

what Mr. Denis' explanation was? He stayed there for six weeks. What happened around October 1? When we asked the Minister of Justice, "Why did you not tell the Prime Minister", he said, "I did not feel I should advise the Prime Minister". Why?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is speaking as though Mr. Denis had been found guilty already, and I do not think he is allowed to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, I am beginning to wonder about the tremendous interest of the hon. gentleman. I say, why the long delay? Denis was informed of the charges made against him.


An hon. Member:: The smears against him.


John George Diefenbaker: Why the delay? As you look into the whole picture it becomes even more difficult to understand. Sir, no matter how hard they try they cannot eradicate the condemnation of the house with regard to these two ministers for their conduct in this connection. That is why I am going to ask a little later that the amendment before the committee to reduce the salary of the Minister of Justice be accepted. Why? Listen to this. I do not understand why the minister made this statement. The hon. member for Yukon said, as found on page 10380 of Hansard:
What the minister should have done as soon as he received that report was refer it to his criminal law section and obtain their independent opinion. The minister knows as well as I do that the offenders in this case, and I do not hesitate to name them-
What does the word "offender" mean? Not a person convicted but a person who allegedly has done wrong. These men had allegedly done wrong and it was clear on the record.
-were actually employees, one of the minister's office and one of the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Both of these employees have now left.
Then the minister said:
Mr. Chairman, that is an absolute lie, because nobody involved in this case, implicated as an offender by the hon. member, is a member of my department or has ever been a member of my department.
I am not going to say anything more about that. That statement stands and no amount of equivocation can remove it from Hansard. Then the minister went on to say:
Unless the hon. member for the Yukon is ready to repeat what he said outside to the newspapermen, under his responsibility as a citizen, and not under the screen of parliamentary immunity, I ask him to withdraw what he just said.
Supply-Justice


Guy Favreau: On a question of privilege, I have a right to put a question. Do I understand the right hon. gentleman to mean-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Guy Favreau: -that whenever a report is made by the R.C.M.P. to the Minister of Justice involving the possibility or the allegation of a criminal offence it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to submit the report to the law officers of the crown?


An hon. Member:: In this case, yes.


Guy Favreau: Is it the duty?


Lucien Lamoureux: That is not a question of privilege, but I suppose it is a question.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the feelings of the minister. I am willing to sit down any time he raises any question of privilege or semi-privilege or assumed or specious privilege. This does not answer the statement made by the minister on Monday last, a statement that to say the least did not indicate on his part a desire to have the facts brought before the house. He wanted to smear the hon. member for Yukon, as I understand he set out to do. He said that it was an absolute lie and he asked the hon. member for Yukon to withdraw what he had just said.
I am not going to deal with the rest. Sir, it was not a lie, it was the truth and the minister knew it when he made this statement to the house. What else was there? As reported on page 10392 of Hansard, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said:
I had not finished my question. The minister stated that there was no statement by either of these gentlemen, the two executive assistants, involving any person higher up. I wonder if the minister would tell the committee, was there anything in the statement of counsel who was alleging attempted bribery and intimidation-
I emphasize that "intimidation".
-which involved any person other than the two persons whose names have already been mentioned?


Guy Favreau: I shall attempt to refresh my memory by asking the commissioner. The commissioner tells me he will have to check on that, and at the resumption of the sitting at eight o'clock I undertake to answer this. My recollection is not, but I would not care to make that as a firm statement.
Does the minister want the house to believe-


Guy Favreau: Yes, sir.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to hear he does. He has a higher regard for the credibility of an incredulous statement than I have. Let

Supply-Justice
me say at once that he did not remember the parliamentary secretary, he did not remember the hon. member for Dollard. He says, I shall attempt to refresh my memory. Is that not a wonderful memory, one that can forget that the parliamentary secretary had had statements made about him for having interfered. He had forgotten. I should like to know what the Minister of Justice would say in a courtroom if some poor, uneducated person had given an answer such as that.
Then, the hon. member for Burnaby-Co-quitlam is reported as saying:
I ask the minister to check it very carefully. I have reason to believe that in the allegations there are other persons, or at least one other person, named.
Why did the minister forget that? Mind you, he had never told the Prime Minister. He had never spoken of this matter, apparently, to the Minister of Transport, who is an all-knowing person. He did not know anything about this. Of course, there was no question of foreign affairs, so the matter would not be taken to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it not a strange thing that he forgot? His memory failed him. It was only a parliamentary secretary. If it had not been for the statements by the parliamentary secretary the next day, would we have ever found out?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege. Does the right hon. gentleman imply that if the member for Dollard had not risen I would have lied to the house? That is what he just said.


John George Diefenbaker: No, you would have forgotten. I would be the last to say to the minister that he would do that. However, I am sure that many people would envy one with such a convenient memory as he has shown on this occasion.
I go on from there. I believe I have pretty well covered the situation. I should point out that the minister was rather guarded in some of his answers. He was not sure that his memory might not play him tricks. He has been asked pressing questions by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Yukon, and then he asked if the hon. member had something else in mind to be added or included in his question because the minister wanted it before he gave an answer. What a course of action. Have you ever seen a parliament having to strain its very sinews to get information? We have often said, regarding this government, that it does not answer questions or if it does, on
IMr. Diefenbaker.]
many occasions, conceals. The truth is here now for all to see.
Then, the minister is asked what was the date he first became acquainted with this situation. His answer was that, subject to being corrected, he thought it was approximately in August or maybe September. Well, that does bear out that his memory of these events was not quite as clear as it should have been.
Sir, the course of action that has been taken here cannot be erased by loud yells of "smear" and "McCarthyism". This is not smear, this is assuring parliament shall not be given partial information. If the hon. member for Yukon had not stood, all of this would have been concealed, covered up and remained confidential. The minister was asked regarding the contents of the police report. I realize that police reports are confidential. He mentioned some of the contents. He was asked to give us the details, and his answer was that the minute details in the file remain confidential in the public interest. The Minister of Justice said if he were to reveal more of the terms it would be a betrayal of trust. "Betrayal"- I will not use that word, but I say to the Minister of Justice that in the years I have been in the House of Commons no other minister of justice has ever kept the facts from parliament as has the hon. gentleman. I make that quite clear.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, was the 1958 report on the Banks case, on a criminal offence, the general report of 1959 or the 1961 report on the Banks case on criminal offences, ever referred by the government of the right hon. gentleman to the law officers of the crown? They never have.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, the minister comes back to Banks. A guilty conscience looks for something to justify its conduct. I am not going to be led into that; we have dealt with that over and over.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We did not get the contributions. You produce the record and some of the hon. gentlemen who sit opposite now and laugh will be in sackcloth and ashes.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Will the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Will the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please.


John George Diefenbaker: I always show courtesy to a lady.


Lucien Lamoureux: The right hon. gentleman has the floor unless he wants to reply to a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I am not answering questions from her. She is the one who questioned truth and then had to swallow it herself two days later.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Will the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. The right hon. gentleman has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: On the basis of the statements of the minister one is led irresistibly to the conclusion that this thing was to be kept in the dark. They did everything they could, but they could not conceal the facts. I do not know Mr. Lamontagne, excepting by reputation now. He says that in large measure what is alleged did take place. They must have believed him to be a good counsel or they would not have had him on the job.
Here is what happened. Here was this thug from the United States engaged in the most nefarious traffic. The mounted police worked day and night in order to control this traffic. Then one alleged mastermind was caught. Money means nothing to him. Twenty thousand dollars is peanuts.
Why the solicitude on the part of a parliamentary secretary? Why the action taken by Mr. Denis? I cannot understand the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. You would have thought he would have opened the door and thrown him out, and said "Get out of here;" but he said "You can stay for the time being." That must have taken place because it was only six weeks later, when he resigned, that he finally left the minister's employ.
I conclude this portion of my remarks-


Gerald Augustine Regan: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) does nothing but engage in occasional desk tapping. It shows his intelligence that he makes that his major contribution.
At no time has any minister or member of the government denied the specific statements made by the hon. member for Yukon. It is a strange thing. They say it is a smear, but they keep the truth under cover. They will not tell us what happened. Parliament is to be denied. I cannot go into facts because this matter, as has been pointed out, being before the courts denies further consideration.
Supply-Justice
But I ask, why the strange doings of the last few days? First it was nothing. It was a lie, the Minister of Justice said. Then the cat was let out of the bag when the hon. member for Dollard got up. I looked at them. Many of them had never heard of this before. They could not believe their eyes and ears. Then the government decided to set up a committee.
We have had to drag out the admissions, and it is a difficult thing when you sit in an opposition and you have a government adamant in its desire to cover up and withhold information. First members of the government thought they would get away with an in camera hearing. That went by the boards with the revelations that came out. Then they tried to continue the blanket of concealment. Then they tried to place the responsibility on the mounted police.
Sir, this house as the supreme court of parliament has the right to know that justice is administered without fear or favour, has a right to know that the administration of justice shall not depend on the persuasion of alleged wrongdoers. It has a right to know that it will not be strangled by the concealment of facts.
If the minister had come into the house and said: "Well, I will tell you the facts," I think generally speaking he would have been subject to some criticism but people would have said, "There is a man who has stood up and quite frankly admitted his mistake." But there has been no admission. He stands and simply challenges, "Say out of the house what you say in the house." I say, first you say in the house what the situation is so that we can get the facts.
In this matter the government has shown a blatant disregard for the rights and privileges of parliament. We have not yet been told why a senior official in the highly confidential position of an executive assistant should be "separated"-to use the expression. Why was he separated? What were the reasons? The parliamentary secretary said he resigned because his name appeared in the report. However, the government endeavours to brush aside this matter, the press across Canada and people everywhere are demanding a full inquiry. The present terms of reference are too limited to bring about an investigation that will be adequate and satisfactory. Sir, when will the government, or any member of it who has any knowledge of the matter, rise and tell the truth about this matter?

Supply-Justice
The Windsor Star has an editorial headed "Assistants to Ministers Embarrass Government." It says:
That is a thoroughly nasty situation in Ottawa-
And later on says:
There is no current suggestion that either Mr. Favreau or Mr. Tremblay at the time had any knowledge of the actions of their assistants.
The hon. member for Yukon referred to that.
They are responsible, however, for what goes on in their offices. That officials so closely associated with them should have attempted to interfere with the course of justice, if the allegations be correct, is almost incredible.
Then it goes on to mention gangsters and says:
It is evident, however, that such gangsters are willing to do anything to be left undisturbed, or to defeat the law if they are caught. There must be entire assurance that they cannot get comfort or assistance from anyone in Ottawa.
The disclosures in Ottawa represent a danger signal to the government and to parliament. It must be heeded and promptly.
What I have tried to do is simply deal with the parliamentary side of this, the utter contempt shown to parliament, the ridicule heaped upon the hon. member for Yukon on Monday, and on Tuesday, and on Wednesday the facts started to come out. Instead of reviling him and condemning him, Canadians from one end of this country to the other owe him a debt of gratitude for having the intestinal fortitude to stand up here and speak. He having spoken, parliament has the right to be assured that this is the last of this kind of thing-that there will not be any more incidents of the like kind, that justice will remain pure and undefiled. It cannot be if you have executive assistants in places close to the throne participating in actions which cast aspersion on the very name of justice and constitute the most terrible indictment ever made against any government at any time.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think the best way in which I could express my feelings about the performance we have just witnessed would be to ignore it completely.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what you did with your first budget.


An hon. Member:: We know how you feel.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: An hon. member over there says he knows how I feel. I am sure he does. I have made no secret of my feelings about this man.


An hon. Member:: You would like to hide this from the people.


Lucien Lamoureux: Could we have order, please?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have five points I should like to make, and I will try to make them in a quiet fashion and without any insinuations or innuendos. On Monday of this week the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked for a judicial inquiry into the charges which have been made. Those charges relate to allegations of attempts to bribe or to bring pressure to bear on counsel in a serious extradition case in Montreal. This proposal by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was agreed to immediately by the Minister of Justice and at the outset of Tuesday's session the minister suggested, very tentatively, as I recall, the kind of reference which he thought might be appropriate.
The terms suggested were objected to on the ground that the proposed reference did not go far enough. The emphasis suggested was on determining whether there was sufficient evidence to lay charges. It was felt by some members, including myself, that the terms should be expanded to cover the question of alleged improprieties.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Why did you not extend them?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Would the hon. member sit down and let me finish? I was saying it was felt the terms should be extended to cover the question of alleged improprieties-I apologize for getting cross with the hon. member for Greenwood, particularly since by speaking now I am afraid I am interfering with some plans he had for later in the evening.
The new draft was prepared on Tuesday evening and when I saw the final version on Wednesday morning, as did other members of the cabinet, I, for one, felt fair minded people would consider that it covered the whole spectrum of the charges which have been made. I also felt that the appointment of Chief Justice Dorion of the superior court of Quebec should satisfy everyone that the inquiry would be fully and properly carried out. For those who think of these things in partisan political terms, I would remind hon. members that Chief Justice Dorion was appointed to the bench by the previous government. What is of more importance is my understanding that he enjoys an enviable reputation among members of the bar.
Though I am not a lawyer, I have been chairman of three different public inquiries and I am not unfamiliar with terms of ref-

erence. Naturally, no commissioner would accept an appointment without being satisfied that his terms of reference were broad enough to cover all aspects of the matter he was being asked to inquire into.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Blame the judge.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No commissioner of any standing would accept an assignment of this nature if his actions were to be circumscribed, I am sure of that. It is true the terms of reference do not cover a general fishing expedition.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Nor should they. It is equally true that they will allow the commissioner to deal completely with all the matters covered by the charges which have been made. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said as reported on page 10510 of Hansard:
That order in council is so limited that what I stated yesterday will in effect be the result, namely, that the chief justice appointed will be limited to what the government wants to produce in order to bring about a whitewash.
Apart from being untrue, this statement amounts to a wholly improper suggestion. It reflects on the integrity of a senior and respected member of the judiciary.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It does no such thing.


Mr.   Scoll@: You are trying to hide behind the bench.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In my opinion the Leader of the Opposition owes an apology to this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There is a second point I wish to make. There is one serious question which is not referred to specifically in the order in council and which obviously must be examined fully in one way or another. This is, how a confidential report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which, I am told, is marked "Top Secret"-


An hon. Member:: No wonder.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am being serious about this -how this report came into the hands of the hon. member for Yukon or into the hands of members of the press.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you making a charge?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: What do you mean-"a
charge"?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am asking whether you are making a charge against the hon. member for Yukon.
20220-669J
Supply-Justice


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That is about as silly a question as I have heard for a long time. I am asking how this report got into the hands of either the member for Yukon or the members of the press. It seems to me this is obviously a matter which the government and the R.C.M.P. must look into very thoroughly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister should be asking why he did not know the contents of that report.


An hon. Member:: Or did he know?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Answer the question. Did you know, or didn't you know?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I want to make a third point, Mr. Chairman. In view of the charges that have been made, the government and all hon. members must insist on finding out whether there has been any wrongdoing or impropriety. It will be the duty of the commissioner to ascertain this. This does not mean that members of this house or members of the press should take it upon themselves to judge the guilt or innocence-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We won't.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -of individuals on the basis of rumour, and unsupported and loosely worded allegations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In particular, Mr. Chairman, it is our responsibility not to indulge in the kind of tactics that were employed by some people in the United States in the early 1950's.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Or the truth squad in 1960.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I would like to recount a personal experience that I had in those days. I was in conversation with a respected member of the staff of Columbia University, who told me that he was endeavouring to collect funds so that another professor who was charged under these same kind of loose allegations by the U.S. un-American activities committee could be in a position to provide himself with an adequate defence.


An hon. Member:: How much did you give him?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Certainly I gave him some money, and I would have been ashamed not to. He told me that because he was trying to collect money to make sure that somebody got a fair defence, not only was he being persecuted and threatened but so were his children.

Supply

Justice


Malcolm MacInnis: Did you give him $20,000?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I told him that I would make a modest contribution to the fund. This man begged me not to, because he said if I did something like that my name would appear on certain lists in the United States and I ran the risk of being smeared. I told him the only thing I would be ashamed of was if my name was not on that kind of list.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is the duty of all members of parliament to respect the tradition of justice that we have inherited. I do not mind saying that I was horrified yesterday to hear members of this house hurling questions of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety. As an example I refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Yukon of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, which can be found on page 10534 of Hansard:
Likewise the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should rise and tell the committee what he knows. 1 challenge him to rise now and tell the house where he was when the bribe was offered.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: And he repeated that:
I challenge him to rise now and tell us where he was when the bribe was offered.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Where was he?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Shame that he didn't.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If ever there was an attempt to prove guilt by alleged association, that was it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yukon has obviously been under some stress and he may have been carried away-


An hon. Member:: Just look at your frontbenchers.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -when he asked that question. I suggest that if so, he should apologize and withdraw it, and I would ask him to do that now.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Finance should have read on from that quotation, because if I recall my remarks -and again I say that I have not yet read the Hansard of yesterday's proceedings-I believe that if he would check carefully he would find that, not once but three times I said I was not suggesting any motive on the part of

the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and that I accepted his word to this house. I said that twice or three times.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Nevertheless-


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may just raise a point of order and point out to the hon. member for Yukon that at page 10534, where he made this allegation-


An hon. Member:: Is this a point of order?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members that the proceedings during the last few minutes have been a little irregular. The Minister of Finance has the floor, and unless he wants to relinquish it- I understand at least one hon. member is anxious to speak-he should be allowed to continue his remarks.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have another point I want to make, Mr. Chairman. Over the past several days this whole matter has been built up step by step in a way which to me-


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-it is a very simple point of order-I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that the minister is reading-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: -something written by somebody else.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I will try not to read even my notes, although I would remind my hon. friend that the Leader of the Opposition read a so-called speech for about an hour and a half before I began.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: That is nonsense, and you know it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I deny that that happened. I was sitting beside the Leader of the Opposition and watched him use his notes.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I invite the minister to give an appearance of honesty and withdraw that last remark.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest to the hon. member that the Minister of Finance has the floor and should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, after listening to my friend the hon. member for Perth, of course I withdraw it, if he assures me that what I said was not the case. We have over the last several days watched this thing being built up step by step in a way which to me, as I said before, is clearly reminiscent of

what was allowed to go on in the United States in the early 1950's. The original charges were made on Monday and, as I have said, the government acted immediately to set up a commission of inquiry. The hon. member for Yukon then went on the air to say he believes his telephone wires have been tapped.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: He refused to elaborate on that or to indicate what reasons he might have for making such a statement.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Can you think of one?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If he was not solely interested in sensationalism I suggest it was and is his duty as a member of parliament to report his suspicions to the Speaker and to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, may I rise at this point, if the minister will allow me, and tell him that two inspectors from the Bell Telephone Company have been in the west block to look at telephone lines; and I have discussed the matter briefly-because he had to go to New York on occasion-and he tells me that he is instituting an investigation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think we will all be very pleased-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Does that take care of that item for you?


Eric Alfred Winkler: And I will support the hon. member in his case, too.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am informed that the Speaker requested that action, and not the hon. member; but I do not know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: That is quite true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I did not for a moment, may I implore the minister, imply that I instigated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: -the investigation by the Speaker; I said that the Speaker had informed me that he had instituted an investigation.


Some hon. Members:: You did not.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He did so.
Supply-Justice


Walter Lockhart Gordon: In the same kind of way that I remember very well in the 1950's, yesterday the hon. member for Yukon succeeded in getting headlines by mentioning the name of a man who is alleged to be charged with capital murder.


Malcolm MacInnis: You are reading again.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: If he had any purpose in mentioning this name other than sensationalism I suggest he should have made it clear just what is his charge.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, if I may say a word on a question of privilege, I should like to support the hon. member for Yukon in his suspicions with regard to the tapping of his telephone line.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, there have been hints of further charges and more revelations to come.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You are breaking the rules and reading again.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not know whether this is merely a build up or whether there is any substance to these hints and innuendoes. However, I do say that if there are any new charges separate and distinct from those covered by the commissioner's terms of reference, it is the duty of the hon. member for Yukon or of anybody else to make them unequivocally and without reservation.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word about the way this matter has been used, deliberately or otherwise, in parliament and in some sections of the press to undermine the unity of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Are you going to bring the flag in too?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: We should not pay too much attention to speculative articles, but some members will have seen one this morning suggesting that the Prime Minister may be asked by a group of Ontario members to discipline two principal members in this government, not because they are guilty but in the interests of political expediency. Now, most of us who have known the Prime Minister of this country for many years know-and I say this categorically-that he is not the kind of man who would consider that kind of action for one moment. As a member of parliament from Ontario I consider it a privilege and an honour to have as colleagues two ministers like the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We need

Supply-Justice
more men like them in public life. I have no doubt about their complete honesty, integrity and courage. I have no doubt that they are here, like some other hon. members, not because they prefer this kind of life to something else but because they think it is their duty to do what they can in the interests of their country.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: They have the complete support, Mr. Chairman, of all of us who know them, particularly-and I want to emphasize this-of all the members from Ontario. There is no foundation for the kind of speculative articles to which I have referred. I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that if a man like my hon. friend the Minister of Justice were ever forced to resign for the kind of political reasons suggested, I for one would not be happy to remain in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister.


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the minister who had the floor wish to reply to a question?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be pleased to, Mr. Chairman.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I ask this question because of the apparent interest it will create among the minister's colleagues on the front bench. I ask the minister if his participation in this debate at this time confirms his position as 2-i/c of the party? I would further ask him, who was the author of the speech he just read?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I am accustomed to writing my own speeches. The other silly remark I will leave unanswered.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I will try to summon to my contribution in this debate all the reason and charity that is possible. I must say to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that I think the government needs all the charity we can possibly extend to it in view of the pitiable speech we have just heard from the minister in defence of the government. I believe the Minister of Finance is a very excellent accountant, so I suggest he stick to his knitting.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Is it the desire of the committee that the chairman call it six o'clock?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the committee would agree to hear the hon. member speak until 6.30 and then adjourn.


Douglas Mason Fisher: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We should like to hear the hon. member and then take the supper recess.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: We would need unanimous agreement of all hon. members. Unless I did not hear correctly there are obviously a number who do not agree.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just to accommodate the hon. gentleman himself.


Douglas Mason Fisher: No; six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let us hear the hon. gentleman and then adjourn.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the hon. gentleman himself has a rather important engagement and it would suit his convenience. That being the case I think the suggestion is a good one.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kindness of the Acting Prime Minister and he is correct, I did have an engagement. However, I have changed my engagement because I regard being here as more important. Other hon. members of the committee wish to leave at this time and I prefer to continue my remarks at eight o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is my duty pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the members of the committee that the question to be raised at 10 p.m. this evening is as follows: The hon. member for Halifax, national defence, ships laid up through lack of technical personnel.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, just before six o'clock I was saying that in this debate I hoped to be able to muster all the reasonableness and charity that I had, but I must say that having mustered all the reasonableness and charity available to me I find there is only one way in which I can describe the terms of reference and the unwillingness of the government to change the terms of reference in this matter, and that is that they

appear to me to be a studied effort at evasion. The terms of reference as originally drawn were so narrow that they could only invite one conclusion, that conclusion being that the government indeed must have something to hide. I cannot understand any other reason why they would refuse the reasonable request that I am going to describe in a minute to clarify the terms of reference, and make them broad enough to have a full and adequate inquiry.
Again, why does the government seek to hide something? What do they fear? Do they fear a full and adequate inquiry? What is the reason for their fear? I think that is something that this house has to be concerned with and must look into very carefully. As long ago as October 7 the hon. member for Yukon introduced a motion in the debate on item 1 of these estimates to reduce this particular item to $1 and, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this is equivalent to a motion of nonconfidence in the minister. I want to explain tonight why we feel obliged, reluctantly obliged I may say, to support that motion.
If the government had been willing to accept a broadening of the terms of reference so that the commission of inquiry could include in its inquiry the basic question, which is the manner in which the Minister of Justice, having been informed of the allegation of attempted bribery, from that point on discharged his duty as Minister of Justice, my observations this evening might have been different. That is the matter that should be inquired into and if it had been included in the terms of reference we would have been very glad in this debate to say that it would be premature for us to come to any conclusions on that particular matter. We would not have attempted to prejudge the decision of the commissioner. We would have waited until the evidence was produced before him and we had had the benefit of his findings in this matter.
But I say to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that it is abundantly clear on any fair reading of the terms of reference that the commissioner is precluded from looking into that basic matter. The terms of reference have been read before and I do not intend to go into them in detail. I simply wish to remind the house that there is only one matter of substance referred to in these terms of reference and that is the allegation about improper inducements offered to and improper pressures brought to bear upon counsel. The one matter of substance that is included in these
Supply-Justice
terms of reference is whether counsel, Mr. Lamontagne, I take it, was in fact offered improper inducements or had improper pressures brought to bear upon him. All the other words that follow from there on are just words to bring in other matters relative thereto, and so on and so forth. They are all connected with this one narrow aspect of whether in fact these improper inducements were offered, and at the end the commissioner is asked to report on one thing and one thing only, whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution for offences that may be involved. All the rest is words, Mr. Chairman, and there is no other instruction to the commissioner whatsoever.
When we saw this we were disturbed because of the allegations that have been made. We had hoped that they might have been adequately answered and we felt that although no one in this house and no one anywhere else so far as I know had ever accused the minister or ever will, I hope, of any participation in wrongdoing, nevertheless, despite the fact that no one suggests wrongdoing or any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the minister, the Minister of Justice requires more than being above suspicion in that way. His judgment and his ability to deal with matters of this sort are in question and that matter is not within the terms of the inquiry at all. That was made clear by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam when he invited an extension of the terms of reference.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would yield to me for one minute, please. As he knows, I am not trying to interrupt his speech. While I have always felt he never thought otherwise, after the words with which the hon. member for Greenwood has prefaced his remarks and now that he has made it publicly clear that in his view there was nothing pertaining to moral misconduct in the way in which I handled this matter, which is the matter of political judgment-those last words were not in his speech -I think it is fair for me to refer to what was said earlier today by the Acting Prime Minister. I know the hon. member for Greenwood does not agree with him, but the effect of his words was that what the hon. member has suggested would be deemed to be included in the terms of reference. As far as I am concerned, whether or not in a strict interpretive sense what was contained in the suggestion of the hon. member for Greenwood is included in the present terms of reference, I would be ready to agree and undertake-it

Supply-Justice
would be on Hansard and I could be faced with it-to state to the commission that it is my wish that this matter be looked into and inquired into. I think the point is, from a strict constitutional point of view, that I doubt this could be spelled out in any official terms of reference. This is the only point. The hon. member for Greenwood may take my word for it, they will be there tomorrow, reported in Hansard, that it would be my wish that what he referred to be the object of investigation by the commissioner.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister of Justice, in making that statement, is speaking with the greatest of good faith. However, he is a good enough lawyer to know very well that when a matter of this sort comes before the commissioner the judge will decide how the terms of reference are to be interpreted. If the terms of reference are in themselves too narrow to permit the inquiry about which I am speaking, then it does not matter how much the minister says in Hansard: The judge will say, "I am bound by the terms of the order in council".
I point out to the Minister of Justice, the Acting Prime Minister and the other members of the government, that when I wrote to the Acting Prime Minister this morning I suggested that this matter be put beyond any doubt. I said that this should be added to the terms of reference, that the commissioner should inquire into and report upon the way in which the allegations, when brought to the attention of the R.C.M.P. and the Minister of Justice, were dealt with. I still say that it is not too late now. We do not want the minister, who I am sure would like to see the thing fully investigated, to make a statement; we want to see the terms of reference broadened so that when the chief justice comes to deal with the matter he will have terms of reference that will enable him to inquire into this matter, which I say is at the root of the confidence of the Canadian people in the administration of justice under the minister.
I know that the Acting Prime Minister wrote me a letter and made a proposition in his letter in regard to this, with which I intend to deal. I will come to that in a minute. This is only one aspect of the terms of reference. The other aspect that I asked should be included beyond any peradventure was that the commissioner should be given the power to inquire into and report on the activities in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration of Mr. Raymond Denis. I say that if these matters were included so that there could be no doubt the inquiry

would encompass them, then we would be happier and prepared to say that the matter is being looked into fully and adequately, so that we would not be required to censure the Minister of Justice at this time. We would wait to see what the inquiry brought out.
The minister cannot get away from the letter written in black and white and read this morning by the Acting Prime Minister, because it very clearly turns down the suggestion for broadening the terms of this inquiry. Indeed, he used this argument. He said that the incorporation of the suggestion-that is the suggestion that the commissioner should inquire into and report upon the way these allegations were dealt with by the Minister of Justice-would be a specific direction to the commissioner, who is not a member of parliament, to pass judgment upon a minister of the crown whose responsibility, under our system of government, is to the House of Commons. I believe that this sentence contains a dangerous and nonsensical doctrine. Certainly the house should be the final judge of this matter. However, there have been innumerable examples in Canada, Britain and the provinces- I cannot mention them all at the moment- in which the conduct of a minister has been inquired into. I, myself, was counsel on the royal commission on crime in Ontario when the conduct of the attorney general was one of the main subjects of inquiry. To suggest that the commissioner cannot be given that authority to deal with the conduct of a minister of the crown in this case is nonsense. As I said, we are not imputing misconduct in the sense of any participation in wrongdoing. What we are imputing is inadequacy of judgment, the sort of judgment that is required from a person holding the high office the Minister of Justice holds. This excuse, therefore, offered by the Acting Prime Minister as the reason that they will not expand the inquiry is without substance, without meaning, and so far as I can see can only be taken as evidence of a desire to limit the terms of the inquiry unduly and prevent a full inquiry being held.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what about the second aspect of the inquiry, the second item that should be dealt with? There has been clear and undisputed evidence about a person holding a confidential position of executive assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This credible evidence may turn out to be wrong, but it was given by a man of reputation and substance. This is evidence to the effect that there was a bribe offered by people who were said to have

participated in a narcotics ring through a person holding the position of executive assistant. We say that if that very sensitive position of executive assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is occupied by a man who is found to be intermediary of a narcotics ring, then it is time the whole activities of that particular gentleman in the department were looked into. This is a department where desperate people may be ready to do anything to get into this country. I do not have to bring forward any smear because it has been admitted by the minister himself.
Let us see what the government's attitude toward this matter is. On Tuesday the hon. member for Grey-Bruce got up and said that the inquiry should include these matters. The right hon. Prime Minister answered him in this way saying that Mr. Sedgwick is a commissioner and Mr. Sedgwick is going to look into this matter. This was on Monday. On Wednesday I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because I knew that was not Mr. Sedgwick's function and he was not going to inquire into the matter, another question. Perhaps the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had forgotten to tell the Prime Minister what Mr. Sedgwick was doing. The Prime Minister was clearly mistaken. What does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say? I will read what he said as reported on page 10517 of Hansard: He was asked by myself about this misunderstanding by the Prime Minister, and he replied:
Mr. Speaker, the setting up of a special inquiry commission under Chief Justice Dorion, as decided by the cabinet, leads us to hope that all the aspects of the problem raised in the house, where the name of Mr. Raymond Denis was involved, will be considered and therefore there is no reason now to believe that Mr. Sedgwick would have to conduct an investigation with regard to Mr. Denis' activities since they will be covered by that inquiry.
So on Wednesday the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tells us that Chief Justice Dorion is going to look into this matter. What do we find on Thursday, when we point out as I did in my letter to the Acting Prime Minister that this matter was in no way covered in the terms of reference. We find out on Thursday that it is not within his terms of reference at all. Anybody who is interested in the details should read Hansard to see what the minister said in that letter. On Monday it was Sedgwick; on Wednesday, it was the chief justice; and on Thursday no one at all is going to look into this, although
Supply-Justice
the matter we believe is serious enough that the people of Canada have a right to know the answer. So long as the government continues to insist on its unwillingness to broaden the terms of reference, so long will suspicion be created that they are trying to hide something they do not want the people of Canada to know.
I have said, and I am quite serious in this, that if the terms of inquiry were broadened adequately we would be very glad to have to deal on these estimates with a motion which is the equivalent of a motion of censure on the Minister of Justice. But we are not permitted to take that course. As the Acting Prime Minister has said, that is for the house, and we are now faced with the painful task of deciding whether we should or should not vote confidence in the administration of the Minister of Justice.
I say reluctantly, and I speak for the other members of my party in this matter, that we have come to the conclusion that we have no choice, in the absence of proper terms of reference, but to vote in favour of that particular motion. I said reluctantly, and I mean reluctantly because so far as I am concerned-I cannot speak for everybody here-I have appreciated the fairness and courtesy of the minister. I know of no other member of the government front bench who is more highly regarded, but this is not a matter of personal friendship and good will. This is a matter of adequacy of performance of the vital, important functions of the Minister of Justice.
Before I go on to deal with our conclusions on this matter in detail may I be permitted to say something by way of background. I happened to be one of the counsel appearing before the royal commission on crime in Ontario, and from my experience there and what I read at the time I learned that there is no more sinister force in North America than organized, syndicated crime. I learned the methods they use for their operations. They are highly organized; they are continent wide; they dispose of tremendous funds, and a large part of those funds goes for protection.
What is protection? It is paying policemen. It is corrupting, where they can, politicians. It is getting their tentacles into government wherever they can; and I say the person who is Minister of Justice must be aware that when any appearance of this octopus-if I can call it that-of organized crime getting into the government of Canada comes up, then it

Supply-Justice
is his duty to act promptly, wisely and decisively to dispel it.
We are not able to support the minister in this, as we regret to say we have come to the conclusion he did not act promptly, wisely and adequately when this matter was called to his attention. It was a grave matter. It affected the minister's associates, people in positions of utmost confidence. What did the minister do? He received this information from the R.C.M.P. and then he decided for himself-I do not doubt the good faith of his judgment-but he decided for himself that was to be the end of it. He told no one else. He did not consult his officials. He did not get the advice of a crown attorney. He did not turn the matter over to some other counsel. He did not tell the Prime Minister and some other colleagues of his, and I say he made a grave error of judgment that he disqualified himself from holding the position he now holds.
I do not think there is much more I can say on this matter. I say that the minister substituted his judgment for the judgment of a court. I say that he decided he would be the grand jury-as someone has put it-he would substitute for the preliminary inquiry; and I say this was a most foolish and unwise procedure, when looked at from the background of the matter.
The matter had been called to his attention through the representations and statements of a lawyer, Mr. Lamontagne who, from all I hear, has the highest possible reputation. What possible motive could Mr. Lamontagne have for bringing forward this story so highly embarrassing to himself? It is always embarrassing to be involved in such a matter. It is embarrassing to cast charges at your fellow lawyers. The minister is a lawyer and he would find it very embarrassing.
The minister speaks of charity in respect to this matter. There is no place for charity when dealing with spokesmen and agents of organized crime. There is no place for any sort of charity then, and in my judgment-and I believe it to be the judgment of the people of Canada-the minister should have said, "At least I will get the judgment of others as to whether or not this very serious allegation has substance," an allegation I regret to say not implausible on the face of it because the offering of money and this sort of thing is part of the regular technique of people of this ilk.
The minister should have had enough experience with Hal Banks to know about problems that arise in the getting of bail, and if

this person-the special executive secretary in the office of the minister of citizenship- was prepared, or there was a serious allegation he was prepared to lend himself to the machinations and corruption of this international crime syndicate, then I say to bury the thing on the basis of his own judgment was a grievous error of judgment and makes him, I regret to say, unfit to occupy the position which he holds at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I hear some hon. members saying shame. The shame is not my shame. I have made it perfectly clear that in my judgment the minister never consciously acted wrongly, but I think a person in his position, leading a department such as he does, has to have a great deal more than integrity; and the minister has integrity. I think he has to have the judgment to enable him to deal with problems of this sort and I say he has failed to show that judgment. We on the opposition side of the house-and I would have thought those on the other side of the chamber as well-could have no choice but to say that unfortunately a man of great ability and charm, whom we think so much of, is not fitted to this position.
That need not be such an awful tragedy. Mr. Hugh Dalton, who was a close associate of prime minister Attlee, made a mistake-I think trifling to the mistake the minister made-but as a result of his mistake he resigned from the cabinet. I do not think it would be the end of the career of the Minister of Justice. By no means; I think he would have a great future and great career in anything. But I say he has not, in the discharge of his duties in this method, shown the capacity to understand the significance of his action or lack of action in this matter. That is the best possible view with which one can look upon the matter, and that is the view I prefer to put on it.
All I can say is that just based on what we know now, though if there were an inquiry with satisfactory terms of reference I might take a different view, but as the matter stands at the moment and on the evidence before us we in this party will have no option, reluctantly I say, but to support the motion of the hon. member for Yukon to cut the minister's estimates, based not on doubts as to his integrity but on doubts as to his ability to discharge the duties of a minister of justice as revealed by this incident-not revealed by anything else, but just by his handling of this particular incident.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon when the Minister of Finance got up and followed the Leader of the Opposition I had hoped we were going to have the spectacle of that minister dealing with the very forceful arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Instead the minister ignored the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Personally it seemed to me that the minister realized the Liberals had sent a boy to do a man's job, and he faced up to the task just like a little boy. I did find some of the minister's statements amusing, or perhaps the word "bewildering" would be more accurate. They illustrate the mental attitude of members on the front benches on the other side of the house. They illustrate a morality which I can hardly comprehend. The Minister of Finance apparently thought that quite as important as the matters which have been brought up in this committee, the suggestion that the fingers of crime had reached into the offices of the government, is the fact that some member of the opposition had a means of finding these things out. I hope I do not misrepresent the Minister of Finance in pointing this out, but this is certainly the only inference I can draw from his remarks. I believe he suggested there was just as much reason to set up a commission to inquire into the source of the information in possession of the hon. member for Yukon as there was to investigate the activities of the various people mentioned. If that is the standard of morality and conduct which governs cabinet ministers, then there are, perhaps, more than one or two ministers whose judgment is such that we do not want them around any more.
I notice the Minister of Finance said he could serve with no finer man than the Minister of Justice. If that is his mental attitude, I can understand it. Personally I think the handling of the Banks case as well as the revelations which have been made here have left the rest of us with less than that amount of confidence in the hon. gentleman. I also saw tonight the television performance given by the Minister of Justice. The hon. gentleman has been on his feet in this house in the last few days apparently livid with indignation about smears, insinuations and suggestions, calling for charges to be made, and so on. I heard him on T.V. tonight. What a performance-moustaches bristling with outraged indignation as he described the terrible things we were doing, our base conduct, asking, in his words: "How can people stoop so low just for political purposes?" While he is bristling-
Supply-Justice


Guy Favreau: What I said applied to the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: He went further in the course of that performance in that same tone of bristling indignation, the same as he got up in this house and screamed about how cowardly the opposition could get. Attacking the member for Yukon and the Leader of the Opposition, he said their only purpose was political effect. If there is any suggestion of hypocrisy, the Minister of Justice should not be so ready to jump to his feet and scream. I say to the members of this committee: If that is the standard of the mental and moral honesty of the Minister of Justice it is no wonder the affairs of the department have been so bungled. How are the people of this country to put any confidence in the administration of justice when a man of that mentality is responsible for it?
I think we should review a few of the events which have taken place in the last few months, events which have given the people of this country reason to wonder about the administration of justice in Canada. I am not sure all members have realized the significance of the lack of information forthcoming from the minister in the Banks case. I am sure that all of us who were familiar with Banks' record and the fact that he had been convicted and sentenced to five years were astonished when he was let out on bail. The Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Renfrew South would say, as soon as we expressed this astonishment, that we were maligning the judge. Nothing of the sort. The only way that judge could be brought in would be by the minister trying to hide behind his skirts as an excuse for not giving the explanations which the people of this country so urgently require. The Minister of Justice told us he had instructed counsel to oppose bail. But he did not tell us whether counsel had been told to make a last ditch stand and fight all the way. He did not tell us whether counsel was furnished with Banks' record, or what representations were made in the court. It is possible that the minister hired competent counsel and that counsel did take the proper steps. Even in those circumstances the judge might still have decided to release the prisoner on bail. But I suggest the people of this country would be much reassured had the minister bothered to tell them that all this had, in fact, been done. Instead, he did not.

Supply-Justice
After the initial concern about the circumstances in which Banks was able to leave this country it took us a long time to find out about the bail bond and the missing clause which permitted his escape. We have our suspicions why he was allowed bail. Proper representations were not made, and this is something which is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. Then again, what happened to the reputation of the R.C.M.P.? For weeks, after Banks failed to return, we tried in this house to And out the circumstances. People were wondering whether the R.C.M.P., the force of which we are so proud, was slipping. It took many days before we were told about the fault in the bail bond. Mr. Chairman, the job of the Minister of Justice is to protect the reputation of our police force, not to hide behind it, not to let it suffer because he preferred not to answer questions.
In the present case, all the hon. member for Yukon asked, all the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked, was that the Minister of Justice should get up and make a frank explanation. The hon. gentleman did not do that in the Banks case, nor has he done it in this one. The information had to be dragged out little by little, and the attempt to extract it was met by accusations of slander. Members who were trying to find out the truth were told to get up and make charges. I suggest the hon. member for Yukon gave the minister sufficient hints and clues as to the information he had for the minister to have a choice as to the best way in which to handle the whole situation without embarrassing anyone. The minister was given an opportunity to regain the confidence of this house and revive the faith of the people of this country in the administration of justice.
I think the minister made the basest sort of attack on television tonight by impugning the motives of the hon. member for Yukon. All I can say is that if I had had that information I do not see how I could have sat back without making an effort to have the matter investigated. I do not see any better way of proceeding than the course followed by the hon. member for Yukon. Certainly, if there was anything morally wrong in the way in which the hon. member for Yukon handled this affair, I do not see it and I want to tell the committee that I stand behind him 100 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The Minister of Justice has a heavy onus in respect of the portfolio he now

holds. I had always thought he had done a very fine job as minister of citizenship and immigration. I could never quite understand why he appeared to get into so much trouble in his present portfolio, and now I think he has revealed to his house and to the whole country the reason-he has not got the right mental attitude; his concept of his duty in that job is slightly off base. I will agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that there is nothing dishonest in the minister's actions; it is a plain case of honest stupidity, honest bungling, honest incompetence, and then very sneaky excuses when he starts to get into trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I could not agree more with most of the comments made by my leader, by the leader of the New Democratic party and by the hon. member for Greenwood; but I did want to draw one distinction in the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on the extent of the inquiry. I do feel that it should be unnecessary in a democracy for any parliament to ask any judicial inquiry to inquire into the conduct of a minister or of ministers in the handling of any affair. If we have truly responsible government-and I submit it is the job of government supporters as well as opposition members to make it truly responsible-no cabinet minister can get away with that' bungling incompetence; and certainly when he has been that incompetent he should not be able to get away with the arrogant attitude and secretive actions that he has taken with regard to this case when he has had it within his power. When the administration of justice is so important an element in the very belief in democracy in this country, it is incumbent on members of parliament to stretch every bit of their authority and take their political fate or their courage in their hands; but you must draw the line at this sort of behaviour by the government. It is, I maintain, the lifeblood, the mainstay of democracy; and this minister makes certain that so long as he is in that post, people in this country have their confidence shaken in the administration of justice and will find it very difficult to have much faith in our democracy. Stand not upon the order of your going, but go.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be permitted to take a different tack in this debate. I think it is only fair that I warn the committee that I am not a lawyer, nor even a person endowed with a better than

average knowledge of the law of the Department of Justice. But as one who spends a good deal of the day in this house, as one who feels very deeply about his party and about parliament, I am more than a little concerned about the events of this week. Some of the opinions I may express may even cause murmurs from the ranks of the government, for I intend to speak out not in defence of my party, not in the defence of a minister but as an ordinary man of conscience.


William Skoreyko: Who wrote your speech?


An hon. Member:: Diefenbaker wrote it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the role of the opposition in the House of Commons is to criticize a government; I do believe it is the role of the opposition to act as parliament's watchdog; I do believe the opposition is duty bound not only to suggest improvements in legislation but to ferret out by all the legal and honourable means at its disposal events which cannot stand close scrutiny and which are not necessarily in the best interests of this nation. I am the first to admit that the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam are fulfilling their role as members of an opposition in bringing before this house their distressing suspicions. y Parliament is the highest court in the land. Its traditions, its procedures, the jurisprudence which it has developed through the years, are the cornerstone upon which democracy in Canada rests; and we the members of this house, regardless of political affiliations, are duty bound to this nation to see that these traditions, these procedures are never destroyed, never reduced to a mere ineffective shell incapable of rising to the challenge of fairness, of honesty and democracy. Listening to the debate this week I was left with the uncomfortable feeling that in preserving these traditions, we were at the same time sacrificing a still greater democratic right-the sacred premise that a man is innocent until proven guilty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Now, Mr. Chairman, I would ask hon. members of the opposition to believe in my sincerity, to hear me out, to grant me the courtesy of their attention, for I am not pleading the case of the government, I am not pleading the case of the Minister of Justice; I am pleading, in the only way I know how, for those persons who are unable to defend themselves in this House of Commons. I am pleading for those people who are unable
Supply-Justice
to take advantage of the facilities of this house and are unable to answer the inevitable insinuations, the inadvertent presumptions that debate without proof must engender.
There are two obvious reasons why this matter is before us. The first, and I sincerely hope the real reason, the reason that has motivated the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, is the desire to promote the best interests of parliament and justice. The second and less honourable method could be a desire to discredit the government and destroy the reputation of the minister or ministers. But, Mr. Chairman, regardless of the motives of these hon. gentlemen I am haunted by the fear that the reputations of Mr. Lord and Mr. Denis have been tarnished, perhaps permanently, by statements made in this house, statements without proof or evidence, evidence tabled for all members of this house to scrutinize.
All of us know of cases where guilt seemed overwhelming. Not many of us have to go too far back in this house to recall such a case not too long ago, a case in which the fact eventually proved the gentleman to be innocent. I know that no member of this House of Commons would want to be part of a society that would tolerate a kangaroo court. All of us know the difficulty of erasing in later years the stigma which remains.
The headlines of the press in this country have screamed out for four days the alleged guilt of Mr. Lord. Some newspapers in their haste have even forgotten to use the word "alleged". Thus in the hysteria of the day, the almost pathetic plea of innocence uttered by Mr. Lord in London which appeared in a one column story in the Ottawa Citizen last evening, has been overlooked. All of us should reflect for a moment. If for some reason yet unrevealed Mr. Lord is not guilty, as indeed he stated in London almost 3,000 miles away, what are we, the members of this House of Commons, going to do to restore this young man's broken reputation.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order, if I may. The hon. member for Verdun is making a very eloquent speech in defence of those who he purports cannot defend themselves. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Dollard can be in the House of Commons this evening, if he wishes to be to defend himself.


Richard Joseph Cashin: That is not a point of order.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Is he accused?

Supply-Justice


William Skoreyko: He is. So far as I am concerned he has resigned from a very responsible position in this House of Commons. I say to you, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I cannot see what point of order the hon. member is raising here. Perhaps he might refer to the standing order and indicate what is the basis of his point of order.


William Skoreyko: If you will hear me out, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will agree with my argument. The hon. member for Verdun asked me whether the hon. member was charged or accused, and I said he has resigned from a responsible position in the House of Commons; and certainly there is more under the carpet than one might suspect. My point of order is related to this matter. The hon. member for Verdun has made a number of very brief speeches in this House of Commons, I will admit, but nevertheless he has made speeches in the House of Commons, and according to the rules he has no right to read a speech word for word written for him by somebody else.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: I should tell the hon. member that he has no right to suggest that another member of this house is making a speech which that hon. member has not written himself. The hon. member knows, as do all hon. members, that it is quite customary for members on both sides, even in the course of this debate, at least to refer to notes, and a number of them have read their speeches. Perhaps the Chair has been too lenient but it has become the custom-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh no.


Lucien Lamoureux: -at least in the course of the current session to allow members to refer to their notes. I do not feel that the hon. member for Verdun is going beyond what has been done by other hon. members either in the course of this debate or in the session.


William Skoreyko: With respect, I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I have only one point to make, and that is that obviously you have not been watching the hon. member for Verdun.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is a reprehensible practice.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I thank the hon. member for his courteous attention and kind co-operation. I regret he had not made note of the fact that at no time in my remarks have I sprung to the defence of the hon. member for Dollard, which was the point of order he raised.

Mr. Skoreyko. Nonsense. He does not know what he is saying.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I say it is entirely up to the hon. member for Dollard to stand in this House of Commons at the first opportunity and defend his own reputation if he thinks it has been attacked, and I presume like all hon. members of this house he is fully capable of doing so. I am the devil's advocate in the case of Mr. Lord.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: He did not read that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Without any reflection on the character of the hon. member for Yukon I say there is something very sick in this House of Commons when he is permitted, or I or any other hon. member of this house, to place on record allegations which can only end by tarnishing the reputations of Mr. Lord and Mr. Denis without either of these gentlemen having the opportunity of rebuttal in this house. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there are many competent lawyers in this house who must at times do a little soul searching when they see, not only on this occasion but on others, people proven guilty without the benefit of a fair trial.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not the only person who feels upset about this particular aspect of the House of Commons. I think the Ottawa Citizen is a very respected newspaper-


David Orlikow: Very objective too.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -and it pleaded this matter in an editorial in its issue for November 25, which if I may I should like to read.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit one question before he quotes that report?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sorry; if there are any questions I shall answer them at the end of my speech, I promise. I hope I am not to interpret the murmurings from hon. members opposite as an indication that in any way they want to deprive me of the privilege of speaking on behalf of Mr. Lord. This particular editorial does not do anything to help the Minister of Justice and I do not refer to it for that purpose. It says:
These are the facts in brief. Two questions arise:
I should point that out because I am only dealing with one; the other question is for the minister to defend.
How far should the Minister of Justice go in deciding whether or not there is sufficient evidence in any particular case to warrant court action?

That is the minister's problem.
And how far-
This is our problem, or mine.
-should the private member of parliament go in using parliamentary privilege to reveal the names of persons suspected of an offence?
Mr. Douglas, leader of the New Democratic party, suggested that Mr. Favreau might place the case before a judge in a special inquiry, to see whether a case existed that could stand up in the courts. This might be a useful procedure in future, and will now be adopted in the present instance. If carried out privately, it would not damage the reputations of the persons involved. Since the names in the present instance have already been disclosed, the inquiry will be open-
As for the distance a private member of parliament should go in naming people suspected of wrong doing, the matter must be left to each member's conscience. If it turns out that the private member has made an error, has based his accusations on insufficient evidence, he will have committed a great wrong.
I can give an illustration, Mr. Chairman, of how we can use the rules of this House of Commons to slander and insinuate. I have not seen any rule which would prevent me from asking this type of question of Mr. La-montagne. What if I were to ask on orders of the day or at some other time: What was the time lapse between the alleged bribe and the time it was reported by Mr. Lamontagne to his superior? And if by chance, Mr. Chairman, that answer be 20 days, would it not be unfair to Mr. Lamontagne for us to presume that possibly his indignation at this bribe was a little slow in prodding him into action? I could turn around and ask another question about Mr. Lamontagne. I could refer to the point that the hon. member for Yukon brought up yesterday, the proximity of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the events, to Mr. Lamontagne and to Mr. Denis at the time of the alleged bribe, I presume, and, according to the member for Yukon, in the same office. I could ask whether Mr. Lamontagne-


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member will permit me to interject, I at no time suggested that the alleged bribe offer was made in the same office.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will accept that. I am not one of those members who have an argument with the member for Yukon so far as the performance of his duty is concerned. I will agree that I assumed that; but let us assume it was in the next office. We are all familiar with the office set-ups. The hon. member nods his assent. Did Mr. Lamontagne take advantage of the proximity of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to run around the partition, which might take five minutes, and ex-
Supply-Justice
pose Mr. Denis for having made that bribe offer?
There are dozens of questions I could ask in a similar vein and each and every one of them by my own standards would be very unfair to Mr. Lamontagne, just as unfair, I submit, as the type of questions that has arisen in the house this week concerning the character and reputation of Mr. Lord. Finally, let me say as a naive Irishman that I hope I echo the sentiments not only of the members of my party but of all members of the house when I say that when the facts are fully known and the judicial inquiry has brought down its report the Minister of Justice will emerge fully vindicated with his reputation for compassion, for integrity and for devotion to his country intact.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of aspects of the matter we have been discussing on which I should like to touch. I was intrigued by the speech of the Minister of Finance this afternoon. He tried to make out that people who were dealing with this matter were trying to foster disunity in the country and he went to the trouble of referring to misinterpretations in the press about an incident. He fastened particularly on a story by Stanley Westall carried in this morning's Globe and Mail and he could have referred to several others. I want to tell him and the other ministers, particularly the Secretary of State, that I am very surprised that throughout the day no one has come to the support of the man who is getting the worst of all deals from the interpretations that are being made. It seems to me that the man who has been the subject of the really critical interpretations, the man whom no minister has stood up to defend, not even the Minister of Finance who obviously felt he was defending the integrity of the Minister of Justice, is the man who holds the highest office which in my opinion is within the gift of the Department of External Affairs. I refer to the Canadian high commissioner in Great Britain.
The Minister of Finance specifically referred to the article by Stanley Westall entitled "The Root of Pearson's Problem" which is accompanied by a picture of Mr. Chevrier with these words underneath it: "The old guard's influence has faded but its backlash is still being felt".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Hon. members can laugh but I want to make a point. I am not saying this.

Supply-Justice
This is in the newspaper. This is their interpretation and it is only one. I want to refer to another article and I think my hon. friends will recognize that this particular writer has never been identified with the official opposition. As a matter of fact, he was put forward in the house a year or two years ago as a rather heroic newspaperman and book writer. I am referring to the author of that famous book, "Renegade in Power", Mr. Peter Newman. I am sure hon. members on the government side must have read the article in yesterday's Toronto Star entitled: "P.M. Stabbed in Back from Quebec He Tried to Reconcile".
The article is a very thorough description and analysis of the whole play within the Liberal party. It names a great many people and weighs the balance. It talks about the old guard and the new guard. Furthermore, on page 7 of the same Toronto Star Mr. Newman has a very intimate story about the executive assistants of the various ministers, including a little anecdote that reflects, if you want to read it straight, on the Mr. Raymond Denis about whom we are talking.
Why would I bring in this particular argument? The hon. member for Verdun read an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen that gave one interpretation. Here is an interpretation that the Prime Minister has been stabbed in the back from the Quebec he tried to reconcile. We have all this talk about the old guard and the new guard. We have a reference here to the fact that the Minister of Justice gained a seat when the seat was given up by a member who shortly after was appointed to a judgeship in Quebec and has since had a somewhat unfortunate experience.
Throughout we get all this building up, of the idea of the old guard and the new guard. I want to ask some of the ministers- I would ask the Minister of Finance if he were here-what is the origin of this talk about the old guard and the new guard? Where does all this material come from about the new politics?


Richard Joseph Cashin: Gossip.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That fierce, bad rabbit over there is talking. The hon. member feels it is just gossip. It may be. I simply want to suggest to him that this gossip had a source. I want to say that he knows where the source is and I think he will realize Mr. Newman did not get it from the official opposition or from our party. The hon. gentleman should realize from where this material
comes. He is getting it from a source within the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: This is the new politics.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is the new politics. In other words, in the display by the Minister of Finance this afternoon, with that genteel distinction with which he put forward his case, we are having a demonstration of the kind of politics that are being played here. This is a reflection of something that is going on within the Liberal party. I suggest that the hon. gentleman should realize that the kind of information Mr. Newman is putting forward, this analysis of the old guard and the new guard, demonstrates the fact there are some enlightened, informed, radical elements in the Quebec membership but there are others who are back in the old days of Chevrier and Azellus Denis, and this information comes from a particular source.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. The remarks which are being made by the hon. member for Port Arthur are, of course, extremely interesting, but I am wondering to what extent they come within the ambit of the resolution now before the committee, that is, item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice. I realize that these remarks are introductory in nature but time is running by quickly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am not going to take much more time. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that here we have had the government today put forward the Minister of Finance to stand up and say-I suppose it shows a certain kind of integrity-that the Ontario members stand with the Quebec members.
They are all loyal together. It is reminiscent of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who, on television one night, put forward as proof that the Prime Minister was still in control of the party the fact that his caucus was still loyal to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is very much, Mr. Chairman, the same kind of argument that the Minister of Finance gave us today; that everything was fine; that the Minister of Justice was in an unimpeachable position because they all stood with him. I want to suggest that there is a strong indication here of what is brewing within the internal caucus of that party when they are prepared to sacrifice the former minister of justice, who is now high commissioner to England. If they want to get up here and talk about all this nobility and have
IMr. Fisher.]

people like the hon. member for Verdun call us to some high concept that should be basic to this organization; that we should have accepted some kind of defence from the Minister of Finance; if this "hate the old guard", which is being interpreted in the newspapers and in the very article to which the Minister of Finance referred as being at the root of all of this trouble-


Richard Joseph Cashin: We do not pay as much attention to these articles as you do.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We hear from the little rabbit, who says they do not pay as much attention to these articles. The Minister of Finance read from one of these articles. Surely, he must have noticed Mr. Chevrier's picture was there and there was this interpretation.
I just wanted to bring this to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite because they have obviously decided, after shuddering for two or three days, that they had to make some kind of a defence. It came forward this afternoon, first of all with McCarthyism and extremism over here, and second, the preachers of national disunity. I want to say that the Liberal party has always, in a sense, been the object of envy about the way in which they could come forward with so much membership in this House of Commons from the province of Quebec. It has always been a problem. There have been analyses of this by professors of history and political scientists that go right back to Riel and the conscription crisis, to get an explanation of how the Liberal party can have this sort of power in Quebec, and so be the power of national unity.
I should like to suggest that perhaps the people of Canada at this time have a new inkling as to the reason the Liberal party has this strong basis in Quebec. I think they have got a real inkling as to where the basis of the Liberal party is. There is no question about it, the Liberal party seems to have an understanding of how to deal with things in the province of Quebec. I give you the situation where you have a minister of justice sitting in this house representing a constituency from which another hon. member of the Liberal party retired, and under what circumstances, and what followed. I give you this as an example of these people. The details that we have heard very recently, as these fellows come forward with their details which I am convinced they are getting from sources in the Liberal party, is the explanation of the Liberal power in Quebec, and it is becoming very, very clear. I
Supply-Justice
hope that the country in general will realize the significance of this, whether it is the old guard or the new guard fighting, they have certainly got their basis and we certainly see the evidences of how it operates and how it works.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say, at the beginning of my brief remarks, that this will not be the merriest or the most cheerful speech I have ever made in this noble assembly which, particularly these last few days, has unfortunately witnessed a turmoil beyond description and, too often, bordering on indecency.
I have pointed out before, in the strongest possible terms, that the rules of the house were outmoded and I urged a complete redrafting of the rules as soon as possible, and I still say so. But, in the meantime, I wish we had at least more respect for our present system, especially when we are having such bitter, improper and highly undesirable debates, such as the present one, which are frowned upon by the people of Canada and which, I would say, are a disgrace to honest members sitting in this house.
Mr. Chairman, you will readily understand that I, as a French Canadian, and I am proud of it, with all due deference to the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), and also as a conscientious representative of the Montmagny-L'Islet riding, could not help but protest strongly against what I would call "operation smear" which apparently is giving extreme pleasure at this time to some members of the so-called loyal opposition of Her Majesty.
Under cover of parliamentary immunity, some hon. members undertook a wild and hot-headed smearing campaign against ministers, personalities, officials, especially those of French Canadian descent. Always malicious insinuations voiced in a soft-spoken tone and with the air of shocked virgins-


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
My hon. friend is making insinuations against the members of the opposition.
In his opinion, they denounced the conduct of the present government because they wanted to launch an anti-French Canadian campaign, etc.


Some hon. Members:: That is true.


Léon Balcer: I wish to protest most vigorously against such insinuations, and as a French Canadian, I hope that this scandal

Supply-Justice
will be cleared up so we, French Canadians, can walk proudly in this house. I wish to say that this is an unfortunate affair, and I deeply regret that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), for whom I entertained great respect, acted as a schoolboy and showed infantilism.
In my opinion, it is quite improper for a Quebec member to make a racial issue out of the situation to save his party which lies in a vale of tears following this scandal.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Chairman, I have a great respect for the hon. member for Three Rivers and I am sure he must not feel that my remarks were meant for him.
Coming back to my subject, I should like to point out that the Minister of Justice, who is fundamentally honest according to me and many others, has quite frankly and properly asked the fiery member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to lay formal and definite charges, under the circumstances, and even to put his seat on the line with respect to accusations like the one he made against the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay).
But no, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member chose to remain behind the barricade of parliamentary immunity to continue his indirect attacks. I see his point; you get less involved that way and you stay under cover.
Are we really seeking justice, Mr. Chairman? Or are we not after that big publicity we can get from those parliamentary correspondents who are listening to us now, when they inform the public tomorrow?
I remain convinced, however, that all those honest news reporters and newscasters are quite able to analyse the situation and will succeed in informing the people about the truth which will come out of this painful debate.
Far be it from me to question the sincerity of the hon. member for Yukon in this matter, but I wonder if he knows what happened to the M.L.A. for Three Rivers, Mr. Gabias. Obviously quite sincere and well-intentioned, he accused a minister of embezzlement and today he finds himself out of the Quebec legislative assembly for three years. Remember that he, at least, had levied specific charges against the minister concerned; he had shown courage, if not foolhardiness.
I would ask that the same thing be done here. How is it that in this case when the member concerned is asked to levy specific charges, he slinks away in a maze of sly insinuations? When he is asked to repeat his allegations outside the house, that is without the parliamentary immunity and with the risk

of being prosecuted for libel, he is alarmingly quiet. When he is asked to put his seat on the line, if his charges are proved false, he becomes surprisingly deaf.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, that leaves me puzzled and leads me to conclusions which, for the sake of parliamentary ethics and decency, I will keep to myself.

You may have noticed, Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman opposite is very fond of speculation. He himself admitted so this afternoon. I very respectfully suggest that he should stop speculating on the future of our country-


Erik Nielsen: May I ask-


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: -and work more heartfully, sincerely and truthfully toward the real unity of all Canadians in these hours of great need.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: I will answer when I have finished, be sure of that. The right hon. gentleman this afternoon quoted the Montreal Star. May I in turn quote the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix which is not usually recognized for its fondness of Liberals. Referring to "Opposition charges of government complicity in the escape of Harold C. Banks" the Star-Phoenix stated:
Not only have members of the opposition created an undocumented fiction in this accusation; they have also been able, under the rules of parliamentary immunity, to give this fiction the widest possible publicity.
The immunity of parliamentarians from suits for damage is a necessary democratic safeguard; but its use, in instances of this kind, is being pushed too far.
Members of parliament must be protected in their right, even their duty to speak forthrightly and fearlessly about the behaviour and policies of their colleagues. But when they use this right merely to smear an opponent and thus to destroy him in public life, they are grossly misusing their high privilege.
It is not too much to demand that legislators and parliamentarians use their immunity as a democratic tool rather than a political weapon. It is not too much to expect them to conduct themselves as decently in the House of Commons as they must conduct themselves in open society.
I think this article was worth reading.

Mr. Chairman, you can draw your own conclusions.
In closing, I should like to suggest very humbly to the Leader of the Opposition to abide a little more by the Canadian Bill of

Rights so dear to him, which bears his own signature and which I was reading over in my office this afternoon; he should set a better example for his supporters.
To come back to the estimates of the Department of Justice, we are called upon to pass, I think it is amazing that nobody pointed out, during this debate, the active commendable and sensible part played by the Minister of Justice in the projects concerning a reformation of our penitentiaries, anticipated amendments to the parole system, a revision of the Combines Investigation Act and especially, what struck me personally as one of his best achievements, the importance of his personal participation in the agreement concluded between the federal and the provincial governments, which will soon lead us to what is called the repatriation of the constitution, to the great disappointment of the Leader of the Opposition.
They rather decided to stick to low class discussion which the Canadian people from coast to coast condemn as being incompatible with the almost sacred character that should be reserved to the parliament of the nation.
Consequently, I hope that this fratricidal struggle will be brought to an end, because it could unfortunately degenerate into a national genocide for us in Quebec, leaving it to Hon. Justice Frederic Dorion to hold an impartial inquiry into this unfortunate and explosive situation which has been for much too long, I would say, the only concern of the house to the detriment of the legislation which is more urgent, more appropriate and more in keeping with in the interests of all Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, I have only one wish to make before resuming my seat; it is that we come back to national unity, which must be preserved at any cost, if we want sound justice for all Canadians without exceptions. Let the unbounded ambition of some yield to moderation. Let the thirst for publicity be quenched by more evident sincerity in parliamentary work. Let the petty politicians try and become politicians worthy of that name and the Canadian parliament will remove the blot on its escutcheon due to the happenings of these troubled days.
tText]


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat said he would permit a question at the conclusion of his remarks. I wonder if he would tell the members of the committee whether he feels that the eminent young counsel from Mont-
Supply-Justice
real, Mr. Pierre Lamontagne, would subject himself so lightly to the possibility of libel or slander charges in view of the statements he has given in which he has called the charges I made in the house on November 23 substantially exact?


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: To answer briefly, since a judiciary commission is going to investigate the matter, I shall say that, personally, I will not impute any motives, as was done by members opposite, to persons who may be quite honourable, though I found strange the long silence before the said statement was made.
This is my answer to the hon. member.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of participating in this debate, tonight, but following the fiery remarks which the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) has just made, I cannot help but rise and speak also, as a French Canadian, after the hon. member for Three Rivers.
Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago a member from the province of Quebec was ready to place a saintly halo on his own head. But the halo will not fit his head.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet requested a full inquiry. That is all we want.
We want this whole matter cleared up.
I regret that, as a French Canadian, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has shown such incompetence in the performance of his important duties, but the fact that one of my fellow French Canadians shows such incompetence does not mean that I do not want the truth to come out in the open.
If there is nothing to hide, why do the hon. members opposite try so hard to hide the facts? Why have we only learned a few things in the house, and piecemeal at that? How did we come to hear about it? Because of the statements made to the house by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
A few moments ago, reference was made to a smearing campaign. Has there ever been a more smearing campaign than the one carried on in the province of Quebec by friends of those who are now sitting on the other side of the house? Since 1960, friends of hon. members opposite sullied the reputation of the whole population of the province of Quebec. Today, we are hearing those so-called saints shedding crocodile tears.
If you want the truth to come out, you can do it by producing the report referred to by the hon. member for Yukon. Open it for the people to see, so that they may know who is telling the truth and who is hiding the facts.

Supply-Justice
Those who are hiding the truth are sitting before us; they are the ones who, for political reasons, try to hide their turpitude.
They hope that by endeavouring to smear other persons as much as possible, people will forget their own scurvy tricks, misdeeds, treachery and lack of sincerity.
We want a full inquiry. That is what we want and what we always asked for. Give us a full inquiry. We do not want to condemn anybody in advance. We want everybody to be able to judge.
Accusations and allegations have been made. If there is no basis in those accusations or allegations, then let the situation be cleared up as soon as possible. Some people feel pity and talk of national unity. They say national unity is at stake.
Mr. Chairman, you have heard those people when it came to throwing mud at Mr. Courte-manche. They went at great length on the other side of the house in respect to this matter, to try and make it rough for Hon. Pierre Sevigny, to try and accuse Hon. Mr. Dorion about a letter drafted and signed by his secretary. Hon. Mr. Chevrier is no longer on the other side to put things straight.
That is the gist of the story. Hon. Mr. Chevrier is no longer there to straighten out your small deficiencies. He is gone. Why is he gone?


An hon. Member:: Tell us the story.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is all you can do. You do everything and you do nothing; all you can do is make insinuations.
Let justice prevail. What we want is justice, nothing else. Stop using national unity as a smokescreen; through your doings it has nearly disappeared. If there is now misunderstanding between the groups which make up this nation, it is you who are responsible, because of the irresponsible promises you made, although you knew very well you would be unable to keep them, but you made them nevertheless during the election campaign merely to get votes. Are there other ways to tell that you are hypocrites? I cannot find any other.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wanted to make to the hon. members who sit on the other side of the house and who worked for years to destroy national unity. To those who rise here to try and jump on the bandwagon of national unity, I say that their heads are too small to bear the halo of the saints.


Mr. Otto:: In as calm and quiet a voice as I can muster I should like to answer the hon. member for Greenwood. As a matter of fact, I originally stood up to ask him a question. It seemed to me, as he explained it, that his party intended to vote in favour of the amendment because the terms of reference were not wide enough to permit a judicial inquiry to determine whether or not the minister acted reasonably on the basis of the evidence before him.
If hon. members would consider carefully the implications of this suggestion they would see that this is an attempt to have a commission examine whether or not a minister of the crown acted correctly, or properly, or reasonably. This I suggest would be a complete denial of the procedures of our parliamentary system, a complete departure from our practice as I think both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam will admit. If we were to allow such an examination to take place, why could the hon. member for Kootenay West, for example, not ask for judicial inquiry into whether or not the Secretary of State for External Affairs had acted properly in concluding the Columbia river treaty?


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman be surprised if he were told that his friends on the front bench are even now working on something which would bring them together?


Steven Otto: As I have said before, there is a much greater gap between the front benches and the back benches than there is between the front benches of government and the front bench of the opposition.
But to get back to the point I was making. If the reasoning of the hon. member for Greenwood is correct, ministerial decisions would no longer have to come before the House of Commons; they could simply be reviewed by a judicial inquiry. The fact is, and we all know it, that the minister is responsible to one body alone, that is, this House of Commons, which is itself in turn responsible to the people. If the house feels that the decision reached by the minister was not a correct one, remedies are available. After all, members opposite have given us our lumps. I hope, now we have had all our lumps, we can get down to the business of the house. If the members of the New Democratic party vote in favour of the amendment on the ground to which I have

just referred, I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood would be the first to admit it would not be a proper ground. I myself can see no reason why the members of that party should vote with the opposition.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) vent his spleen upon us, after the fits of hysteria of the hon. members for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Berger) and St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), I simply wish to state the position we will assume when the estimates of the Department of Justice are voted upon.
Like other members, we somewhat hesitate to give our entire approval to the order in council as it stands, particularly in view of the insinuations which were levelled this afternoon and tonight concerning the integrity of the members from the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Port Arthur gave the most vivid description before this house of the opinion entertained by the rest of the country toward the actions of the members from the province of Quebec and, in general, respecting the reputation which the latter enjoy in this house.
I just want to say that if we were to accept, in its present form, the order in council before us, it would seem that we want to allay the suspicion which hangs over the French Canadian members. I do not want to take such a stand. Therefore we ask the government to change somewhat the terms of the order in council, so that a full inquiry may be conducted in order to throw light upon the matter before us and to clear completely the character of our colleagues.
I have no hesitation to recognize the honesty and the integrity of the Minister of Justice. All we can hold against him, in the circumstances, is that he was reluctant to act on a matter which, in his opinion, could become known publicly. If he hesitated, I am inclined to believe that it was due to the fact that he did not have all the required information to launch proceedings.
On the other hand, in view of the insinuations which have been made with regard to the integrity of the members for the province of Quebec, I feel the present government should accept part of the amendment proposed or suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) to extend the inquiry in order to ascertain to what extent the minister failed to fulfil his duties.
As members, we all recognize readily the honesty, integrity and competence of the
Supply-Justice
Minister of Justice and, though he may have shown weakness in this instance, we will vote in favour of the passage of his estimates, inasmuch as the terms of reference of the commission will be extended to encompass all actions taken within the Department of Justice in connection with the matter.
I do not think we should hesitate to increase the powers of the judge who will be responsible for the investigation. This proposal should be accepted, if only to remove any doubt about the integrity and honesty of the members from the province of Quebec, who sit in this house.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition paid me the honour of bringing my name into the debate this afternoon when he said that "the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was quoted as saying he was one of the recipients;" he was speaking, of course, of money from the seamen's international union. I only want to reconfirm the statement that I made in Vancouver and put the facts on the record. I reconfirm the statement I made on November 10, that I have received no financial assistance or aid from the seamen's international union, and having checked the matter very carefully with my official agent and campaign manager in both the 1962 and 1963 campaigns, I am assured by them that there has not been paid toward either of my campaigns any financial assistance whatsoever from the S.I.U. However-


An hon. Member:: What about campaign workers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am coming to that. I want to put the facts on the record. However, at that same time in Vancouver I readily admitted that some members of the S.I.U. in Vancouver worked on my campaign; and this is something I have never tried to conceal. Most notable of those people is a Mr. Walter Sawadsky, who in 1962 was a member of my poll captains organization and in 1963 was my campaign manager. Mr. Sawadsky was an immigrant to Canada in 1948 and was a minor official of the S.I.U. on the west coast up until February of 1962, when he resigned from that position. He has over the last few years been attending special night school courses, has completed his senior matriculation and is now a third year political science student at the University of British Columbia. From everything that I know of Mr. Sawadsky he is an example of those immigrants to

Supply-Justice
Canada who by their hard work and perse-verence are making a place for themselves and their families in their adopted land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Also, from everything that I know of him, I am proud to have had him associated with my campaign, and I think all hon. members of this house, either on this or the other side, if they knew him would be equally proud to have him associated with them. He has maintained his membership in the S.I.U. for the purposes of obtaining summer employment while a university student, and last summer worked as a deckhand on one of the coastal freighters on the west coast. Being in my campaign organization, he naturally, I think-I certainly regarded it as quite natural-was responsible for having some of his union friends work in my organization. I had some 800 campaign workers in 1963, many of whom were union members. I was not sure at the time how many were members of the S.I.U., but I have since determined that in the 1963 campaign in Van-couver-Burrard there were five members of the S.I.U. who worked on my campaign, plus the wives of two of those members. They worked at the various jobs that are involved in anyone's campaign, namely putting up posters, addressing envelopes, etc. I do not see anything particularly sinister in the wife of an S.I.U. member pouring tea and serving cookies to the ladies up and down the street on behalf of a Liberal candidate. I suggest that this is probably less sinister and more wholesome than the right hon. gentleman opposite appointing his chief fund raiser in British Columbia to the board of the Bank of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as I was concerned, these people were working for me in the Liberal party in British Columbia as individuals; as part of a whole army of Canadians, from bank presidents to deckhands, who wanted to work for Liberal candidates and say to the right hon. gentleman and his government, "Go; for heaven's sake go. We have had enough of you".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That was certainly the attitude of the S.I.U. toward us.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I am very honoured at the response I seem to be getting from the right hon. gentleman opposite. He must feel that his political position is ex-

tremely weak, when he has to pay such attention to a mere backbencher.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I say, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned these people worked for me as individuals. If they thought that their efforts created on my part, or on the part of the Liberal party, any obligation to Hal Banks or the S.I.U., they are mistaken and I have not been put under any obligation by these efforts, nor has the government been put under any obligation, to act in any way other than according to our conscience in the best interests of this nation. I am sure that hon. gentlemen opposite are going to be disappointed to realize that none of these people ever suggested to me that I was under any obligation to Hal Banks or to their union.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Nor did they say that they were in any way agents of Hal Banks. In fact, I am sure it would surprise hon. members that I do not recall any discussion with any of them about Hal Banks. I do recall a number of discussions on the re-establishment of the Canadian merchant service, which seems to me a very natural subject for Canadian seamen to be concerned about.
The right hon. gentleman opposite also made a statement this afternoon to the effect that help from members of the S.I.U. was help of value, no matter whether in cash or nuts. I find this is a very surprising statement to come from a gentleman who has gone from one coast of this nation to another bragging about his bill of rights, claiming he is the great defender of civil liberties and human rights. I find it very surprising that here this afternoon he can in one fell swoop condemn every member of this union as a political leper.
We in British Columbia have many workers. Among these are the seamen, who are an essential part of our economy. Their leader, Hal Banks, through the actions of this government, has been deposed from office and is a fugitive from justice. We have in British Columbia truck drivers and transport drivers whose leader, by the action of the United States government, is in trouble with the law. We have fishermen in British Columbia whose leader, Homer Stevens, is an avowed and admitted communist. We have miners whose union chief has from time to time been accused of communist leadership. We have outside workers in the city of Vancouver-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: McCarthyism.


Stanley Ronald Basford: If the hon. member for Kootenay West will keep himself in control I think that at the end of my remarks he will agree with my point, because I do recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West as a man of justice.
We have in the city of Vancouver outside workers who work for the city, the school board and the parks board, with whom I worked as a university student for five summers in a row and whose leader, Jack Phillips, is again an avowed and admitted communist. Are we, Mr. Chairman, going to deny the seamen, truck drivers, fishermen, miners and street workers what I think is certainly the undeniable right of every Canadian worker, and that is to support and to work for the party and candidate of their choice?
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this House of Commons, in the mood of political hysteria it seems to be in at the moment, is not going to follow the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Bow River and the right hon. gentleman opposite in some sort of McCarthy-like witch hunt to deny to ordinary Canadian workers their undeniable civil right to support the party of their choice.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, the last speaker says the house is in a mood of hysteria, yet the Minister of National Health and Welfare described this as a tempest in a teapot. Perhaps they might both get together on their terminology. But no matter whether it is a tempest in a teapot or a state of hysteria, the country has obviously lost confidence in the administration of justice. This week we have been treated to an example of negligence in high places, I think unexcelled in recent Canadian history, largely brought about because of a conspiracy of silence from the Minister of Justice. The risks this hon. gentleman was prepared to take in September would make the most daring and avid speculator catch his breath. He has hazarded himself and his career. He hazarded, of course, his Prime Minister by withholding vital information from him. He hazarded his party and his government; and he hazarded something he had no right to do-the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the integrity of the whole Department of Justice.
This minister was one who was known as being a devoted public servant before he entered political life, but he has turned his back on the very department and officials with whom he once served and with whom, I would have thought, he would have shared a common loyalty and a common trust. By his failure to share this burden with others
Supply-Justice
he surely has compounded the problem and compounded that which faces all of us when we try to make a judgment about this affair. As a matter of fact I think his omission to tell the Prime Minister is one of the most incredible omissions imaginable and really stretches the bounds of our belief to the very limit.
The Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the government, who now scramble behind a narrowly drafted order in council, must share responsibility for any danger done to the reputations of others. The minister must have realized the contents of the R.C.M.P. file could not have been kept from public scrutiny. The minister had many avenues open to him which would have provided a thorough investigation of the charges, but he chose to cover up, thus vastly compounding the hurt to those allegedly involved.
I think we are entitled to some explanations. What explanation could the minister give, for instance, for the failure to inform his Prime Minister of this police report? What excuse could the minister possibly provide us with for his neglect in asking that the contents of the file be examined by independent minds? What reason lies behind the minister's refusal to permit the commission to examine the procedure or the obvious lack of procedure followed by the department in pursuing this squalid affair? What other telephone calls were made to other people during this interesting year? What excuse is forthcoming for any executive assistant, or parliamentary secretary for that matter, communicating with a lawyer engaged in a court appearance? What excuse can the Prime Minister of Canada have for preferring the clear reaches of the west to the place where his duty lies, namely this House of Commons? What is more important this week but for the Prime Minister and the government to take every necessary step to restore the shattered confidence of the people of Canada in the government, and the manner in which they conduct the public business? What is the explanation for the Prime Minister's utter lack of control of members of his cabinet? What is the explanation for the lack of frankness and loyalty of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That does not disturb me. This is a tempest in a teapot and I am hysterical, but I will leave it to the editorial writers, the news commentators and others
10594	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion in Canada to ponder, having been shattered by a squalid week of abdication of responsibility. Speaking of reading, we might have had a couple of readings from the minister responsible or his parliamentary secretary. We have not really had a full explanation from them, and I hope that some of these questions will provide them with areas and avenues to be pursued here tomorrow.
The judicial inquiry in its present terms will do nothing to allay our proper and genuine suspicion. All it will do is to say whether or not there is enough evidence to permit the proceedings to be instituted. I suggest that this is no longer the point. The point is that the minister in an obviously delicate area demonstrated impropriety and negligence in his handling of the affair. Until the minister permits the scrutiny of the commission to go right to the foundations of his department, I think that the public has real cause for concern.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, it is ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to use my full seven minutes on this subject. I asked the Minister of National Defence a supplementary question, following upon a series of questions, concerning the matter of housing for armed forces personnel in the Halifax area and elsewhere where our forces are stationed. The minister had said that one of the problems in keeping trained personnel in the navy with the necessary skills to man all of our ships was that there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the housing that has been provided for naval personnel.

My question was whether the minister would take immediate steps to initiate a program of housing for naval and other military personnel under which such housing would be intermingled with civilian housing wherever military personnel are stationed. If this were done the result would be that when military personnel came home from work at the end of the day they would come in contact with civilians with other interests living on each side of them. In this way I felt that military personnel would be more a part of the community and would be happier if they were living a normal type of life. A person who happens to be in one line of work does not want to live in close proximity with people who are all doing the same type of work. You will have a far better opportunity to enjoy an ordinary healthy type of community life if you have a bank clerk living on one side of you and a dentist living on the other side, and so on and so forth. It is the variety of interests of your neighbours that makes community life worth while.
I want to compliment the minister and the associate minister on the many changes they have made since this administration came into office. Never before has the Department of National Defence had such expert direction as it has had during that period of time. I suggest that the department should continue its worthwhile improvements in order to provide for our greater security and that the lot of the men and women of the armed forces can be improved by following the policy suggested in my question.
The department should establish such a policy with regard to housing even if the acquiring of land under such a plan may occasionally result in greater cost. Even if it costs a little more, let us remember that the men and women in the armed forces provide security for our country and it is worthwhile to see to it they are well treated. We have to overcome the problem of too many of these skilled people who have been trained at the taxpayers' expense wanting to leave the services prematurely. I hope the minister will look deeply into this matter and will be able to do something about it in the near future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has undertaken a study of the housing needs in the city of Halifax. This has been initiated in consultation with the flag officer for the Atlantic coast. It is

their intention to inquire fully into the availability of accommodation in that area, and also as to what steps, if any, are required to improve the availability of housing for naval personnel. I can assure my hon. friend that we are concerned about this problem. It is one which has existed for some time, and when the study of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is complete we will review it in the light of the suggestions he has put forward tonight.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I know that the overriding interest of all of us is the best accommodation, the most pleasant surroundings and the best possible integration into the community that we can provide for the men and women of the armed forces who serve us so well. I can assure hon. members of the house that every effort will be made in order to accomplish this end.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
-670
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 27, 1964
The house met at 11 a.m.

Mr. Speaker:: If I may have the attention of the house for a moment I would like to make a request that, by tradition, requires unanimous consent.
At the present time Canadian teachers are badly in need of lively and authentic material to teach the subject "Government in Canada." To help meet this need the national film board is now producing a series of film strips designed for use in Canadian schools. It is hoped to include in this film strip series still colour photographs taken while the house is actually sitting.
I am informed that to obtain these photographs it would be necessary to have one photographer on the floor of the house itself and two photographers in the gallery. I have been assured that they would go about their work as quickly and unobtrusively as possible and that no special lighting or elaborate equipment would be needed. The national film board have undertaken to clear all photographs with the Speaker before they are released for use in the film strips.
I may say that the right hon. Prime Minister, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, and the leaders of the other parties have been good enough to give me the assurance of their agreement with this request.
The photographing in question is scheduled to take place next Wednesday, December 2, and I would hope that there would be as full an attendance in the house as possible.
Do I have the unanimous consent of the house to permit the national film board to undertake this photography?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No. I do not think photographers should be allowed on the floor of the house. I think it is quite permissible that they be allowed to take pictures from the galleries, but it would be setting a most unfortunate precedent if they were allowed to take photographs on the floor of the house while the house was in session.
20220-670J


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister disagree with the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Do I or do I not have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You do not.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the Prime Minister agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to pictures being taken from the gallery for the precise purpose of film strips to be used in an educational program in the school system of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: It is difficult to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker, but you mentioned that the Prime Minister had given his consent. If he gave his consent to photographers coming on the floor, as I did and as the other leaders did, I am sure the Minister of National Defence, in his own defence, would be willing to withdraw his objection.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I aim not. This is a subject which concerns members of parliament as individuals, and as an individual member of parliament I do not give my consent to having photographers on the floor of the house when the house is in session.


John George Diefenbaker: Another split in the cabinet.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Paul Joseph James Martin: As has been stated in the course of the discussion on the estimates of the Minister of Justice, the government is most anxious to have an inquiry which would be comprehensive. We have been giving consideration to suggestions which have been made on this side and on all sides of the house.
Our view was that the original terms of reference were sufficiently broad and comprehensive to take into account everything which could reasonably be considered relevant to the allegations which have been made. However, it is apparent there are some concerns on the part of some members. It is the desire of the government that the inquiry

Administration of Justice should not only be comprehensive but that reasonable and serious concerns that it has all the necessary powers to be so, should be satisfied.
In an endeavour to meet these points while at the same time avoiding certain of the problems which were mentioned in my letter of yesterday to the hon. member for Greenwood, the government has decided on amendments to order in council P.C. 1964/1819 of November 25, 1964. These are set out in an amending order which was passed this morning, copies of which I now table and copies of which, in English and French, I send to the leaders of parties opposite.


An hon. Member:: And read into the record.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: And which I will read. I think with these changes there can remain no reasonable doubt whatever that the inquiry will be comprehensive.
It will be recalled, with regard to one of the amendments to the order, that the Minister of Justice himself rose last night and said that in relation to the correctness of the position he had taken in the matter he would see to it that the commissioner examined that feature. This voluntary statement made by the minister is now incorporated in the language used to provide authority to the commissioner to deal with this very point. I will read the whole of the order in council:
The committee of the privy council on the recommendation of the Prime Minister advise that order in council P.C. 1964-1819 of 25th November, 1964, be amended by deleting, in the first paragraph thereof, all words commencing with the words "to inquire fully'', and substituting therefor the following:
"to inquire fully into allegations about any improper inducements having been offered to or improper pressures having been brought to bear on counsel acting upon an application for the extradition of one Lucien Rivard and all the relevant circumstances connected therewith, including the manner in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and any officer thereof and the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice dealt with the allegations when they were brought to their attention, and in particular but without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider fully the reports submitted to the Minister of Justice by the R.C.M.P. and the evidence laid before him in connection therewith and any further evidence elicited by or laid before the commissioner, and, if he considers that there is prima facie evidence of an offence in relation to the activities as an employee of the government or an officer of a department of any person involved in the allegations, to consider such other matters as may appear to the commissioner to be relevant, and to report fully thereon".
R. G. Robertson,
Clerk of the Privy Council. IMr. Martin (Essex East).]
These amendments have been referred to and discussed with the commissioner.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view
of the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Acting Prime Minister, I can only say that this has been a strange story of denial and then retreat. To begin with, the government said it would set up an inquiry that would sit in camera, and had to back down in that regard. Then for a couple of days it was argued by the government, and it was their contention, that the terms of reference in the order in council, hastily constructed in the light of all the political considerations connected with this matter, were sufficiently wide. All of us said they were not; the government said they were. The Acting Prime Minister even wrote a letter in that connection.
Finally today we have the government, having passed one order in council, now amending it having learned that the New Democratic party were going to vote nonconfidence. This government, fearing for itself, has retreated even in the face of what it has done. While it represents, apparently, an agreement between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Justice who met together, I doubt whether it goes far enough. But it does indicate the fact that this government knows it has been and is in difficulties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, ever since this matter was first brought to the attention of the house by a question asked on Monday by the leader of this party our position as a party has been very clear. It was stated explicitly last evening by the hon. member for Greenwood. It has been our view throughout that the matters that have been brought to light should be fully investigated. We felt that the order in council was not drawn in terms sufficiently wide to make possible that full investigation. Yesterday the hon. member for Greenwood, on behalf of this party, put in a letter to the Acting Prime Minister the three points concerning which we thought there should be an amendment of the order in council.
First, it was our belief that provision should explicitly be made for an inquiry into the manner in which the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice dealt with the allegations when they were brought to their

attention. In the second place, we stated the view that the order in council should provide for an investigation into the allegations made against persons in the employ of the government. In the third place, we asserted that the power of the commissioner to report should be wider. We were disturbed and concerned that the order in council in its original wording seemed to us, at any rate, to limit that power to report to one question and one question only.
We have, as I say, made this clear in statements on the floor of the house. There is nothing to hide when I say we have made this clear in conversations we have had with various ministers of the government. I note that the revised order in council which the Acting Prime Minister has now laid on the table of the house meets the three points the hon. member for Greenwood indicated in his letter. From a quick reading it strikes me that it has met his first point by using verbatim the words proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood, and it has met the other two points in spirit.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we stand by the decision taken on our behalf last night by the hon. member for Greenwood. He stated quite clearly that if the government did not widen the terms of reference we would have no option but to support the amendment of non-confidence that is before the committee of supply. On the other hand, if the terms of reference were widened we would not prejudge the inquiry of the commissioner. In that circumstance we would not vote in a manner to prejudge that inquiry.
The debate this week, Mr. Speaker, need not have taken all this time. The Minister of Justice on Monday last could have answered the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam by saying that he would have a full investigation. However, since he did not do that, this week has shown the value of parliament and the value of constructive criticism, as a result of which these changes have been made. In the light of these changes we feel the house should not prejudge the action of the commissioner to be appointed under this investigation, and therefore that the non-confidence amendment should now be voted down.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I think the government has acted wisely in yielding to the pressure that has been brought as a result of the debate which has taken place during the last few days regarding widening the terms of reference of the judicial inquiry. Last night the hon.
Administration of Justice member for Sherbrooke, speaking in the debate, made our position very clear when he said that providing the terms of reference of the commission could be extended to encompass all the actions taken within the Department of Justice, we would be prepared to support the estimates of that department.
This revision of the action taken by the privy council has met these requirements. There has been considerable debate as to whether the Department of Citizenship and Immigration should also be included, but I believe that the revision now made, which definitely allows for an investigation of the conduct of an employee of the government or of an officer or employee of the department involved in the allegations which have been made, providing there is prima facie evidence, covers this point as well.
I agree it is rather unfortunate that the Minister of Justice did not agree to this action earlier in the week, in which case much of the time which has been consumed in bitter debate would have been saved. It is imperative at this stage that the government clean its stable. The integrity of the Minister of Justice and his own sense of fairness have not previously been called into question, but now that he has left himself open to the charges which have been made, whether his conduct be the result of an error or mistake in judgment it has become essential that these terms of reference be broadened as they have.
Public opinion is very important at this stage, because not only are the government and the Minister of Justice involved in this matter, but parliament itself. I am very concerned that the image of parliament and the image of we who constitute this House of Commons be not brought into further disrepute as far as public opinion is concerned. To prejudge this whole situation without the fullest possible inquiry into it would likewise be unfair.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the broadened terms of reference of the judicial inquiry, we in this party give our support and will also assist in the passage of the estimates of the Department of Justice as quickly as possible.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words in order to state our position in this house concerning this matter.
Yesterday we had decided to vote against the government because, like the other groups of the opposition, we wanted to know the

Administration of Justice truth about this affair. I believe that we would have been blamed by the public had we not participated in forcing the government to broaden the terms of reference of this inquiry.
This morning we learned from the Minister of Justice that after the decision made had been reconsidered, the order in council regarding the creation of that commission was amended so as to clarify this situation.
We are happy to have at last a commission of inquiry which has the necessary powers to reveal everything possible concerning this affair. That is what we were asking for: that all facts be revealed and that justice be made to prevail.
Therefore, we can no longer blame the government if the terms of reference are not sufficiently broad to look further into that affair. However, I regret that we lost two or three days during which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) was quite busy. This is the first time that he presented his department's estimates, and we regret that things have turned out as they did, but we could not do otherwise because we have trust in Canadian justice.
In view of what went on during the last few days, we could not do otherwise, because we wanted to see Canadian justice prevail and retain its integrity, as has always been the case.



On the orders of the day:


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice could tell us which cabinet ministers knew of the Denis report before the Prime Minister did?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the import of the question, but it seems to me to be completely out of order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The question has to do with cabinet solidarity. We have already heard that the Prime Minister did not know about this Denis case until the day before it was brought up in the house, and I think the house is entitled to know whether the Minister of Justice discussed it with any other of his cabinet colleagues other than the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my humble opinion the question is not in order.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I have a further question which may, perhaps, be in order. Can the Minister of Justice advise

the house as to the basis of his answer yesterday as reported on page 10547 of Hansard, when he said:
I learned this when the report was made to me by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.
Can the minister tell the house when he received that report?


Guy Favreau: do not know where the hon. member was, but I answered that question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You did not answer it. You did not give the date.



BANK ACT


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the decennial revision of the Bank Act and the extension of the charters of the existing chartered banks till July 1, 1975, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notice of motion:
November 25-the Minister of Trade and Commerce-the following proposed motion:-That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the trade agreement between Canada and the Hungarian People's Republic, signed at Ottawa June 11, 1964, and laid before the House of Commons on June 11, 1964; and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notice of motion:
November 25-the Minister of Trade and Commerce-the following proposed motion:-That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the protocol renewing the trade agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, signed on February 29, 1956, and renewed on April 18, 1960, signed at Ottawa September 16, 1963, laid

before the House of Commons on October 9, 1963; and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND BULGARIA

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notice of
motion:
November 25-the Minister of Trade and Commerce-the following proposed motion:-That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the trade agreement between Canada and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed at Ottawa, October 8. 1963, and laid before the House of Commons on October 21. 1963; and that this house do approve the same.
['Precisely. My hon. friend is aware, of course, of the situation in British Guiana. He knows the nature of the political discussions under way there. He knows what will follow, depending on the result of the election. The colonial office was anxious to have observers to provide for the scrutiny of the conduct of the election.']
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government order of notice stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to give the house the views of the government with regard to the Atlantic nuclear force concept advanced by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? What consideration has been given to this matter by the government, and will the house be given an opportunity to discuss this question so that its views may be heard- for certainly its views can be influential, as was shown by the order in council tabled a few minutes ago-before a decision on Canada's stand in this regard is finally made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this question was asked the other day of the Prime Minister, and I should like to say in reply, as I indicated in the house on November 19, that in preparation for the NATO ministerial meeting in December we are currently exploring with our allies certain general lines of approach designed to meet the problems now facing NATO. The British prime minister will be here on December 9 with his foreign minister, and there will be an opportunity then of reviewing with the prime minister the nature of the proposal to which they have been giving consideration. The full details have not yet
Inquiries of the Ministry been made known to us nor, I believe, to any other country.
There will be no decision on this matter immediately. There is to be a meeting, as my hon. friend knows, of NATO ministers in December, when there will be an opportunity of further discussing all aspects of this matter. I think I can give my hon. friend the assurance that there will be the fullest opportunity of dealing with the Canadian position in this house before we take a final decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister say whether the Canadian government has been in touch with President de Gaulle regarding his views in this connection, and whether the government shares those views?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the government has not, within recent days, been in direct communication with the president of France. However, through our mission we have been in communication with the French foreign office. We have had consultations with the French and other NATO governments in the NATO council.
As I stated in the debate last Friday the desire of Canada, and I am sure of other countries in NATO, is to preserve the unity of that organization in the face of the admitted disagreement that now exists between different concepts as to how the organization should be militarily organized and concerning proposals made outside of NATO by the government of the United States with regard to the MLF. Discussions between the various governments on this subject are proceeding. I believe we can say that the situation within the last 10 days now warrants the belief that the disarray about which we were concerned will not arise.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to thank the minister for the latter part of his statement. Has President de Gaulle given an indication of a softening of the attitude which he has adopted during the last year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I would not think there was any ground for believing that the position of the government of France with regard to the MLF or with regard to the form of NATO has changed. However, I believe, having in mind the unanimous position taken by all members as to the purpose of the alliance, it will be possible, notwithstanding these positions, to preserve its integrity and unity.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I ask a supplementary question. Will the house have an opportunity to discuss the

Inquiries of the Ministry question raised by the Leader of the Opposition before this session adjourns?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, before I answer my hon. friend's question may 1 take advantage of the opportunity to welcome, on behalf of all hon. members in this house, the secretary of state for external affairs of Australia, Mr. Paul Hasluck, who is sitting in the Speaker's gallery. Mr. Hasluck comes from a country that is close to Canada, and we are very happy to have him in our capital today.
In answer to the question, we did have a discussion of this problem last Thursday and Friday, but as I have indicated, I am sure no decision will be taken that will preclude an opportunity in due course to review the whole problem that faces NATO.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister elaborate on the report which has been made by the colonial secretary, Mr. Greenway, that two Canadians have been appointed as observers in the coming elections in British Guiana? Who are these two men?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, a number of commonwealth countries including Canada were asked by the colonial office to name two observers, for the elections that will be taking place shortly in British Guiana. I recommended Mr. John Holmes, president of the Canadian institute of international affairs and Mr. William Parker, of Windsor, who has had considerable experience in elections.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: May I
ask a supplementary question arising out of the announcement of the nomination of two observers for the British Guiana election, one being Mr. William Parker who comes from the minister's own riding. Would the minister not feel it would have been better to send Canada's chief electoral officer or his deputy to observe such an election?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there are various possible judgments about appointments, of course, but I do not think I need to apologize for these two.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: May I
ask the minister what will be the duties, functions or obligations of these Canadian
[Mr. Herridge.l

observers? Will they be just what the word implies?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Precisely. My hon. friend is aware, of course, of the situation in British Guiana. He knows the nature of the political discussions under way there. He knows what will follow, depending on the result of the election. The colonial office was anxious to have observers to provide for the scrutiny of the conduct of the election.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask the house leader if he would outline the business of the house for next week.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand the hon. member for Humber-St. George's will be moving concurrence in the report that stands in his name on the order paper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. Does he intend to proceed with the bill that will follow the notice of motion which is on the order paper in his name this morning, as well as Bill No. C-103, which came out of committee yesterday and will be referred to the Senate in the course of this session?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It depends on how fast we progress with the business now before the house, Mr. Speaker.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour or his parliamentary secretary. Does the minister anticipate that he will be able to proceed with Bill No. C-131 and Bill No. C-126 in the course of this session?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has been pointed out that we intend to proceed, if possible, with these bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as house leader. In view of the apparent decision of the government that the house shall proceed with the flag debate on Monday, may I ask the house leader, if that debate shows any signs of lasting, whether the government would ask the house to in-

Inquiries of the Ministry terrupt that debate for a couple of days next is the intention of the government to comply week to deal with the Canada labour code? with the order.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that question of course is quite out of order because it is hypothetical. It is our intention to proceed as I indicated in answer to a question from the whip of the party opposite, and the hon. member seems to be assuming that the motion for concurrence in the flag committee's report may not be disposed of quickly. I think, before asking for a decision on this point, we should see whether it may not be disposed of relatively quickly. In view of the long debate which there was on the subject this summer, in view of the fact that the subject matter was referred to a committee, that the committee carried out its mandate and has reported back, the motion for concurrence should require very little debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that although the President of the Privy Council thought my question was out of order he was able to make a lengthy answer to it may I ask him, since this decision was made without consultation with representatives of the various parties, if he will call a meeting of the house leaders to consider the possibility of having the Canada labour code debate some time next week?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to consider that point, but I hold the view that the practice in the house has been for the government to submit legislation as best it can assess the requirements of the house and in the light of the situation concerning preparedness of legislation and that sort of thing. However, I shall be glad to consider the hon. member's suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is government legislation I am asking to be considered by the house.


Harold Edward Winch: I am
afraid I am experiencing a little difficulty. I would have liked to address a question to the leader of the house or to the acting prime minister, but neither of them is in the chamber at this moment. May I therefor address a question to the acting prime minister or to the acting house leader and ask whether it is the intention of the government pursuant to an order of the house, to proceed with the appropriation bill at six o'clock even though a number of departments will not even have been opened for discussion by that time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is an order of the house, and it 20220-671


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the house leader. Before moving into committee of supply may we be informed as to the order in which the estimates will be called today?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice estimates will be called first. We propose calling the estimates of the other departments in whatever way the opposition groups want them called, by agreement and consulting quite closely with them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would earnestly submit to the government house leader that it might help in the proper handling of these estimates if we had none of this sort of "let's play it by ear" attitude. There are various departments that have not even come before the committee, such as the Department of National Defence. Hon. members want to discuss these matters; therefore I would ask the minister to tell the house the order in which the estimates will be called.


George James McIlraith: I was being co-operative, Mr. Speaker, and offered to call them in whatever way the opposition house leaders wanted them called. If they prefer me to do it without consultation with them I would be glad to do so, but I thought that the method I proposed was a fair way, in the circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The house leader cannot slide away that quickly. Members are busy with other duties. I realize that there is some value in consultation, but perhaps the minister would give us an indication of the first department to be called after the Department of Justice.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member apparently was not listening. I had indicated that we were starting with the estimates of the Department of Justice.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I did hear that. What is the next one?


George James McIlraith: If the opposition groups would like me to indicate the order I will be glad to do so. We will then call the estimates of the Department of Public Works, then those of the Department of National Revenue, then the Department of Forestry, followed by legislation and then the Department of Transport.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Why didn't you say that in the first place?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about defence?


George James McIlraith: Then the Department of National Defence; I am sorry.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Where does defence come in?


George James McIlraith: As the hon. member asks me, Mr. Speaker, we will put it last.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, during the orders of the day on November 12 the hon. member for Lisgar asked for assurance that the hunting rights granted to the Indian people by treaty would be protected.
The hunting and fishing rights of Indians under the various treaties is a most complicated subject and has given rise to a number of closely related questions in the house. The first was asked on May 31, 1963, by the hon. member for Skeena following the announcement of the judgment of Chief Justice McRuer of the Ontario supreme court in the Calvin William George case, which involved the application of the Migratory Birds Convention Act on an Indian reserve in Ontario. In reply the Prime Minister indicated that he would be pleased to communicate the decision to other federal and provincial administrations, as well as to do what he could to ensure that the royal proclamation of 1763, and its provisions for the Indian people, would be maintained.
Immediately thereafter we learned that the McRuer judgment was being appealed. As yet no decision has been handed down, and it would therefore be inappropriate for the Prime Minister to circulate for administrative action information on a case which is still before the courts.
Another case which recently received much publicity involved Michael Sikyea, an Indian of the Northwest Territories, who on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was convicted of unlawfully killing a duck out of season, contrary to the Migratory Birds Convention Act regulations. There have been other sim-


ilar cases, and I might mention that of Rufus Prince and Robert Myron, involving an infraction of the Manitoba game act, which in December, 1963 resulted in a supreme court decision in favour of the Indians.
These cases are all part of a process to determine the precise quality of the Indian rights under the treaties which must be maintained. Although not a party to the litigation, my department has taken an active and conclusive part on behalf of the Indians and has paid the costs of counsel so that the legal position of a substantial number of Indians in relation to a particular law or treaty, or within a particular region of Canada, could be clarified.
The supreme court judgment in the Sikyea case provides for the first time the precise relationship between the terms of the Indian treaties in the Northwest Territories and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Other departments of government are involved, and when their views have been obtained the whole question will be considered in detail to determine the most appropriate course of action which might be taken by the government.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: As a supplementary question, can the minister tell the house when he will introduce the legislation setting up the Indian claims commission that has been promised to the Indian people for two years?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the house, we are quite anxious to bring this bill to the house as soon as possible. During the discussion of my estimates I said we have revised Bill No. C-130. The amended bill will be ready soon, and I hope we can bring it back to the house as soon as possible.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: We all hope that.


Robert Simpson: As a supplementary question can the minister assure the house that in the meantime, until the question has been adequately decided, the Indian affairs branch will take financial responsibility in the case of Indians so charged?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is a policy of the Indian affairs branch to pay all the expenses of counsel who act for Indians in cases which can be related to the general rights of Indians with respect to fish and game.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will he rise and expatiate in more detail than heretofore in answering reports in newspapers that the Royal Canadian Navy is in trouble and is losing efficiency because of the lack of properly trained technical personnel, which is endangering and, as a matter of fact, making impossible the operation of certain ships?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I went into this question quite fully yesterday, and I do not think there is anything I can usefully add short of a debate on the subject, which would not be appropriate on orders of the day.



RECONSIDERATION OF DISBANDMENT OF IRISH REGIMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence concerning the Irish regiment of Toronto. I want to speak on behalf of the Toronto members, who are singularly silent about this. Was the minister able to assure the representatives of the Irish regiment who met with him yesterday that the regiment would be continued in the active order of battle as recommended by the Suttie commission?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the Toronto members, on this side of the house at least, have not been very silent in their representations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They have said nothing in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Under their breaths.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was able to assure the representatives of the Irish regiment from Toronto that I feel just as keenly as they do about the decision which had to be made to place this famous regiment on the supplementary order of battle. I also explained that in view of the fact that the opportunity had presented itself to perpetuate the name and the traditions through a unit in another city we had felt this was a good decision, rather than to create a new unit.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As the hon. gentleman is aware, we have transferred a unit in Sudbury from artillery to infantry, and this unit is to be designated the 2nd battalion, Irish Regiment of Canada, Sudbury. In this way the traditions of this great regiment will be maintained in the active order of battle Canadian militia as the hon. gentleman requests.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the Minister of National Defence please advise us-and I am speaking as one who was a member of the Irish Fusiliers-how you maintain the traditions and the flag of a Vancouver regiment or of one of the Toronto Irish regiments by establishing a new one in Sudbury? What is the sense in that proposition?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yesterday I was assured by the delegation of the universality of the Irish. Notwithstanding the fact that most modern members of the regiment are not of Irish origin but come from all parts of the world, they serve with equal distinction in the unit and this makes them all Irish. As one who believes we should all be Canadians, I think there will be ample opportunity in the new location for this regiment to again provide an opportunity to people of all origins to be Irish while they serve Canada as patriotic citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: Has any consideration been given to transferring to the non-active reserve, units which have battalions represented in the permanent army rather than ones which have not, and which therefore are completely discontinued?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This proposition was not put forward in the course of the studies of the commission, nor of the subsequent review.


Douglas Scott Harkness: supplementary question. What has been the reaction of the Sudbury gunners to this demotion which has been forced on them?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As another ex-gunner, though not with the distinction of the hon. gentleman, I think in the spirit of friendliness they will be very pleased to bear the tradition of the Irish in the formation of their new unit.


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: should like to ask the Minister of National Defence why Sudbury was chosen.


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE
SUGGESTED DRAFTING OF CODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT On the orders of the day:


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in view of the unavoidable absence of the Prime Minister. Will the government charge the committee on privileges and elections, or any other committee, with the responsibility of drafting a code of ethical conduct to which members, employees of ministers of the crown and others might see fit to give their allegiance?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: I shall see that this question is noted, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
REPORTED PRESENCE IN CANADA OF U.S. NAZI LEADER On the orders of the day:
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, again regarding Mr. George Lincoln Rockwell now reported to have entered Canada at Windsor, with great detail as to his dramatic entry. Could the minister advise whether this unwelcome person has returned to the United States, and what steps he is taking to prevent Mr. Rockwell's further violation of the minister's prohibitory order?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by my department that Mr. Rockwell has left the country and, as I said the other day, an order has been given to all immigration officers in the country that if they recognize Mr. Rockwell, should he come again to Canada, to arrest him and proceed with an immigration inquiry at once.



INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
REVISION OF CRITERIA RESPECTING DESIGNATED AREAS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Has his department studied the incentives offered United States industry by that government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there is a very wide range of incentives, for a variety of purposes, offered [Mr. Weichel.l
by the United States government, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that officers of the area development agency have considered them.


Fred Frise Stenson: A supplementary question. Does the minister not feel he should try to convince his colleague the Minister of Finance of the need to withdraw the tax on production machinery?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. I should like to ask whether he can indicate that the formal revision of these designated areas will be available, if it is to be accomplished, by the first day of 1965?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would hesitate to name a firm deadline in connection with the new program which is being evolved. This is a complicated question involving a number of jurisdictions, not only federal but provincial. In this area, as in others, we are hoping to proceed through consultation and by agreement.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I raise this matter because my information from Ontario officials is that they can get no indication as to what action is to be taken or even what co-operative studies are to be carried out. I therefore ask the minister to explain to us what the difficulties are in the development of a new formula.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In a word, the difficulties arise because this is a large and complicated question breaking new ground. I should be very grateful if the hon. member would provide me with the names of the dissatisfied or discontented Ontario officials, and I will see that something is done.


Robert Carman Coates: May I
ask the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Finance whether they are yet in a position to indicate their points of view on the report of Professor Wilson, which was prepared for the Atlantic premiers and which has now been in their hands for some months?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that it has taken over a year now for the minister to come up with his new formula with regard to the depressed areas, would he consider removing Brantford from the list of designated areas until he has actually produced his new plan?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As the house was informed perhaps in the absence of the hon. member,

a review of the statistics looking to the designation or removal from designation of specific areas under the present program is now under way. It is expected that on completion of this review an announcement will be made.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I have a question to address to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works in the absence of the minister. As a result of the serious situation created by low water levels in lake Ontario whereby marine commerce in Prince Edward-Lennox and the bay of Quinte district is seriously curtailed, would the minister consider the dredging of Picton harbour at the earliest opportunity?


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



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that he has left the house I wonder whether his parliamentary secretary or the acting minister will take the question as notice. Is the Minister of Transport now in a position to inform the house as to the future of the Atlantic development board, especially with regard to an assurance that sufficient funds will be available when the present $100 million is expended, in view of the fact that most of the $100 million is now either spent or committed and in view of the further fact that the minister gave-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question for the order paper, and it seems to me the question was asked last week.


Robert Carman Coates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked this question last week and the Minister of Transport told me that this matter would be discussed on his estimates. I will not have an opportunity, and other members of this house may not have an opportunity, to discuss this subject on his
Supply-Justice
estimates. It is most important to the Atlantic provinces to know what the future of the Atlantic development board is going to be. I feel that I am charged with a great deal of responsibility in this matter and that the minister should provide an answer as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: There may be an opportunity this afternoon for a complete and detailed answer.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to get the floor since the opening of the question period, but I notice that the Minister of Transport for some reason, possibly a very good reason, had to leave the house. Can we expect to see him back today? Possibly somebody on the treasury benches could answer that question.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or other dependants of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,109,600.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. When the committee rose yesterday it was considering vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice and an amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Yukon. The amendment is as follows:
That vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice be reduced by the sum of $16,999.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether as an appropriate starting point I might now put to the Minister of Justice the question I put on the orders of the day a short time ago. I am sure the minister realizes the significance of the information we are seeking, and I am sure he understands the natural curiosity of the house as to cabinet solidarity and how many other members of the cabinet were backing him up in regard to his handling of this case. Perhaps I need not go into any further reasons. I am willing to yield the floor to the minister now so he can answer that question, if he will.

Supp ly-J ustice


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, my colleague whose department was immediately concerned with the matter of the allegation of a bribe being offered by Mr. Denis was, of course, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As soon as I was advised of the reference made to me by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. I advised him, telling him that I would keep him informed of the progress of the matter.

As soon as the last report on file was received, of course I informed him and together we discussed the matter. Together we reached a decision about his executive assistant. In regard to the other decision about the prosecution, I made it myself, of course.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I gather from the explanation given by the minister that only two cabinet ministers were aware of this report until such time as the Prime Minister was informed the day before this matter was raised in the house. Am I correct in that assumption? I wonder whether the minister would indicate if that assumption is correct, that only himself and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration were aware of these facts until the Prime Minister was apprised the day before it was raised in the house. Is that accurate?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, all this was answered by myself and the Prime Minister in the course of the first two days of the estimates, and I do not think it is appropriate that I should be subjected to further questioning in respect to my relations with my colleagues in cabinet. If the hon. gentleman has not read Hansard that is no reason to force me to be subjected to further questions on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I have not only read Hansard but I was present .in the house most of the time. The minister has not answered that question to this time.


Some hon. Members:: He has.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am certain that even if it can be found among the various evasions of the minister that litter Hansard since this matter started, there is simply no reason why a simple response could not be given now to clear up the whole matter. This question is of sufficient significance that I am sure I would not have forgotten his answer; and I am quite sure that those trained seals opposite on the

Liberal backbenches who now say he has are unable, any one of them, to stand up and tell me he has.


Hubert Badanai: He has.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Because they never got that information. I hear the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say he has given the information, but I will yield the floor now and challenge him to say how many other than those two were told.


Mr. Caron:: Read Hansard.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I give the hon. member for Hull the same opportunity. These trained seals on the Liberal benches have a great practice of sitting back and making these loud interjections.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You are insulting seals.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Then I will withdraw that. I suggest the hon. member should get to his feet like a man and simply prove what he is saying. I challenge him to give that information.


Alexis Pierre Caron: We do not have to prove it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It is like a lot of the allegations which are made; the less information the house has the better. I can understand perfectly why the Minister of Justice feels that this information should not be given the house. Naturally he will be a little embarrassed at revealing to the House of Commons how many of his colleagues he has more confidence in than he has in his own Prime Minister. He does not want to tell us-although he has had to reveal that he did not dare tell the Prime Minister-how many other cabinet ministers, colleagues of his, he had sufficient confidence in that he went to them and discussed the matter with them to see what was in the best interests of the government and of his party. I do not care whether he tells this house or does not; the significance of that action and of his failure to tell his Prime Minister can lead us to no other conclusion but that he had not enough confidence in the Prime Minister to tell him.
I got the impression from the way the secretary of state and the Minister of Transport jumped into the discussion from almost the first day that they were acting like two ministers who had been fully apprised of the situation and had been warned that it was coming up. I would not be surprised if the Minister of Justice had found it politic to take advice of the real front bench politi-

cians of the party. I think it is a shame that he probably took the advice of the politicians rather than the advice of someone would expect to be more interested in the proper administration of justice than in pure politics.
I wanted to comment briefly, Mr. Chairman, on a point which was brought out by the Minister of Justice and reiterated by the hon. member for Verdun and other hon. members opposite. I am sure no member of this house will quarrel very violently with the proposition that it is most unfortunate to have the name of a person smeared by allegations unless or until that person is facing a trial. However, I would ask hon. members opposite to consider what happens to the average citizen who is suspected of a crime, and an investigation by the police follows. Let us consider the amount of consideration given to the average citizen who does not have as his friend or employer the Minister of Justice. Across the length and breadth of the country thousands of criminal charges are laid every day and good citizens are hauled into court for the first time. When I say "good citizens" they are citizens with no previous record who so far as their friends and neighbours are concerned enjoy a spotless reputation. Many charges against citizens brought to court for the first time go no further than the preliminary hearing, after which the case is dropped. Some are arrested, their names appear in the paper, but the matter does not even get to the preliminary hearing stage before the case against them is dropped.
I suggest to the minister, who shed crocodile tears over the slurring of the reputations of the two gentlemen involved here, that it seems to me he has gone just a bit too far in his solicitude. His most prominent duty is to make sure that justice is done. Certainly the most solemn duty he has is to make sure that the appearance of justice shall not be tarnished. It must be obvious to all that there is such a thing as fair and equal treatment to all citizens, not just fair treatment to the friends of the minister.
This is a point which I think has not been mentioned enough in this house but which has been beaten to death on the Liberal side of the house, namely what is fair to those two people. Certainly if a cabinet minister is fair and impartial he must expect that judges, on whose activity he must keep an eye, must be fair and impartial as well. But he knows from his own experience in court that practising lawers of many year's experience who are appointed to the bench do not automatically acquire an ability for impartiality. This is
Supply-Justice
something which is built up over the years. How the Minister of Justice can stand in his place and eloquently state that he had to be fair to that one citizen, just as though he were a practising lawyer in court talking of his client, when his own duty, which should be uppermost in his mind, is to watch for any weakness in his own character which would not permit him to be impartial when he is closely touched by the affair is beyond me. Certainly he has enough experience to recognize this.


Guy Favreau: Would the hon. member yield to a question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Certainly.


Guy Favreau: Would the hon. gentleman care to tell this committee against whom charges ought to have been laid, and what charges?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister has a great facility for setting up straw men and knocking them down.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The answer is obvious. Not having seen the report and not knowing the evidence I would be silly to try to suggest what charges should be laid in view of the way the minister has handled the case. I am not saying that charges should in fact have been laid at all. I do not know. Maybe they should, maybe they should not. But what is obvious is that we do know the manner in which the matter was handled. We do know the duty of the Minister of Justice. I was explaining to this committee what the Minister of Justice should know, when it comes to a question of judgment, that the degree of impartiality required in a court of law is something which judges usually acquire only after long practice, and I sometimes think some of them do not acquire much of it even after many years. The minister should know that this is a great weakness. It is a human frailty of most of us, no matter how honest we may be, that we are simply incapable of coming to a really impartial decision, especially when it concerns the welfare of someone we know, someone for whom we may feel great pity, as obviously does the Minister of Justice to the gentlemen involved here.
I simply want to re-emphasize to this committee the unfitness for office of a minister of justice who puts his duty to his friends, his personal loyalty to them, first; who is unaware of that natural disability which we all have, that incapability of being completely im-

Supply-Justice
partial, and who should have known that he could not make a proper judgment.
He failed to report to his Prime Minister, in whom he should have great confidence, so that he might have obtained proper advice as to how to handle the situation. I suggest the fault lies in this complete failure on his part to do his duty to his department and to the administration of justice in this country. That is his first and predominant duty and he must sacrifice all else in order to carry out that duty. If he is not willing to do so-and he has shown by his attitude in this house during the past several days that he is unwilling-or has not realized his shortcomings, he should not occupy the position he now occupies, because he is not mentally suited for it. I say that without in any way impugning the honesty of the gentleman. I believe he is completely honest but suffers from a very high degree of stupidity.
In spite of all the comments and facts which have come to light, the minister still fails to show any recognition of the attitude that must be adopted by a minister of justice. I am not sure whether other members of this house become as inflamed as I do about this kind of situation, but I have observed many court cases in which a policeman has failed to do his duty, the crown prosecutor has failed to do his duty, and lawyers have been very harshly treated for making an honest but stupid mistake. In those circumstances a lawyer is likely to be suspended or disbarred. Certainly when we observe this obvious example of stupidity on the part of one so close to the seats of the mighty, one who should not only show but should exert the highest standards possible, it is unacceptable to the point that I would be surprised by any hon. member in this house who would seriously disagree with the comments I have made.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for using some of the time of this committee, but I should like to record in about ten sentences-not ten minutes-an aspect of the situation presently under discussion which I hope the minister will cover before he closes our consideration of his estimates.
I should like to know, and I think the people of the country want to know, who thought it would be helpful to place the first telephone call to people in authority. I think we should be aware of the kind of individual who might think he could gain something by contacting an individual in government for the purposes obviously in the mind of the individual who

made the first contact starting off this whole affair.


An hon. Member:: Ask Nielsen.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, I asked to be allowed to speak for a few moments, but if the hon. gentleman who spoke wishes to make a speech perhaps he will wait just a moment or two and then be recognized. Some person or persons unknown apparently-


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member one question about his first question?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Yes.


Guy Favreau: You spoke about the first telephone call. In order that I may understand you, who made the first telephone call to whom and about what?


An hon. Member:: That is what we want to know.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I do not want to name any names, but I should like to know who in this benighted country thought it would be a good thing to contact Mr. Lamontagne and ask him to go easy. I should like to know why in this country of ours someone might think this type of influence would have a good effect. I think that is an important aspect of this question which affects all of us.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Ask Alvin Hamilton; ask McIntosh.
Mr. Fairweather The hon. lady has suggested that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. So apparently does the Prime Minister, because he prefers to remain in the west.


An hon. Member:: Ask Nielsen.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am sorry that some hon. members do not think this is a serious situation. I think it is serious, and for that reason I asked the Acting Prime Minister this morning whether it would not be a good idea to follow the lead set by the United States congress and the legislature of the state of New York, in adopting a code of ethics. I hope the vast majority of members in this house have their own built-in code of ethics. However, if some do not, then perhaps there should be a public standard of ethics such as exists in the hon. lady's own profession.
This is such a serious situation that one is entitled not only to ask about but to be made aware of the type of people who think there is some value in contacting an executive assistant to a cabinet minister or, for that

matter, a member of parliament, for the purpose obviously in the mind of the individual who first contacted Mr. Lamontagne. This is a serious situation because these people who attempt to wrongfully use pressures, or wrongfully exert influences, should be recognized. We should be advised of them so we will be forewarned and will not give them the time of day, so to speak. If we know who they are we will not allow them to cross our thresholds or bother us. I want to know who these people are, and I would be obliged if the minister would supply us with this information before our business is completed today. This kind of individual can do great harm to us collectively, and to this parliament.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks about this subject under discussion, and in view of the fact that I have not been in the house during the last four days but have been in the far north, I may have some detachment that others, who have participated in the debate during the last week, may not have.
There is one issue which has not been discussed that I should like to raise seriously for consideration by the minister. That issue is whether people who aspire to and achieve high public office have a responsibility at all times to not only level with the public but give the appearance at all times of being completely and scrupulously honest. When a report falls into the hands not only of members of the treasury benches but of any member of parliament which suggests some impropriety, it can only be dealt with satisfactorily in the minds of Canadian people by an open and thorough study.
That has not taken place in respect of the case now under consideration. It is obvious from reading the debates which took place last week, which I might say have been very stormy, that the resignation of the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister only came about after the facts were smoked out into the open by the hon. member for Yukon. The hon. member was not named by the member for Yukon, but it was only until after several days of suggestions that others in positions of influence had been involved that his admission was forthcoming.
While all of us are happy today that the terms of reference of the judicial inquiry have been expanded so that all aspects of the case can be looked into and, hopefully, cleared up, I am wondering whether any other parliamentary assistant should make a statement
Supply-Justice
at this time as to whether there are further implications. Many of us believe there are other implications. Surely this is the time for anyone involved to make a statement, rather than to keep the facts out of sight, only to be brought again to light a few weeks from now as the result of another debacle of the kind that has taken place.
I completely disagree with the statement made by the hon. member for Red Deer to the effect that this parliament is tawdry. He may feel that he is partially responsible for what the government has done, now that he is sort of being kept by them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I for one am not prepared to go along with that suggestion by the hon. member for Red Deer, that all members of this house are guilty of some sort of collusion or concealment, when in fact the responsibility rests squarely on the treasury benches.
The issue now before us is not new, nor is it the first example of the approach taken by this government. There have been other examples when the government has adopted the attitude that it is the greatest, that it makes the law but does not have to obey it, and that it can do as it pleases. Other examples indicate that this government will fix things if it decides to do so. One has only to consider what happened during the nomination in Waterloo South to understand what I mean by fixing. That situation was very democratically handled. This government adopts the attitude: "We will fix, we will wheel and deal". This is another example of what is going on. Many questions must be answered.


An hon. Member:: How do you know about Waterloo South?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Many questions remain unanswered. The other day in this house the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a statement to the effect that the regime they were building was the closest thing you could have to an earthly continuity. It is this sort of attitude, that the government have some sort of divine mandate to rule, that they need be unhampered by principles or even truth, that is rearing its head again in the particular issue that faces the house. I for one place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. It is not for the Minister of Finance to get up and say that the Minister of Justice is naive, perhaps even stupid, in the way he handled this thing but that he has the right to handle it because, as the minister said, he

Supply-Justice
has dedicated himself to the public service of Canada.
This does not give anyone the right to inflict their stupidity on the Canadian people, merely because they feel they have a duty to do it. You have to be more than a Liberal to be able to give good government. You have to have ability. I am not saying that the two are mutually exclusive, but I am suggesting it is not enough to say he is a dedicated man and he would sooner be somewhere else. I believe the Minister of Finance implied that he too would sooner be somewhere else. Well, the Prime Minister is somewhere else today. I know where he is, and so do the Canadian people. He is out on a fund raising campaign and using a Department of Transport Viscount to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I know, Mr. Chairman, why the Liberal party might need a lot of money.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have listened to the hon. member with some interest for the last few minutes. He knows that we are considering at the moment, or have been considering, item 1 of the Department of Justice. Some of the remarks he has made certainly have no relationship to item 1 of the Department of Justice.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the same way as the remarks by the Minister of Finance last night.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I am establishing the point that at a time when the Department of Justice is in complete turmoil, when a variety of questions are being levelled at the minister and the government generally as to the integrity of the department, the place for the Prime Minister is in this house, not speaking to a Liberal fund raising banquet in Winnipeg or anywhere else. I was saying that I know why he may have to have funds. When phone calls are going to cost $20,000, it is very important to have lots of money in the kitty. I am going to suggest to the government-


Some hon. Members:: More smears; more slander.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: If government backbenchers were allowed to speak, I am sure they would. Instead they have to choose this course of interrupting. I am not going to take up any more of the time of the house, having made the point that the issue here goes a lot further than just the Department of Justice, and having suggested that if there are others

involved they should stand up and declare themselves prior to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Hon. members laughed when the hon. member for Yukon suggested there were others in high places, but after a couple of days we smoked them out. I am suggesting that if there are others they should declare themselves before we set up the inquiry so we do not have to go through this again. I am going to suggest something else to the government in relation to this case. Even if they do not consider the moral or ethical value of integrity, surely they can see the practical value in the future of being honest.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wanted to make a correction in Hansard in my remarks of last night. I refer to page 10587, the sentence which reads:
-we should have accepted some kind of defence from the Minister of Finance;
What I said was, "we should have expected some kind of defence from the Minister of Finance of Mr. Chevrier." I suggest this really needs to be made quite clear because the main point of my peech was that Mr. Chevrier was the one who was bearing the brunt of some quite nasty interpretations. I felt that if the Minister of Finance was going to make a defence of the government he should at least have defended his former colleague.


William Arnold Peters: During the last few days the house has been interested in the developments that have taken place, and I think the country will watch very closely the attitudes that have been taken toward some of these things. However, Mr. Chairman, I am sure in calling the justice estimates when we did we did not expect they were going to last this long. When the house leader made the arrangement for the limitation of debate on the estimates we did not consider we were going to be taking this length of time on them. I should like to say that I personally think we owe a vote of some type to the hon. member for Yukon for bringing these matters to the attention of this house. Personally I feel quite sad that it had to be done in this way; however, I know of no other way of doing this. I have seen this done a number of times since I have been here, and I know of no other way in which this type of matter can be raised.
I feel it is very foolish for some hon. members on the other side to say the things they have said. I suggest also that it is unfair if the opposition continues to rag the government after a judicial inquiry has been

achieved, because I am sure it will get to the bottom of the matter with which hon. members have been concerned. Personally I have been hoping we would come to a consideration of penitentiaries, because I should like to change the subject for a moment, through I know this is not nearly as important in gaining headlines as is the case when people are being tried.
However, those who have been tried and found guilty are asking for a hearing in this place. I think it is necessary for someone to speak about some of the abuses that take place in our penal system. I would be very optimistic if I thought I was capable of changing the attitude of parliament, of the press and the public into one which would give assistance to some of those on behalf of whom I wish to make representations.
I should like to refer briefly to the riot that took place in St. Vincent de Paul. I have discussed this with many guards, as have people on a number of television programs, with a number of prisoners and some others who are connected with prisons and have been connected with them from a time prior to this riot. I want to be very fair. There is a new warden at this penitentiary, a warden who was not responsible for the riots. In my opinion he has gone a long way toward correcting some of the abuses that took place in that prison. The Minister of Justice is going to have to consider some of the results that have accrued from that riot and their effects upon individuals.
I believe this Minister of Justice is fair and reasonable, but that he is not fairly well attuned to the political climate that we have in parliament. This may be the result of his civil service background. I am sure I could have been of some assistance to him if I had been sitting behind him during the last two or three days. I do believe he is honest and that he is going to do something about penal reform. Anyone who read the statement he made, but which got lost in all this other confusion and court procedure we have been engaging in, must have seen in it a great response to the requirements which have been indicated by all the organizations interested in penal reform.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question at this point? I notice his remarks deal with penal reform and the penitentiary items. I wonder if it would be agreeable to the committee to take the vote on item 1 now so we could then go on to the penitentiary items.
Supply-Justice


William Arnold Peters: If everyone else is agreed I would be prepared to do so; otherwise I do not want to yield the floor.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I should repeat for the benefit of the house leader of the official opposition what has taken place.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-


George James McIlraith: The hon. member of the N.D.P. party was addressing himself to the subject of penitentiaries, which is quite a proper item for him to raise, but I suggested that if we were going to deal with the subject of penitentiaries we could perhaps take the vote on item 1, dispose of it, and then call the penitentiary items.


Malcolm MacInnis: Why waste time? You know consent is not going to be given.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


Malcolm MacInnis: It has been clearly indicated to the Chair that this is not agreeable, that the hon. member for Timiskaming is going to finish his remarks, and there are others who have something to say.


William Arnold Peters: Then I shall be pleased to continue, because I have an amendment to move. Recently we received a delegation which discussed many aspects of prison reform. Its members were interested in many of the things I have been advocating for years, such as conjugal visits to prisoners and better rehabilitation before a prisoner is released. We also had a visit from a person recently released from St. Vincent de Paul, who told us of conditions there which I believe make it the duty of any member of parliament, aware of them, to investigate the problem. We went to St. Vincent de Paul in company with this gentleman, and none of the things he told us were incorrect. He may have exaggerated a bit. Many hon. members may have seen him on television and, like many other persons, he has a propensity to exaggerate. The penitentiary staff gave us every cooperation, and we were able to ascertain many of the things which the minister himself must have learned, as revealed by his statement.
I am still of the opinion that there should be only one committee established. I do not want to be a member of a committee which is going to visit Stony Mountain and all the other penitentiaries merely to look at their physical aspects. I feel that unless one has an inside line into a prison nothing will be

Supply-J ustice
seen that could not be seen on an ordinary visiting day. A prison is a big institution and many things go on in it. I do not believe anyone would hide anything from such a committee, but I do not believe everything would be shown. Therefore such trips around the country would be without much purpose.
However, I believe every member of parliament should be pledged to the reform of our penal system, should be interested in sentencing, pre-sentencing, trial procedures and equality of sentences for similar offences. This is why we ask the minister to establish only one committee, and if he likes to put representatives from other associations on it we would be pleased to have them.
Dealing with the riot in Montreal, I have before me a copy of a sessional paper which indicates some of the conclusions reached as a result of the inquiry. One of these points to the fact that there was maladministration at St. Vincent de Paul. I have not yet heard whether this committee has reported to the minister, and I would like to know whether he has received the report on maladministration.
I have talked to many guards who confirm that prior to the riot the warden at St. Vincent de Paul had got to the stage where he met every morning with two homosexual inmates, who did not live in the prison proper but slept in the administration offices. The guards have admitted they were not able to see the warden; that they would lay charges against prisoners but would then find the warden would call in his special informants, two homosexuals who slept in the administration offices, and get his information from them with the result that conditions in the prison deteriorated.
I am sure the second report must indicate that the maladministration was the total responsibility of the warden in charge of the penitentiary at that time. Where is this warden today? He has been promoted. He was a flop as a warden, but now he is the information officer of the department. So far as I am concerned, before these estimates are passed that man's salary must be deducted from them because I have tried him and found him guilty of gross maladministration, and so far as I am concerned under the circumstances I am not in agreement with paying his salary. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare disagrees, then I can go into this case and explain many more things. All I am asking now is that the minister tell us whether he has received the report of the commission

which dealt with maladministration at that institution.
I have here a letter from a prisoner which I would like to read to the committee. He is a man who was accused of manslaughter. You may remember the case. His wife and he rented a canoe at the dock below the parliament buildings and went out into the bay. A pleasure boat went by and the canoe was upset. The man swam ashore; the woman was drowned; he was charged with manslaughter and sentenced to five or six years at St. Vincent de Paul. I have a thick file of the evidence in his case. It is in French and I have not yet been able to get the Secretary of State's department to translate it so I do not know much about the case, but in his letter to me he talks about the riot at the prison. I should point out that French is his principal language but he wrote this letter in English because he knows I and my colleague do not understand that language. His letter reads:
Mr. Frank Howard and Arnold Peters.
Dear Sirs:
The great sense of justice that was emitted by you, while visiting St. Vincent de Paul, has force me to write and relate to you the unbelievable events which took place in June 1962. Your visit has shown that there still are some human beings in society that are trying to end the suffering of their human brothers.
The following story, incredible as it may seem, is the truth.
The 21st of June 1962, I was brought out of my cell 2-V-16 by guards Lafranee and Leroux, who told me then that I was wanted in the nerve centre of the penitentiary. My hands were handcuffed behind my back and we started to go toward the dome. While walking, they punched me behind the neck without provocation.
I said to them: It is not a big score hitting a man who is tied up.
As I was a big man weighing about 190 pounds and practicing weight lifting, Lafrance said to me: "It is you, Nick the he-man? Wait a minute bastard, I will fix you up". We passed through the dome going to the hospital. After arriving they pushed me down the stairs, kicked me, then dragged me in the "hole".
"Holes" are segregated cells which are closed off; there are no beds and people have to lie on the floor.
After arriving there we went in a small room where I was frisked, undressed. After this, wearing only underwear I was put in a cell-No. 6- where a dozen human monsters were waiting for me. Their names are: Lafrance, Edouard Pepin, Lagueux, Leroux, Martel, Tellier, Fortin, Lang-lois, Lacombe, Lemay, Prevost, Cousineau.
Lafrance encircled my neck, Leroux paralysed my arms, then they asked me: Who was the bastard wearing the white T-shirt? I said: Nobody wearing a white T-shirt was with me June 17. One said: We will refresh your memory you no good dog." Another said: "Guard Proulx

told us that you were the leader of the riot and his assailant". "Confronted with him would you deny this?" I answered "Yes" Suddenly Pepin and Martel started to hit me, which awakened the sadistical tendencies of the others. "Result?" I was brutally kicked, hit with fists, black jacks; I fell on the wooden bed, kicked over and over in the face, head, ribs and before falling unconscious kicked in the genital parts. I awakened the next morning feeling pain all over, dazed, bloody. The floor was covered with my human waste. Suddenly I remembered the reception I had the previous day. I concluded that being kicked so many times in the belly, my bowels had agitated and this was the result. My head was cut and bruised, the rest of my body as blue as a navy uniform. My genital parts were swollen the size of a football and multicoloured. An excruciating pain stopped me from walking. That was the way I was treated (disgusting, is it not?) I managed to fix a bandage for my cut head by tearing my underwear. A while later, I heard a commotion. Painfully I went to the door which had a little porthole in the centre that served to keep vigil on prisoners. Suddenly, I heard a guard screaming excitedly, "Here comes Gunn, here comes Gunn" by the porthole, I saw Pepin and Lafrance followed by guard Proulx who was dressed in civilian clothes, dragging Alvin Gunn.
They threw him in cell No. 5 beside me, and followed him in. A few minutes later, I heard meanings and noise coming from the cell. It sounded like punches, kicks, black jack hits. It continued for about 15 minutes. Suddenly, I heard a voice (which sounded like Lafrance) say get the stretcher he's unconscious. I thought he was dead. They probably took him to the hospital. A while later my door was opened. I said to myself maybe Gunn is dead, and they are coming to murder me. Proulx, nicknamed "Killer", came forward with Lapointe (keeper of the hole), Lafrance, Lemay, Pepin, Martel, Lagueux, Leroux, Tellier, Lacombe, Langlois and Fortin. Lafrance said to me: "Will you deny that you are his assaulter and the leader of the riot?" Killer Proulx is here now." I said: Yes I deny it! I pursued by saying: even though I am hurt, you won't force me to accuse myself; I have enough courage left in me to fight you one by one! I talked that way then because, I thought I would die anyway. Finally I said: I'd rather die than talk with you. Immediately, I was hit over the head with a contendent object-
I believe he means a blackjack.
-blood streamed down my neck, guard Proulx punched me in the face. I was slugged over the head with black jacks, kicked by the others. I fell on the floor. While I was in a state of semiconsciousness, I saw Pepin, Lafrance and Proulx looking at me with the most heinous looks I have ever saw. My indignation then knew no bounds, how can sadistical treatments like these be still happening? Were we in a Monte Cristo jail era? It did not end there. Pepin kept on kicking me, until an unknown guard dragged him away from me. Then I fell unconscious once more to wake up a while later seeing by the half open door of my cell, Lecorre, Dr. Lefebvre and Nurse Hudon staring at me without doing anything, even if I was hurt. To be brief, they have participated by failing to do their duties and stop the carnage. This proved that they cannot be given important duties. After my door was locked I heard screams from the other inmates who were getting beaten up. A nurse came in and bandaged my head. I think it was Paulin. Pain stopped me from eating, my head was full of
Supply-Justice
lumps, my genital parts hurt so much I had to hold them when I walked. A few days later Lecorre came, he looked at me and went away. They changed me from cell No. 6 to No. 5 where A1 Gunn had been beaten. The cell had been washed, but blood spots were still visible. I thought he was dead. Myself the only thing that saved me was my strong constitution. Today my reflexes have diminished; I don't think I would be able to bear what I have endured in the hole. I am physically and morally affected. Three weeks later I was taken out for a shower-
Note that. It was not until three weeks later that he was taken out for a shower.
-my bandage was stuck to my wounds. I had to use soap to unstick it and it was very painful. A spot about 3 inches by 2 inches in the back of my head was free of hairs. Then "coco" Paul-Emile Demers No. 6201 saw me and said: "Nick, what have they done to you? You are in bad shape, Look in the mirror".
I did not look because I knew I was cut all over. Demers himself had been beaten and was blue all over his body from the punishment he suffered. I asked for the nurse who came and bandaged my head. A few days later they took me out for a 15 minute exercise.
This is almost a month later.
The other inmates hardly could recognize me. While in the hole we were served meals without soup, tea, dessert and this for over a month. What a treatment after being nearly killed. We were transferred in segregation C-B-l and while there A1 Gunn complained to Lecorre about the soup and finally we started to get it at every meal. Everything was done and is still being done to break my spirit where I am confined since July 1962.
He is confined in segregation. He is in that cell 23J hours a day as punishment for a riot which took place 2-| years ago.
The ignominies that the inmates have suffered and are still suffering to this day must be uncovered for the sake of our sanity. This contemptible institution is directed in an idiotic manner. The only action they take is revenge. When after being provoked for years an inmate looses his nerves and gives a well deserved punch in the kisser to a sadistical guard the newspaper try to get the poor guy's head. But does the newspaper print the infamies that are committed here? No, even though they are aware of them.
Now you are asking yourselves after reading this story: How come this happened to him if he is innocent? Here is the answer.
The day of the riot, guards were all excited and they were shooting at anybody. I asked guard Proulx politely to tell the guard over the carpenter shop to cease fire as innocent inmates were getting shot at without provocation.
I have discussed this with several of the guards and I understand Nicholas did not do this as gently as he indicated. But this is one of the things he did; he tried to get them to stop shooting. This is one of the ways in which he participated in the riot.

Supply-Justice
A while later after guys were getting shot I asked the same question of Lecorre. Is it a sin to ask for the cessation of a massacre? Results? They had to find a scapegoat and I was chosen. For this I was given 14 additional long years. If I had been guilty I would have taken my medicine. All this because a ridiculous penitentiary had concluded (framed) that I was a rioter.
Dishonest guards have committed perjury-
I stop there, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that many of these guards did commit perjury.
-some of them were fired from this institution.
I would point out that some have been charged and have been let out of the service; others have quit. I go on with this letter;
The yard is about 16 acres in size, full of buildings. The day of the riot a dense black smoke was covering the yard. How can a man, in these conditions, see convicts about 300 feet away; a bunch of them with blue sweaters, pick one out of them and say he was a rioter? Well maybe they are lynx! That is it! I have lost great confidence the way justice is carried out there, even though I am a person of good will. My parents have suffered very much, the day I was sentenced.
I am innocent, and once for all a royal inquiry should be made about my trial, a revision of it for the sake of justice. I do not want a conditional release-
You should note this, Mr. Chairman.
I do not want a conditional release, which would be an affirmation of guilt. What I want is a full pardon or at least a retrial.
We want in this institution, rehabilitation facilities, work, occupation of some kind. We are fed up with being locked up to vegetate with moral turpitude for years. For Christ sake, will some people of good will do something? Will it change? I sincerely hope it will for the sake of us.
St. Vincent de Paul is a public disgrace, and presently it only breeds psychopathy, insanity, hate. I end this letter by asking justice for me and all the others in here. Also hope you will do something to ameliorate the fate of hundreds of human beings.
In you we trust to accomplish the impossible.
Thank you very much.
I could also read a letter written to the commissioner of penitentiaries. This is the problem; I do not know whether there was an answer to this letter that was written to Mr. MacLeod, the commissioner of penitentiaries, because I do not have access to all this information. But I believe this is a great deal of the problem in St. Vincent de Paul. The prisoner never knows whether his letter has been answered; he never knows whether his request goes anywhere; he is completely isolated from the warden. When I went to Kingston penitentiary I found that the warden knew the prisoners by name. I was surprised to find out that in St. Vincent de Paul the last time the prisoners had seen the warden was when he was in there after the riot. I
also found out they have not had any connection with him other than when he made his Christmas broadcast last year. They do not know whether the warden is a good guy or not. They think he stopped the beatings about six months after the riot took place, but they do not really know. The previous warden is a disgrace to the prison service and it is a damned shame that we still have him and are paying him $14,000 a year. I suggest that before these estimates are passed his salary should be deducted from them.
I should like to continue with Gaston Nicholas' case. This case has been reported widely in the newspapers, and I think at the request of the commissioner of penitentiaries Mr. Nicholas has been moved to Kingston penitentiary. I thank the commissioner for having done this. I would also suggest this is not really enough, because I have talked to many people in similar circumstances in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, people who were connected with the riot. I am told there has been consideration by commissions that have sat and dealt with this matter, but it was indicated to me that those trials were a mockery of justice.
Alvin Gunn, O'Brien and Melangon were indicated as the leaders in the riot. Only twice in the evidence regarding the riot is there any evidence that Gaston Nicholas was involved, and then only in a very minor manner. Gaston Nicholas went before a court in Montreal and was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for his participation. He was charged with causing public mischief. Public mischief; and he got 14 years. Is that fair? Mr. Alvin Gunn, who admits himself that he was a leader-he said he was pushed into it, but admits he was a leader of the riot- says that Nicholas was not one of the leaders. He went before the new attorney general of the province of Quebec, Mr. Wagner, who was the judge in his case. Mr. Wagner heard witnesses on both sides. He heard in particular from a chaplain. I asked the chaplain why he did not testify in the other cases, and he said "My effectiveness was only good in one case and I had more personal knowledge about this case. I picked that case to testify about".
Mr. Wagner when hearing this case heard evidence that Alvin Gunn had been beaten almost to death. He lay in hospital for four days and was not expected to recover. What did the penitentiary do about it? Did they send a doctor on the first day to see him? Did they send a doctor on the second day? The third day was St. Jean Baptiste day so they

did not send any doctor then, either. It was four days before a doctor saw this prisoner. When the present attorney general of Quebec, the judge in this case, heard the evidence he sentenced Mr. Gunn to one day's imprisonment, to run consecutively. You can look at the return made in this house on November 16 and you will find the offences listed there. Mr. Melangon-I do not know him; I have not met him-got two years on the first and second charges and three years on the third.
Another man who has always been mentioned is O'Brien. There was not sufficient evidence to convict him and he was acquitted. He was acquitted on the evidence of some of the prisoners who received very severe sentences. Five years went to the other leader of the riot, the sentence being consecutive to the sentence imposed by Judge Provost. Each of these sentencing judges passed different sentences. I do not know what the defence was. I know these people do not have any money. I do not know whether defending lawyers are provided in Montreal. I understand that some of them see a defending lawyer only half an hour before their trial commences.
There was a great deal of evidence that the penitentiary staff would not allow lawyers to come in, and that these men were discouraged from having lawyers. But this man received a sentence of 14 years imprisonment. The appeal period has gone by and I know that justice cannot be served now. I do not know whether the minister has the right to ask for a new trial; I do not know whether it would serve any purpose. But we had better ask ourselves one thing. What the hell are we doing with these prisoners? Do we want to rehabilitate them or do we want to punish them? If you wanted to punish Gaston Nicholas, why didn't you put one more guard in there and kill him, instead of beating him half to death?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: This man's nerves are bad; his mental condition is not good. He says himself that he is mentally upset. The staff are accusing him of inciting this riot. He was segregated for 23 months in a cell and was not in contact with any other prisoner, had no job and received no exercise except for this half an hour; and they do not get even this amount of exercise every day. We treat these men as animals. We treat Gaston Nicholas as an animal because he participated in a riot. His participation was grabbing the warden and telling him "For God's sake don't shoot my friends who are lying on their
Supply-Justice
bellies on the ground". Don't forget, Mr. Chairman, that the smoke was down almost to the ground, and also that the army was in there, the federal police were there, and all the guards. Most of them have never fired a gun in their lives.
The minister will have to do something about this, because the situation is a disgrace. I do not blame him for it, but in all honesty he must do something about it. These men got rid of $2 million worth of property. Guards should be well enough trained to see that property is not destroyed. We do not want homosexuals sitting in an office with the warden drinking coffee every morning. That is not the way to run a prison. Why should this man be promoted to this position? This is not a Sunday school outing. What is an information officer for the penitentiaries branch anyway? Is this a $14,000 a year job which some clerk did before? We should not put him in a soft job to keep him out of trouble.
I know the minister has considered this problem, and I appreciate that he has given the penitentiaries more consideration than they have had for many years. He is, in my opinion, energetic and is making decisions in light of the over-all problem. But as long as the back door to a prison exists there will be no more beatings in St. Vincent de Paul, because I am sure they will get news of any beatings straight to parliament. So it will not happen again. They will carry the blackjack for self defence from now on.
I know the minister will correct some of these problems, but I should like to know what will happen to the people who took part in the riot and to the general inmate population of the prison. I do not suggest you should let all prisoners out for exercise every Sunday, but there must be enough guards provided to let one half out one day and the other half out another day. When there was a riot at Dorchester we did not cut off for three years the privileges of all the prisoners, many of whom had nothing to do with the riot. I am sure this was not done at Stony Mountain and at all the others. There have been riots at Kingston. Kingston has been burned on a number of occasions, but not all the prisoners were penalized. In my opinion this hits at the whole idea of reform.


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


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this is a big subject and I will not be long. The committee has been very courteous.

Supply-Justice


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if 1 could take advantage of the interruption to raise another matter. As far as the government is concerned it is quite agreeable to sitting through the lunch hour. Since there is a vote pending on item 1 of the Department of Justice estimates I suggest that we leave item 1 of the department on the understanding it will be called immediately at 2.30 of the clock and that in the meantime we proceed with other items. When I say "proceed with other items" I wonder whether hon. members would consider, after the hon. member for Timiskaming has concluded his remarks, leaving the estimates of the justice department until 2.30 and having another department called, such as public works.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, we are quite agreeable to sitting through the lunch hour on the condition that the first item of justice will stand and will be resumed at 2.30 irrespective of what is then before the committee. In the interval we are prepared to continue with the other items of justice and public works and any other department brought forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is acceptable to us, Mr. Chairman. I think there was a general feeling in the house that the hon. member for Timiskaming might be given an extra few minutes to complete his speech, and then we will go on to some other department.


Bert Raymond Leboe: We agree.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Timiskaming continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: I do not wish to say much more, Mr. Chairman. In St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary there is still a terrific fear on the part of the guards. This arises from their lack of training, which is being corrected with the building of a training centre, but it is my suggestion that some of the guards at Kingston be transferred to St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and some of the guards at St. Vincent de Paul be transferred to Kingston on a temporary basis. I have been in Kingston penitentiary, and I found a much better morale among the guards there than at Montreal. I found this was mainly because the guards at Montreal have not had the opportunity for training as have the guards in the other institutions. I know the minister has this matter under consideration and will consider it. I think the chief warden at St.

Vincent de Paul is to be complimented on the fact that he has been able to eliminate most of these abuses.
I might mention that under the former warden it was possible for a homosexual to be moved into a cell next to his friend; this was always arranged for with the guards. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this, because I do know some of the problems connected with homosexuality. I do not know what you can do about it in prison. The prisoners themselves say that this affects 60 per cent of the prison population and affects the guards too, though not all according to Mr. Gunn. But it is a factor which has to be considered, and the guards should be sent to a proper training centre where competent people will be able to train the staff.
The penitentiaries are also plagued by a lack of psychiatrists. For example, the psychiatrist in charge of Kingston penitentiary said something which surprised me, and that was that we have such better success in curing psychiatric patients in the penitentiary at Kingston that we sometimes send other patients there too. This psychiatrist to whom I talked indicated that they were able to keep them within the confines of the prison because of the better environment, which I think is the word he used.
What do they do with these patients at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, Mr. Chairman? They put them in a dungeon in the basement, a rat infested place where no person could ever be treated. There is only a part time psychiatrist, and all he seems to do is give them pills. When the goof ball rumble commenced they said it was due to the psychiatric patients. Half of the prisoners convicted as leaders were doped up with goof balls.
Although the psychiatric aspect is very important there is no excuse for it. I say to Mr. MacLeod, the commissioner, that there is no excuse for not immediately evolving some system whereby the complaint of an inmate is referred to some designated person who will be able to give a reply the following day. I found when at St. Vincent de Paul that the morale of the guards was much higher four years ago under the former warden who has now retired, whose name was Lacourt or something like that. He used to see all the inmates who had complaints. I do not say that all complaints should be handled in this way because probably the warden would have more to do than that, but the prisoners should be able to go to somebody.

Let us suppose, Mr. Chairman, that you are a prisoner in jail. A prisoner may receive a letter indicating that his wife has decided to leave him and live with the next door neighbour because he is not there. The prisoner immediately wants someone with whom he can consult, someone who will not only make an effort to do something in the prison but will, if possible, contact the John Howard society, the Elizabeth Fry society or other agencies including the Salvation Army, so they may visit his home and talk to his wife because he is not allowed to do. I think a prisoner has a right to expect that this will be done on his behalf. They should not be thrown in a dungeon to which the key is thrown away.
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here and a reply from the deputy warden, in his own handwriting, which contains a picture of Gaston Nicholas' little girl. This picture was sent to him and is of his six year old daughter dressed in a confirmation dress. He wanted to have possession of this picture in his cell, but he was not permitted to do so. There are stooges today who carry the keys to the locks on their cells at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. Those individuals have their cell walls covered with pin-up girls. I see the commissioner shaking his head, but he was with me when I visited those cells and knows that that is the situation. Why should we allow this situation to exist, yet not allow a prisoner such as Nicholas to have this picture of his little girl in her confirmation dress? I think that is a reasonable request on the part of any prisoner.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to belabour the point, but there seem to be discriminatory practices in various penitentiaries. I believe this situation has existed for a long period of time. I know what Mr. MacLeod said in this letter, and that he was influential in having this prisoner transferred to another penitentiary. I am sure that through investigation he would find that this man is not a vicious or antagonistic prisoner. While he is very highly strung, he is serving whatever sentence has been imposed upon him. He has now served one year of the new 14 year sentence, and I think some consideration should be given to him.
If the minister is not interested in the individual prisoners themselves and their representations, all his highfalutin' statements about changes to be made at the higher echelon level will be to no avail. These prisoners must feel that the minister is their
Supply-Justice
friend and that justice is being and will be done. They must also be convinced that the officials believe they are not fair game for anyone just because they have been convicted of an offence. We must convince them that they cannot be punished in any other way or in addition to the sentences imposed by the courts for the offences of which they have been convicted. When one looks down the rows of segregation cells he will find that individuals have been kept there in some cases for 23 months, not even knowing when they were going to get out. That is not fair and just treatment but a form of punishment worse, in my opinion, than corporal punishment. The lash is used at the Kingston penitentiary, and if by using the lash there they have done away with the practice of segregating prisoners one might even consider that a less barbaric form of penal reform.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks by suggesting that anyone who has listened to the story told by Gaston Nicholas will realize that he is not an unreasonable prisoner but an individual who feels he has been taken advantage of, that justice has not been done and that he is being punished to a greater degree than the punishment imposed on him by the court for the offence he committed.
It is my understanding that the original court case involved grave doubts as to whether he was guilty of manslaughter. As I remember the circumstances, some evidence about an insurance policy came to light several weeks after the death had been certified as accidental drowning, at which time the case was reopened. There was considerable doubt about the innocence or guilt of this man at his first trial, and if by some strange quirk of justice he is innocent, one can imagine the agitation of his mind at times when he is unfairly treated, to say nothing of the fact that he is serving a lifetime sentence for something that he at least claims he did not do.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree that item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice stand now until 2.30 this afternoon?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: In the interval perhaps the committee will consider the estimates of the Department of Public Works.

Supply-Justice


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, is there any reason why we should not go ahead with the other estimates of the Department of Justice?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister would like to get some lunch.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about the rest of us?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the rest of us can have something sent in.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I call the first item of the estimates of the Department of Public Works?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, if the minister must remain here during the consideration of the other items in his estimates without knowing when they will be carried, he would prefer that we go on with our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Public Works at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know whether anyone on this side intends to speak on the other estimates of the Department of Justice. If anyone has such an intention perhaps he could give some indication at this time. If not, perhaps we could go ahead and pass the items.


George James McIlraith: Is that agreeable?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think that would be agreeable, providing an opportunity is afforded the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond to speak on the combines investigation item.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps he could do so on item 1.


Guy Favreau: Yes, he can make his remarks on item No. 1.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I have several remarks to make during our consideration of the item regarding the administration of penitentiaries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You can make those remarks on item 1.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: If that is agreed I will make my remarks when we are again considering item 1 at 2.30.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move that we reduce the item regarding the liaison service director.


Mr. Walker:: Let us consider those two items at 2.30.


William Arnold Peters: Will the minister give me an assurance that he will personally look into this situation?
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully and with interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Timiska-ming. I felt that he had a very sincere interest in the matter, and I followed his remarks very closely. I am sure he knows what I have been trying both to say and to do in the relatively short time at my disposal. I am sure he realizes now that we intend to do a great deal within a short period of time. If I do undertake to look into the particular situation to which he has referred, with his co-operation, perhaps he will not wish to pursue this matter further.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the other items stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: That leaves items 1, la and lb.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $12,114,500.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, would the minister make a statement about the national capital commission? I am very interested in this item.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is vote No. 60.


William Arnold Peters: O.K., I will make my remarks on vote 60.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National capital commission-
60. Operation and maintenance, general administration and interest charges on outstanding loans that were made for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, $5,420,000.
William Arnold Peters: I am interested particularly in a decision that is being made, and which is before the house, in relation to moving the railway station. I am curious about whether or not if we defeat this bill, the capital commission will still be empowered to go ahead and move the station. I should like to know if we have the right to instruct the national capital commission as to the wishes of parliament.
I do not want to belabour the point, but in my opinion, this should be the last time the national capital commission estimates are brought before parliament in this way. I believe the commission itself should appear before a committee of the house so that hon. members could be acquainted with what the commission is doing and the commission could

receive some direction from members of parliament. I believe that when the former government was in office they decided to divest the prime minister of this responsibility and put it under the ministry of public works. I believe the capital commission should be in the same category as Canadian National Railways and some of these other large government operations and should, therefore, come before parliament in one way or another for direction.
I believe there are many members in this house who believe a commuter station should be constructed, not necessarily anything like we have down here now, in the centre of the city. In this way Montreal and Ottawa could be connected by means of a rapid transit service. This commuter service could utilize a two track road through a tunnel from the area where the proposed station is to be erected. I understand the whole area is going to be covered over, anyway.
We had a discussion yesterday, Mr. Chairman, in which we were told of plans to build a 500 bed hotel near the Chateau Laurier- at least, they are going to offer the property for this purpose. For what purpose are you going to build a hotel if you are not going to make any arrangements to get the passengers down town? I do not believe we have thought this plan through. I understand that Mr. Greber came over from France and drew up a plan. It has been changed a number of times. I do not say that parliament changed it, but it has been changed as a result of Ottawa politics, the mayor and her council. I do not believe parliament has been able to really consider this matter. I think it is the responsibility of the commission to give some consideration to the wishes of members of parliament.
I have never been happy with the Expo '67 coat of arms. Parliament said that they thought it was nuts, but that decision was overruled. Perhaps if we had considered this matter a little earlier the directors might have given more consideration to our wishes. However, we are not too late to give consideration to this station. I understand they are going to have a depot for express at Alta Vista road on Industrial avenue. However, we are not too late for the station. The cloverleaf is not built at Alta Vista. The trains cross the road there and stop traffic every morning as I come in. There is an open crossing there which is going to be eliminated when the cloverleaf is completed. If they are going to construct a four lane highway along the canal, as has been indicated, you will have a four
Supply-Public Works lane highway leading nowhere. We are going to get rid of the railroad bridge, as I understand it. While I am not objecting to the four lane highway, it seems to me that much more consideration could be given to a small two track roadway coming in from the marshalling yard at Walkley road or Industrial avenue.
I have no objection to the erection of a small station out there to serve that end of the city as well. It seems to me a survey was conducted which indicated that about 75 per cent of the passengers coming into the station were businessmen who were going down town. There are not many people coming to visit other people in Ottawa. It is true that we have government buildings now at Confederation heights as a result of some crazy deal to spread them all over the landscape. They should be concentrated near the parliament buildings so that members of parliament could walk over and have investigations made into matters which interest them.
If we had not agreed to this silly business of cutting off debate tonight I would not be prepared to pass the national capital commission estimates. I do not believe there has been any study made of this plan. I do not believe it is too late to do so now. I do not want to be obnoxious and hold up the minister's estimates, but I think we should have some assurance that the national capital commission is not going to get itself into a mess. If the members from the other parts of Canada are not going to support a national capital commission, you are not going to have one. It certainly is not going to be run the way it is. The Minister of Public Works is going to be responsible for the parkways, and so on, rather than the capital commission, and that may be the way to do it because we can question him. We have the commission in an exalted position where we have not been able to talk to them. The first time I had the opportunity of talking to them was in the railway committee room.
This is the first time I have heard anything about this plan or had any opportunity of discussing this plan since 1957 when I first came here. I understand it was discussed in 1956, but since I have been here it has not been discussed. I do not believe we should say it is too late to change it, because we never had a chance to change it or to say anything about it.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The points raised by the hon. member are not only interesting, but I can say they are well taken. We are dealing

Supply-Public Works here with a portion of the over-all Greber plan, a plan which has been reviewed by Parkins and Associates. I may say to the hon. member that so far I have received many suggestions, many of them coming from this side of the house, which have had to do with expropriation by the N.C.C. and other matters such as the relocation of the railway lines and the tearing down of the old union station.
It would not be easy for me to go into the very technical details of this over-all plan, but since the plan was made some 15 years ago I think it would be a good thing to have it reviewed by a committee. I have previously said so, and I believe it would give all hon. members an opportunity to become more acquainted with the plan and to express their own ideas. If some members are not satisfied with the expropriations by the N.C.C. they would have an opportunity to say so.
I would bring the N.C.C. experts with me and, if it could be arranged with the house leader, I would be most happy to arrange for a committee and have my officials present at it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay passage of the national capital commission estimates we are considering at present.
We had a plan prepared by Mr. Greber who came to Ottawa and I know that, since then, implementation of the plan has started on the Ontario side, but the Quebec side has been completely overlooked. In fact, the Greber plan has been shelved because it provided for two stations, one in the western area, in Ottawa and the other in the eastern area, in Hull.
I asked officials of the national capital commission what would be done on the Hull side and I was told: "We are going to repair the station we have there".
Mr. Chairman, that station is nothing more than a shed which cannot be repaired. A new station is a necessity in Hull. It would permit us to enjoy more rapid service between Montreal and Ottawa, through Hull, as the distance is 20 miles shorter.
But no one seems to worry about Hull. It is remembered when time comes to build a road to the Gatineau hills, because the scenery is beautiful; other than that, the national capital commission forgets all about Hull.
I maintain that this situation should be remedied, with regard to the attitude not only of the N.C.C. but of all the departments, for the city of Hull is an integral part of the na-

tional capital. It seems that Hull is ignored, and this is where I start to revolt.
It seems that we must always bow and abide by the decisions of the national capital commission. I am tired with this state of affairs, and I do not intend to accept it in the future. The national capital commission will have to grant Hull the services which we can see from the parliament buildings, and also those from the inside, which we cannot see.
All kinds of works are undertaken in Ottawa. Contributions are granted toward the construction of the queensway, the sewer and water systems, but when we ask assistance for the city of Hull, no financial means or time are available.
I would ask that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) intervene with the national capital commission so it changes its attitude toward the city of Hull.
Hull is part and parcel of the national capital and it should enjoy the same services as the city of Ottawa, on a smaller scale, I admit, but it should still be considered as an important thing, and I am tired of the unfortunate attitude taken by the commissioners.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that when the mayors sat on the commission, things went differently because they stood up for their municipality. But since the mayors were eliminated, decisions are reached without our being told about them. I ask the minister to urge the authorities of the national capital commission to open their eyes, their ears and their hearts, to look on the other side of the river where something important is going on, is developing and wants to become an important part of the national capital.


Mr. McBain:: Mr. Chairman, we are all aware of the value of the tourist dollar which comes into Canada each year. The city of Ottawa is quite conscious of the large number of tourists visiting it each summer, and in Ottawa there are certain places of interest which tourists like to see. One of the most attractive is the parliament buildings, and tourists also are great patrons of sightseeing trips by bus through the city.
A friend of mine who often drives one of the O.T.C. sightseeing buses tells me that in summertime, travelling along Sussex street, when the bus stops outside 24 Sussex drive it is almost impossible to see the residence of the Prime Minister behind the trees and shrubbery when they are in full foliage. The

same is true of the residence of the Governor General. It cannot be seen from Sussex street, but if a little pruning were done a wonderful view of the residence could be obtained from McKay street.
I ask the minister to place this suggestion before the N.C.C. as it would please a lot of tourists if they could see these two points of interest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates. $1,381,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is the minister?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am the acting minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
2.	Allowance in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the Senate, $3,000.
Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate very much the opportunity of making a short statement. It is not too short but it should not last many minutes. It is an attempt to summarize the activities of the Speaker's establishment or department during the past year. I am sure that this statement-and I have copies of it for all hon. members-will prove to be of interest, and if I might have the consent of hon. members-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are going to read your speech, are you, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: This is an occasion which arises once a year. If the house will give me a little indulgence-it is my only opportunity-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be of some assistance to the committee if I were to make a brief statement at this time.
Someone once observed that the real difference between the Speaker and his fellow members is that he never says anything which does not need to be said. Whether that be so or not, I do think that this is one occasion on which a Speaker is bound by the responsibility of his office to speak and to give an accounting of his stewardship.
In a very real sense, the Speaker's estimates are of more direct interest and concern to the members of the house than those of any department of government. Included in the amount which parliament is asked to vote under the legislation item are all the funds necessary for the payment of the staff, the maintenance of services and facilities, the
Supply-Legislation
printing of Hansard and other parliamentary papers, the work of committees, and all the other complex activities that are part and parcel of the operation of a modern democratic parliament.
In Canada today the nation's business has become big business. And it seems to me that the time has come to bring a business approach to its operation.
The Speaker's establishment-totalling some
1,000	persons and with a budget this year of nearly $10 million-is the equivalent of a fairly sizeable business operation. It is, of course, very different in many respects from any other business or government organization-and not the least of these is the fact that it has not one but 265 bosses.
This has been, shall we say, an "interesting" year for the Speaker in this very interesting house. I shall not comment on the Speaker's experiences in the Chair-interesting or otherwise-as these are a matter of record.
Suffice it to say that this has been the longest session on record-both as to the number of sittings and as to uninterrupted continuity. Questions on the order paper are nearing the 2,500 mark; Hansard exceeds 10,500 pages; and on December 1, the House of Commons will have completed more than 200 sitting days.
A Speaker in this country must not only be bilingual; he must be ambidextrous as well. He has on the one hand his responsibilities in the chamber; on the other hand, he has to assume the ministerial responsibility for the administration of all staff and services of the house.
In these brief remarks, I should like to deal first with developments related to the chamber itself and then to comment on some of the administrative and related questions.



PROCEDURAL CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
As hon. members will know, we have had during this session a very active special committee on procedure and organization of which I have the honour to be chairman. This committee was appointed on the motion of the right honourable the Prime Minister and with the unqualified support of the leader of the official opposition and the leaders of all other parties in the house. Its appointed task was to help improve the efficiency of our operations, in short, to suggest any changes or reforms that would strengthen parliament and make it more effective.
I think the committee has many positive- if unspectacular-achievements to its credit, and that it continues to make steady prog-
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Legislation
ress. A number of other important and fundamental matters are currently before the committee with which it would, of course, be improper for me to deal at this time.
Although the committee has already produced 14 reports, incorporating more than 30 recommendations, some hon. members may feel we have been rather slow in bringing before the house proposals which could be described as far reaching. But I should like to emphasize that from the very outset the committee has taken the view that changes in our procedure should be evolutionary rather than revolutionary; that they should be acceptable in all parts of the house; that they should be achieved through the slow process of discussion and persuasion to the point of unanimous conviction rather than by a majority forcing its will. Every member of the committee has taken this view, with the result that we have achieved a collective team spirit and a common awareness of the problems which need to be solved. This surely is the way to success.
Perhaps I may be permitted to enumerate a few of the procedural changes which have already been implemented on the recommendation of the committee:
-a revised procedure for the question period;
-a safety-valve in what the hon. member for Kootenay West has described as "the late show" for debating grievances on the adjournment motion at the end of the day;
-an improved procedure for dealing with notices of motions for the production of papers;
-the better regulation of statements on motions;
-the limitation of debate on the resolution stage of a money bill and the tidying up of the committee stage procedure;
-the definition of the powers of the Chair in relation to the acceptance of emergency adjournment motions;
-certain reforms affecting the appointment and sittings of committees;
-provision in the standing orders for the house not to sit on certain statutory holidays.
All of these reforms, I am convinced, have contributed and will continue to contribute to the more effective functioning of the parliamentary machine.

[Stage Direction]
When the Speaker's supplementary estimates were under consideration last April, the 
hon. member for Lapointe spoke of certain difficulties in respect to the French edition of the debates of the house. He referred to the fact that the French Hansard was often late in delivery. He also made the suggestion that some means be found whereby the pagination of the French version would be the same as that of the English edition.
I am very pleased to report that both of these problems are solved-or on their way to solution.
Late Delivery of French "Hansard"
A number of changes have been made in the Hansard format, type-styles and editorial practices which have all but eliminated the problem of late Hansard. Implementation of other proposals is pending or under study to effect further improvements in this important area. Corresponding improvements in the translation, printing, and publication of committee proceedings are also under review.
Uniform Pagination of English and French
"Hansard"
Experimentation began in April of this year, commencing with Fridays, and by June 19, these experiments had been extended to each sitting day of the week. Since then, the pagination differential between the two editions has remained almost constant. It should be possible, if we start at the beginning of the next session, to maintain uniform pagination between the two editions.
Entirely English and French versions of
"Hansard"
Since September 1963, Hansard has been printed entirely in English in the same manner as the French edition. An average saving of $400 for each sitting day has been possible through this change.
Order Paper
Hon. members will have noticed, I am sure, the improvements made in the order paper during this session, on the recommendation of the special committee on procedure and organization. In June 1964, the content and format of the order paper were changed on a trial basis for the present session with a view to providing
1)	a weekly projection of the order of business day by day of the house;
2)	a complete list of all house business under each heading of the order paper;
3)	permanent numbers for government orders; and
4)	a disposition list of finished government business or of business otherwise disposed of.

From the comment which I have heard, the changes in the order paper seem to be welcome improvements and I expect that they will become a permanent feature.
I may say that the committee on procedure and organization-through a subcommittee under the chairmanship of the former Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West-is now working on a number of additional suggestions for the further improvement of Hansard and other parliamentary papers.
Division Time Shortened in the House
A modified division list has been devised which has shortened the length of time formerly required to call and record divisions in the house by as much as 35 per cent.
Physical Services
An effort is also being made to improve the physical services directly related to the chamber of the house and its committees.
Simultaneous Interpretation
On the recommendation of the special committee on procedure and organization, simultaneous interpretation facilities are being extended to all galleries of the house so that visitors from all parts of Canada will be able to follow the debates regardless of which of the official languages is being spoken.
This work is already in progress together with the repair, refinishing and reupholstering of gallery seats.
Electronic Recording in Committees
We are also, on the recommendation of that committee, experimenting with the use of electronic recording of debates in committees.
Trials with electronic recording apparatus in selected committee rooms started at the end of May and have been successfully extended to provide a complete recording service of all committee proceedings in rooms equipped with suitable sound pick-up amplification apparatus. In actual practice, the French portions of these recordings are being transcribed for use in the printed proceedings of committees. In this way, the problem of French reporting services in committees has been solved. The trials will be continued and extended to those committee rooms not having any sound pick-up or amplification apparatus.
Renovation of the Chamber
We have been informed by senior officials of the Department of Public Works that major renovation and repair work is necessary, both in the chamber itself and elsewhere throughout this building. The work in the chamber is
Supply-Legislation
extensive, involving stone work, glazing, lighting, seating and other general repairs or replacements.
The house will be glad to know that arrangements have been worked out to have this project-involving about nine months' work-scheduled during recesses and in such a manner as to have the chamber completely refurbished in time for the centennial year of 1967.
Renovation of the Centre Block
The work elsewhere in the building will involve, among other things, complete rewiring, extensive plumbing and the installation of air conditioning throughout the building. There is also work to be done in the library, the hall of honour and the restaurant. This extensive work would involve major disruption and disorder in the building if it were intended to have it completed by 1967.
It has therefore been decided to postpone this major work until 1968 when it can be carried out most efficiently and with the least inconvenience to members.
This decision does not mean that normal maintenance and repair work will come to a standstill for the next three years; nor would it preclude new major work that could be carried out in the interval without serious disruption or inconvenience to members.

[Stage Direction]
Let me turn now to administration. Reorganization
The most notable event on the administrative side has been a thorough organization study of the structure of the staff and services of the house. This study revealed that the Clerk, who has extremely heavy burdens of responsibility at the table, has to spend a disproportionately large amount of his time dealing with administrative and personnel problems large and small.
The result has been a complete reorganization, carried out in June of this year, to-provide sufficient senior staff to relieve the Clerk of administrative routine and to pursue problems to a solution. A director of administration has been provided as well as a director of legislative services.
These two men, together with the Sergeant-at-Arms, as director of building services, form a three-man staff board to which all questions respecting establishment and personnel are now referred, whatever the source of the questions or whatever the branch involved.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Legislation
Hon. members may be interested in learning that the new staff board held its first meeting ,on August 31, and has met nine times to date.
Salary Revisions
Following the salary revisions for group B employees in the civil service last August, all employees of the house in comparable occupations also received pay adjustments. By and large, the amounts of revision authorized for our employees were the same as those granted civil servants in the same salary groups. None of our employees got less; a few, however, received more.
This is as it should be, for members are entitled to the very best of service and this can only be provided by competent staff. To retain our present staff and to attract our fair share of good candidates in the future, salaries and working conditions should be as good as they possibly can be. In these respects the House of Commons should lead and not follow.
Classification Study
Altogether apart from the general salary revisions, a complete classification study of all positions on the staff of the house is now under way. This will result in further salary adjustments where warranted.
Sessional Employees
I should point out that almost half of the staff of the house is composed of so-called "sessionals". I am sure that all members will welcome the action taken by the commissioners of internal economy in September, on my recommendation, to grant sessional employees benefits which they had never previously enjoyed.
In the past, sessional employees have not been eligible to accumulate vacation leave, regardless of their length of service. This anomalous situation has been corrected and sessional employees may now earn vacation leave on the basis of 1J days for each complete month of service, for a total of 15 working days per year.
The new benefits for sessional employees is only one item in a series of new measures- some already approved and some still under study by the staff board-to improve working conditions for the staff of the house.
Changes in Vacation Leave Benefits for Continuous Employees
Regulations governing the granting of vacation leave to continuous employees were also

amended in September. The restriction against the granting of leave while the house is sitting has been removed. Employees are also granted one extra week annually after 25 years of service. Furthermore, compensation for work done on a day that is not normally a day of work is on a day for day basis and is no longer included in the over-all vacation leave provisions.

[Stage Direction]
Provision has now been made, for the first time, for a formal grievance procedure which will provide for consideration of grievances by:
(1)	the immediate supervisor of the aggrieved employee and, failing satisfaction, by
(2)	the director concerned, and failing satisfaction, by
(3)	the staff board and, failing satisfaction, by
(4)	the Clerk of the House of Commons, all with pre-determined time periods for each step in the procedure. It is hoped that this will eliminate the presentation of grievances direct to the Speaker or to individual members of parliament.

[Stage Direction]
With guidance and advice from the joint committee on the restaurant and under the capable and energetic leadership of the hon. member for Winnipeg South, steps are being taken to improve further the services provided to members by the restaurant, cafeteria and the coffee shop.
The manager, maitre d'hotel and chef recently underwent a most valuable two-week internship in one of Canada's leading hotels. They have returned with a great many useful suggestions which are now in process of implementation.
Working conditions of the restaurant and cafeteria staffs-to which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and other hon. members have referred-are also being studied with a view to improvement. For example, plans have been approved for alterations and renovations to the staff washrooms which will be carried out on the very first occasion when the house recesses for a sufficiently long period to permit the work to be done.

[Stage Direction]
Space in the centre and west blocks for the essential needs of parliament continues to be an extremely difficult problem. Every effort is being made to accommodate the

requirements of party leaders, ministers, members and staff as equitably as possible. We are also trying to discourage the use of accommodation on parliament hill for nonparliamentary purposes.
The long term solution, of course, will require additional space and this will probably have to await the availability of the east block for parliamentary use.
As part of the accommodation problem, there is the difficult and long-standing question of the parliamentary press gallery. Conditions in the space occupied by members of the gallery are entirely unsatisfactory and represent a very serious fire hazard. The dominion fire commissioner has been insistent that the corridor adjoining the office space must be cleared just as soon as possible.
I am concerned, not only with the overcrowding, the unattractive appearance and the serious fire hazard, but with the fact that gallery members are not accommodated in the manner that senior newspapermen reporting the parliament of Canada should be. I am most anxious to find a solution that will provide to members of the gallery adequate, attractive and efficient accommodation free from the hazard of fire. In this connection, I have made a specific proposal to the executive of the gallery and it is now under consideration.

[Stage Direction]
Tourists
The activities of our parliament, and in particular of this house, are probably attracting greater public attention than at any previous time in Canadian history; this may be an understatement. This is a development to be encouraged, for parliament is the central hub of our public life and should be the embodiment of our dignity as a nation and a people.
I am able to report that a record number of people visited parliament hill during the past tourist season, and that visitors from other countries no less than Canadians themselves have been showing an unprecedented interest in our parliamentary buildings, our traditions, our history, and our proceedings.
To date this year, more than 660,000 persons have visited the building-an increase of 100,000 over last year's total. In the peak months of July and August we had nearly
300,000	visitors-296,880, in fact-and on the long week end in May there was a three day total of 33,221. The record for a single day was on Sunday, May 17-during the tulip 20220-672
Supply-Legislation
festival-when no less than 15,600 persons visited the building.
Student Guides
Many of these visitors were conducted around the parliamentary buildings by the special student guides who were appointed for the summer to augment the regular protective staff. These students-many bilingual and drawn from a dozen Canadian universities-performed their duties with outstanding success, and I should like to take this opportunity of commending them for their excellent work.
I may say that student guides were appointed on the recommendation of the heads of their respective universities.
So successful was this experiment that I plan to have the program expanded next year. I hope that in time we will be able to draw students from all the universities of Canada and build up a corps d'honneur of parliamentary guides. In bringing these young people together, and in bringing them into contact with the public, we can promote better understanding, the exchange of ideas, and a greater awareness of our common heritage as Canadians.
New Seating Plans
The recruitment of these guides has done much to promote the public relations of parliament. However, this is an area in which much more needs to be done. One of the best ways of doing this is through the provision of attractive informational material.
The new coloured seating plan folder, which was produced on the initiative of the special committee on procedure and organization, is a first step in that direction.
The new seating plan has now been in circulation for five months and has been very well received. A copy is automatically given to every visitor to the building. Members may like to be reminded that they are entitled to receive on request to the Sergeant-at-Arms up to 1,000 copies each year free of charge for distribution to their constituents.
The importance of good public relations was brought home to me very forcibly during my visits to London and Washington last January, where I found a wide range of high quality material, including books, brochures and postcards, available for purchase by the public. This surely is the way to bring home to the people the significance of parliament and the representative system. It is not commercialization; it is education for citizenship.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Legislation Publications Sales Desk
With this end in view, we plan to establish within the building a sales desk where suitable material on parliament can be sold at reasonable cost to the public by the queen's printer. It will be of dignified design and located in the short corridor on the west side of the hall of honour leading into the reading room. Here we hope to make available postcards and slides, of which a wide and impressive range can be produced from the excellent photographs available; published works relating to parliament; appropriate material already available through the queen's publisher; and booklets especially commissioned on behalf of this house.
I propose to take a special responsibility for the last-mentioned category, and to make every effort to ensure that the quality of their writing and presentation is of the very highest standard.
Christmas Cards
Members will be aware that this year, for the first time, a special parliamentary Christmas card-in six different designs-is available for their use at the very economical price of four cents a card, excluding the envelope. Its sale is being restricted to members and the senior officers of the house. Like the seating plan, it was initiated by the procedure and organization committee, and the bulk of the work involved was very capably undertaken by the hon. member for Northumberland.
I understand that orders for the Christmas cards have reached the impressive total of
120,000	to date.
May I congratulate the hon. member for Northumberland and her colleagues on the committee for the excellent taste shown in the selection of photographs.

[Stage Direction]
One of the matters to which my colleague, the Speaker in the other place, and I have given a good deal of thought during the past year is the provision of improved research facilities for hon. senators and members. Let me add at once that we are fully conscious of the excellent services provided to both houses by the library of parliament and its staff. Within its sphere of operation the library is a model of efficiency and conscientious dedication, but no library can provide individual research service to 265 members and 102 senators.
In order to determine whether the high quality service of the library might be still

further improved, a complete study of its organization-similar to that carried out for the House of Commons staff services-is now under way. In the meantime there is the evident need for a research staff.
It is a truism to say that the responsibilities of members increase with every passing year. The demands upon their time and their commitments in a multitude of spheres make for a very full and busy life. They are expected to be well-informed on all matters concerning the public interest, but this is easier to expect than to achieve.
The fact is that few of us can hope for an extensive knowledge of matters outside the areas of our own interests and we must rely on other sources of information. In these days the affairs of government extend into almost every area of human activity, and there is no limit to the range of subjects on which members are likely to require information.
It seems to me that the answer to the problem is to have trained research workers available to do this essential work on behalf of members. Such people would be able to undertake tasks which the present library staff, because of the pressure of their own work, are unable to do.
Those members who have visited the library of congress in Washington will no doubt be familiar with the legislative reference service which operates there, and of which our United States colleagues are so justly proud. While I do not envisage so ambitious a scheme for the Canadian parliament at this early stage, I certainly believe that steps should be taken which might lead eventually to the development of such a service.
To that end, I hope that next year will see the establishment of a small research unit under the jurisdiction of the library, and that it will provide the nucleus for something more ambitious in the future. By the way, it is planned to start with about five research officers.

[Stage Direction]
The work of the various interparliamentary associations has grown tremendously and the importance of these associations will continue to increase. Two of the associations-the NATO parliamentary association and the commonwealth parliamentary association-have just concluded most successful annual conferences in Paris, and Kingston, Jamaica, respectively. Hon members all know how important the NATO association is to Canada as

an inter-parliamentary link-particularly at this time-and I need not dwell on this.
I do want to say a special word about the commonwealth parliamentary association- one of our most important activities in this field. As hon. members will recall, the commonwealth prime ministers, at their conference last July, collectively emphasized the importance of the work of this association, as did the Prime Minister of Canada in his statement of July 17 last to the house, following that conference.
Within the past year, important steps have been taken to strengthen the work of these various interparliamentary groups and other delegations. We now have a room especially designed for the reception of distinguished visitors and its formal opening will take place in the very near future. I may say it is hoped to dedicate this room when Prime Minister Wilson comes to Ottawa. We have also appointed a full-time officer to act as co-ordinating secretary for the various parliamentary associations and he is now fully occupied in planning for the next meeting of the Can-ada-U.S. interparliamentary group, to take place in Canada next February, and for the 54th conference of the interparliamentary union which will bring some 600 delegates from up to 75 nations to Canada next September.
Planning has also been commenced for the important month-long general conference of the commonwealth parliamentary association which will take place in Canada during 1967.
While much of the staff work can be done by the co-ordinating secretary and other officers of the house who have worked with these associations, it will be the contribution in time and energy-and ideas-from hon. senators and members that will make these conferences a success and a credit to Canada.
These, then, are some of the highlights of the past year covered by the funds provided in the Speaker's estimates which, I hope, will commend themselves to the committee.
I would not wish to conclude this brief review without a special word of appreciation to the Clerk, the parliamentary librarian, the Sergeant-at-Arms and all the officers and employees of the house for their loyal and effective service. May I mention in particular the Clerk, Mr. Raymond, who under very difficult circumstances in this longest of all sessions in Canada's history, has been my constant adviser. I should also like to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the special committee on procedure and organiza-20220-672J
Supply-Secretary of State tion, especially to Mr. Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees, and to all members of this house for their confidence and good will.
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: This concludes the study of the estimates under legislation.
SECRETARY OF STATE Atlantic development board-
20. Administration and operation. $508,300.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I am in order in asking this particular question of the minister, and I intended to ask it this morning when reference to the subject was made by the hon. member for Northumberland, but when the Atlantic development board amendments were passed by this government the minister indicated that the $100 million made available would only be a floor. Does that mean there will be further funds available to the premier and government of Newfoundland for the development of the Hamilton falls project?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There have been no funds made available for the Hamilton falls project out of the moneys of the Atlantic development board. I think what the hon. member has in mind is the grant toward the development of the Baie D'Espoir project in Newfoundland. I do not think it would ever be contemplated that the Atlantic development board with its scope could have any relationship to such a large project as the Hamilton falls project.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am completely satisfied with the answer given by the minister, but what I had in mind was the transmission lines which will in all likelihood go through the maritime provinces. Will funds be made available as assistance to this particular development?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot imagine, sir, that if a project of that magnitude should come before parliament in any way it would be done through the Atlantic development board. Of course there is other legislation under the minister of northern affairs through which aid for transmission lines is given. This whole matter is hypothetical. I hope it does come about, as I know the hon. gentleman also hopes, but it is still in the planning stage and until it gets beyond that stage it would be premature for me to attempt to suggest how it will be done.

Supply-Secretary of State


Malcolm MacInnis: The minister suggests that this is still in the planning stage. Is that statement in any way in support of the statement made by Mr. Lesage last evening to the effect that what Premier Smallwood has said is not true, but a false statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that has anything even remotely to do with my estimates.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question that does have a great deal to do with the minister's estimates. I am wondering whether the minister can, with his: usual precise brevity, indicate just what is in prospect for the province of Prince Edward Island under the Atlantic development board projects. I am confident there is more than one project in prospect covered by the $100 million. Has the minister any report to make about discussions that may have been taking place by the Prince Edward Island people and others, so as to give us a clear picture of what lies ahead for our province?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. gentleman is aware, the biggest project in prospect at this time for Prince Edward Island is covered by a grant for the laying of a power cable across Northumberland strait which will involve the expenditure of an amount in the neighbourhood of $6 million to $7 million. Speaking from recollection, but I think I am right, the province has indicated that in principle it is favourable toward this project. I hope that the discussion going beyond the principal stage will advance as rapidly as possible, because all the information available to me leads me to believe that if this power project were carried out there would be a substantial reduction in the cost of power to users, and particularly industrial users in Prince Edward Island, and that is of course of real interest to the Atlantic development board in its efforts toward developing the economy.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I assume that the experts on the Atlantic development board have considered the comparative costs of transmittal on the causeway if it should be erected. Do I understand also from what the minister has said that the discussions of principle have been final and have now reached the stage of working toward something concrete? May we in fact count this as one of the things in which the Atlantic development board is going forward?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be very wrong for me to speak for the government of the province of Prince Edward Island, but I am bound to say that I have had nothing but the most amicable relations with all the ministers of that government with whom I have had any contact. I had a conversation with the acting premier, Mr. Matheson and with Mr. Rossiter, the minister of industry-
I may not have his precise title correct, and I apologize for not having all these things at my fingertips-last Saturday morning regarding certain projects. Considering that we are not of the same political complexion, I do not think we could have had more friendly relations than have existed between me and the ministers of the government of Prince Edward Island.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong our consideration, but the amicability of the ministers of Prince Edward Island, or of the people there, is not in question. Is this project one which is definitely slated or slotted for Prince Edward Island?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Atlantic development board has recommended it strongly, and it has been accepted in principle by the government of Canada. I do not think there will be any delay beyond the point when the government of Prince Edward Island, or a company in Prince Edward Island designated by the government, is ready to receive the power. After all, the government of Prince Edward Island or a power company will be the recipients of the power. I am sure the hon. member will realize that it would be impertinent on my part to try to intervene in any way in provincial consideration of this matter.


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Chairman, can the minister tell me whether negotiations are now under way with the authorities of the city of Quebec, in order to deviate, as was asked many times, toward Charlesbourg, the railway line which now crosses the northeastern part of the city.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I do not think the subject referred to by the hon. member has anything to do with vote No. 20. Perhaps the minister has some information for the hon. member for Quebec West.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we could carry item 20 and move on to a consideration of my other estimates.


Edward Nasserden: I am not sure whether my remarks should be made at this time in relation to this item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Item 20 covers the Atlantic development board. If we carry that item we can then move on to the estimates of the Department of Transport.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Marine services-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, pensions, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act and, in respect of the Canadian coast guard service, authority to make recoverable advances for transportation, stevedoring and other shipping services performed on behalf of individuals, outside agencies and other governments and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $23,774,400, $38,249,400.
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether this is the right item to which I should relate this matter which has to do with the Hudson Bay route, but perhaps this is as good a place as any.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps we could go on to the next item, which is railways and steamships, as I do not think the Hudson bay railway has much to do with marine services.


Edward Nasserden: Marine services might be the right item under which to discuss an icebreaker in the system, but if I am wrong I will wait until we reach the next item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman
wishes to speak about an icebreaker, now is the time to do so.


Edward Nasserden: Thank you. I am sure the minister is aware that the officials of the bay route association would like to determine whether consideration will be given to extending icebreaker services in the bay and in the strait during certain seasons of the year. I mention this now in an attempt to ascertain whether the minister will give some indication of the government's view about this request.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad in one sentence to say that my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I, had a very pleasant meeting with rep-
Supply-Transport
resentatives of what I still call the "On to the Bay Association", because I belong to the old guard and another generation. It is now called the Hudson bay railway association. These representatives still have the same stars in their eyes that I had in my eyes when I was a boy living in northern Manitoba. I am extremely sympathetic toward the whole idea and I will do everything I can to further it.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question in this regard, and I will do so as briefly as I can. I am sure we have all received communications from the delegation on this matter of the Hudson bay route. Can the minister tell us whether or not it is correct that the closing of the season in Hudson bay is set by whether or not the insurance companies will give shipping companies insurance? Then, will he say whether or not what we were told is correct, if any ship wants to come in you will supply icebreakers? I ask those two questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not possibly answer those questions, even if I had a lot of technical advice. However, I will undertake, right here and now, to look into all the aspects of the questions and give the hon. gentleman or any other hon. gentleman who wishes, the best memorandum I can have prepared on the subject. It is a complicated subject. Since it deals with policy, I do not believe it would be possible to answer it at this moment.


Edward Nasserden: There is one other observation I should like to make. Is the minister giving consideration to the feasibility of extending some kind of incentive to steamship lines that might be operating in this area by providing icebreaker service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, that is a big question also which we are considering.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation-
35. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $38,008,600.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have one point I should like to take up again with the Minister of Transport. It is something I have raised with his predecessors and something I have raised with his officials. I believe our international airports are highly deficient in one aspect. It is a small thing, but if there is anything that is cold it is the welcome we give to those landing in Canada at international airports. There is not one blessed sign that says, in French or English and it should be in both languages,

Supp ly-T ransport
"welcome to Canada". We have directions in three languages to the comfort station, but that is something that is already provided on the aircraft. There have been suggestions in the past that this sort of thing should be done by local chambers of commerce. Well, I disagree. I do not believe local chambers of commerce have any business being at our international airports with signs saying "welcome to Canada".
These vast termini that we have now have all the room in the world in which to put up a suitable sign. We see them in other countries, and it gives you a feeling of welcome. You know, there is a difference between certain modes of transportation, a difference between private and public, but the one that is going to succeed is the one that welcomes you on board. I say to the minister that if the Department of Transport wishes to put these huge buildings to some greater use, then let us see what we can do. I think with a few thousands of dollars spent across the country, perhaps at half the cost of one of those very controversial murals or pieces of sculpture that we have at these terminals, we could erect these welcome signs and make Canadians and strangers alike coming here feel welcome.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to do something I do not believe I should do, but happily I have no officials in front of me. I am going to say that if I can warm the cold heart of the President of the Privy Council I will do what the hon. gentleman has suggested.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to add to what the hon. member for Edmonton West had to say. I have returned recently from the commonwealth parliamentary association conference. I was speaking with members who had travelled practically all over the world. They rather embarrassed me by saying that the terminal in New York, I imagine it was at Kennedy airport, operated by Air Canada had the poorest service, was the most rundown airport and most in need of repainting, of any airport they had seen in their travels. I merely pass this on to the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will pass it on to where it may do some good.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have one other point in this regard. Has the minister made any provision to establish a medical review board, similar to that operated in the United States, whereby a pilot who has had his licence cancelled as a result of some physical ailment, and has recovered, may apply to have the licence

renewed? Have we made any progress in this regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand some progress is being made. I have not got the details in front of me but I will give the hon. gentleman the information.


Léon Balcer: When I was minister of transport, unfortunately I could not warm the heart of our treasury board. I could not get it warm enough to get any favourable decision on rolling sidewalks at Montreal airport. I know this would be a very popular move if it could be done. It is a splendid airport, but unfortunately it is a tremendous walk for older people, children and tired passengers from the plane to the terminal. I should like to ask the minister if he has had any more success with his treasury board than I had with mine in this regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I will do my best.


Harold Edward Winch: It had been my intention originally to make a half hour speech on this one subject. However, in view of the circumstances I will reduce it to a question. I have been in continuous and close contact for over one year now with the pilots and private owners of aircraft in Vancouver and British Columbia in attempting to get some study of their problems. It seems to me that they do have a wonderful case and good reason for complaint. Instead of making a speech, may I ask the minister this question: What is he going to do to meet with them and with his officials in order to see the situation as it relates to landing fields, regulations, and so on?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As soon as there is a recess of parliament I will try to make arrangements to see them, without any undue delay.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is one other point which is a carryover from the previous discussion. What steps have been taken to work out safety measures with the respective authorities, whether they are hydro commissions or private power companies, in these mountainous areas of Alberta and British Columbia where we have transmission lines going through the valleys and presenting tremendous hazards to low flying aircraft doing charter work as they move along these mountain valleys? This has caused a number of accidents, and according to correspondence with the minister's deputy I know a suggestion was made to mark or identify high transmission lines to make them visible to the

pilots of low flying aircraft. What progress has been made in this regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the present state of my personal knowledge all I can say is that I shall inquire into it at once and, if I can give it a push, I will do so.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister write me a letter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I do not want to encroach on the territory of the charming and attractive member for Westmorland but I would like to point out that a great many Prince Edward Islanders spend a lot of time at Moncton waiting for planes and trains. I think the new railway station there much too small and there is a great danger that the terminal for air passengers will also be far too inadequate. I hope the minister, in his mood of benevolent exertion, will look into the situation. I believe the C.N.R. has somewhat fouled up its Ocean Limited schedule and, willy-nilly, is pushing more passengers on to Air Canada. Moncton is still the hub of the maritimes, and though the minister has paid tribute to us as a genial people, we do not like standing up for hours on end.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member said too inadequate. I hope the facilities will not be inadequate at all. The hon. member for Cumberland raised the same question the other day and I may tell my hon. friend we are making a very careful examination of this point.


Léon Balcer: I should like to make a plea on behalf of the flying clubs in Canada. Practically every modern country in the world had a surplus of pilots in the past, but the first generation of bush pilots have now reached the age of retirement and most pilots who earned their wings during the war are, like the rest of us, getting older. We have somewhat neglected our flying clubs and the great training work they did in the past which helped keep public interest alive in aviation and assisted us to supply pilots to practically every air line in the world.
We have the best pilots in the world and this is a reputation we should maintain. I hope the minister will study the matter to see if he can financially help the flying clubs of Canada which at present are all operating in difficult financial circumstances and are all making great sacrifices.
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to study the matter.


Edward Nasserden: Could the minister outline what assistance is available to municipal airstrips in centres with populations of 15,000 or less?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a printed document on the subject and I hope the hon. member will be agreeable to my sending it to him.
40. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment with respect to national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport) and related facilities; contributions toward construction done by local or private authorities with respect to such airports, amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $29,418,400, $26,359,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister make any progress report with respect to the proposed structural renovations at the international airport in Winnipeg? We have a stairway situation there that is a bit awkward. Escalators were to be provided but they have not been installed. The minister said there would be a structural arrangement whereby people would enter aircraft from the second floor of the building. What progress is being made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall have to ask for a report and give it to the hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
50. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Radio Act and regulations issued thereunder and Canada's share of the costs of the international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $25,884,800.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Some time ago the minister advised the house that he proposed to bring in legislation concerning CATV operators by means of an estimate. Is it included in this part?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is the supplementary "C" and I do not think that is an item it would be fair to embark upon in view of the undertaking made about 2.30. But if there are other items in my estimates that no one wants to discuss they might be carried in a minute or two and we could make some progress.
Otherwise I think we shall have to revert to justice.

Supply-Transport


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Supplementary to the point raised by the hon. member for Wellington South, the minister says let us pass on. Will we return to supplementary estimate 50c? Will there be sufficient time to discuss the matter or will it be jammed through at the end of the day?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot say what the committee will do, but so far as I am concerned I am very anxious to have it discussed.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, is this where you call item 50c?


Lucien Lamoureux: The committee is on vote No. 50. Shall vote number 50 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that vote 50c stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
80. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,302,900.


Edward Nasserden: Has the government made up its mind to set up an inquiry into the rail rates and their effect upon traffic from the port of Churchill to inland points, as compared with the rates charged on other rail lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since I received the delegation the other day I asked to have this matter looked into at once.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-
95. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $28,000,000.
John Angus MacLean: What is the explanation for the reduction of $12 million in this item as compared with the previous year? Is it because of a lack of demand for these subsidies, or is it a reduction that is imposed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When these subsidies were originally instituted the rate was 40 per cent for a certain period. Since then it went down to 35 per cent. That is one of the elements in the situation, and there has not been quite the same high demand as there was earlier. This is a matter on which I would be very happy to give the hon. member some detailed information.


Robert Carman Coates: I should like to ask the minister whether any decision has yet been

reached with respect to the subsidy being made available to the wooden shipbuilding industry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My colleague the Minister of Fisheries and I have had several discussions about this. We hope to have something definite to announce quite soon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National harbours board-
100. Advances to national harbours board subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act to meet reconstruction and capital expenditures during the calendar year 1964 as detailed in the estimates, $2,113,500.
Robert Simpson: I believe this is the general vote relating to the national harbours board. I understand that the delegation which recently came to Ottawa representing the Hudson Bay route association met with officials of the national harbours board to discuss the question of further dredging at the harbour of Churchill. It is my understanding the delegates were told that the board considered the dredging program which has gone on for the past few years to be complete and that no further dredging was being considered next summer.
Nevertheless it is my understanding from the authorities at Churchill that there is still a certain amount of dredging to be done. So there is a conflict of opinion. Could the minister have this matter looked into, and if further dredging is necessary to complete the program will he see that it is done next year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will look into the matter as quickly as I possibly can.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, for a few moments I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) to the disastrous situation in which the Chicoutimi harbour now finds itself.
As you know, the Saguenay river has but two ocean ports, that of Port Alfred, fortunately operated by a private industry, Alcan, which makes it quite important, and that of Chicoutimi, which is completely neglected and in a deplorable condition. The amount spent by the Department of Transport on the improvement and maintenance of those facilities is extremely low, if not non-existent.
I wish to bring to the minister's attention the fact that this year operations in the port of Chicoutimi are showing a substantial growth and, in my opinion, the minister should

give favourable consideration to all representations made in the past by the Chicoutimi authorities, whether to the present government or the previous one. Important improvements are necessary at the port of Chicoutimi to facilitate transshipment of goods as well as its warehousing facilities.
I suggest that this is a very important point and that the Minister of Transport should give a little more attention to the port of Chicoutimi.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am trying, whenever I can get a little spare time, to visit each of the national harbours and I am very anxious to visit Chicoutimi myself. I intend to do so at the first opportunity. I will discuss the whole matter with the harbours board as soon as I can get a little time in a place other than this.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not wish to take up the time of the committee, but this is the only opportunity I have to raise a question which is of serious concern not only to myself but to all members from Vancouver.
Is it possible, now, for the minister to give us some definite information as to the situation in the harbour at north Vancouver where four established industries are to be displaced? I have been in communication with officials in the department and I understood they were trying to arrange a meeting between the harbours board and all those who are concerned about this plan put forward by the Saskatchewan wheat board, including the unions. I want to ask the minister this: Is there any way whatsoever in which this $800 million new wheat elevator can be established without the loss of the industries we already have?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand a meeting has been arranged for next Monday by the chairman of the harbours board. This delegation will present its views at that meeting. I have made it known that I would be happy to see them as well and discuss the whole problem with them. That will probably be Tuesday, rather than Monday. At any rate, it will be at the beginning of the week.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand the meeting will be held in Vancouver?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, here in Ottawa.


Harold Edward Winch: It will be a meeting with the union representatives, the industries involved, and all concerned?
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: The information I have is that those persons who wanted to make representations are sending a delegation to Ottawa for the purpose.


Harold Edward Winch: Next Monday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next Monday.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to ask the minister whether all the loose ends have been tied up in connection with the Jacques Cartier bridge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not yet.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask how the claims stand as far as the city of Montreal and the provincial government of Quebec are concerned with regard to the moneys-if I may put it this way-they did not contribute toward the bridge in years past?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are now in the midst of negotiations with the government of Quebec about this matter. I feel it would not be very helpful to the progress of those negotiations, which relate not only to the Jacques Cartier bridge but to the Champlain bridge, if I were to attempt to make any statement. I hope we shall find a solution to this problem quite soon.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the minister whether we can expect not only a solution but thorough explanation of the results of the negotiations and any quid pro quo which may have been necessary?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We certainly will provide one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
105. Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority with the approval of the governor in council, and to authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, the disbursement by the authority of revenues derived from the operation and management of such canals and works, $2,838,000.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like to hear from the minister when he intends to make a full statement to the house and to the country with regard to the operations of the seaway. There are a number of outstanding problems. There is the matter of the tolls on the Welland canal. There is a sort of suspension in mid-air. There is also the question of the long range prospects of the seaway-whether its operations are likely to be financially successful. The record indicates there is some doubt about this. In view of the fact that the cost to the country of this project amounted

Supply-Transport
to some $350 million, I think we should hear progress reports from time to time. I can readily understand that in the early stages there might have been some difficulty about this; the operation was still shaking down; the wheels were probably not running as smoothly as they might. But the seaway has now been in operation for five years and I think it is time we had a full and comprehensive report, together with a forecast. After all, when the minister was on this side of the house he was a great one when it came to calling for these forecasts. I now ask him to follow the old adage "Physician, heal thyself", in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that there is no more important subject than the St. Lawrence seaway authority and I will seek the first opportunity, when we have a little time available in the house, to make a statement of the kind suggested.
Meanwhile I should like to say that the traffic has increased enormously this year. I only wish we could cope with it and get it moved, particularly through the Welland canal, a little faster-though this year we have made great progress in that direction as well.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Perhaps I may add to the imposing catalogue which the hon. member for Edmonton West mentioned a few moments ago. I am sure that the minister, with his new found interest in Newfoundland and elsewhere, will consider too that it is incumbent upon him to resist all those who in this age would move in the direction of trying to create of the St. Lawrence seaway an all-season route, because this would be a disastrous thing to very important parts of the country, namely the winter ports, the aspect of which was one of the great things which the maritimes brought into confederation. Often one hears the siren sounds of those who would advocate a different course. I am not going to speak any longer on this matter, Mr. Chairman, because I know that the minister's heart is in confederation and he knows this sort of thing would be most inappropriate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: This leaves one item, No. 50c, which has been allowed to stand by the committee. Save for this particular item, all items of the Department of Transport have been adopted. Do I understand that the committee now wishes to revert to vote No. 1 of the Department of Justice?


Robert Carman Coates: Before we revert to that item, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Transport one question. I happened to be out of the house when the Atlantic development board item was passed. Would the minister clarify for me what he had to say about the fund for the board and whether new funds would be available to the board should they expend the $100 million available to them at the present time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
gentleman, who is an old and experienced member of the house, like me, knows that this is a question of policy which I could not announce without full discussion with my colleagues and a decision by the government. But I think he knows where my heart is.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister of Transport when we might expect item 50c of these estimates to be brought before the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman would address himself to some of his colleagues on the other side of the chamber I think he could find out even better, because I believe the house leader has the hope of bringing it back just as soon as possible.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or other dependants of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,109,600.


Lucien Lamoureux: Vote No. 1, Department of Justice.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, on Monday when the member representing Halifax saw fit to jump to the defence of his Minister of Justice and to the defence of contributions from Hal Banks, he made certain remarks that I took exception to at the time and about which I tried to raise a question of privilege. However, the ruling of the Chair was to the effect that I could disbelieve what the member for Halifax was saying, but could not raise it as a question of privilege. The member for Halifax, in his ignorance of what went on in the house prior to his arrival here-and I say his complete ignorance of what went on-has shown a complete disregard for the truth; a complete disregard for the truth.


An hon. Member:: You don't have to repeat it.


Malcolm MacInnis: With a head like yours, I think it has to be repeated several times. The member for Halifax followed the member for Bow River and made quite an attack on that member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: The member for Halifax has great opinions of himself; and if you do not believe me, just ask him. He has such an opinion of himself that he has taken to classifying his own backbenchers. For instance, in the course of his remarks about the hon. member for Bow River he said how much better his party would be with the member for Bow River on that side of the house. Of course, he is not going to take anything away from us without giving us something in exchange; he would be perfectly willing to give us the senior member representing Halifax- he would start with him, and he would throw in the member for Kootenay East, and he went so far as to throw in the member for York-Humber.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think the hon. member will agree that what he is now saying is somewhat removed from vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice.


Malcolm MacInnis: I contend, Mr. Chairman, that my remarks at this time are no further removed from this particular item than were the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax on Monday last. I would say that his honourable colleagues from Halifax, Kootenay East and York-Humber would be highly insulted by his words, which may be considered as some token of the fact that, although perhaps he does not consider he is being complimentary to the very efficient member we have for Bow River, he certainly does not reject the activities of the hon. member for Bow River, if he is prepared to offer that kind of exchange.


An hon. Member:: What a horse trader.


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes, a real horse trader. He has classified this to the extent that he cannot understand why he should have to sit in the back benches with this class of member with whom he is associated. He has attempted to defend the idea that a member of parliament is within his right in accepting contributions from labour leaders. Nobody argues with the fact that labour leaders are entitled to make contributions to campaign funds, but I would remind that hon. member and all hon. members on the other side of the house that to accept contributions from someone of the calibre of Hal Banks, especially while he was 20220-673J
Supply-Justice
under investigation by a royal commission, is something they should reconsider. In reconsidering it they certainly should not take exception, as the member for Halifax did, to their own Prime Minister; because the Prime Minister indicated-I am not saying that he in any way came out completely and said there were these contributions-that there have been such contributions; and at the same time the Prime Minister indicated that he would not accept contributions from a man such as Hal Banks. Yet the member for Halifax rose in the house and defended the idea of accepting such contributions.
In accepting contributions from a labour leader of that calibre, who was at that time under investigation by a royal commission, these members, if they examine their conscience, will know very well-I refer to the contributions that were accepted, for there has been no indication that there were not and we have the word of the Prime Minister that there were-that they did wrong. The hon. member has said that they did not in any way commit themselves. Any member of parliament who accepts a contribution by way of cash, cheque or otherwise, is certainly putting himself in a compromising position. It is my experience and the experience of other men here that in your campaigns you have somebody to look after such things as that, and any member of parliament who at any time has permitted such payments to cross his hands is making a very, very bad mistake.


Mr. Matheson:: Do you know of any?


Malcolm MacInnis: The member for Leeds asks whether I know of any.


An hon. Member:: Make a charge.


Malcolm MacInnis: The member for Leeds is coming up with the same old "make a charge" business. I say to the member for Leeds, if you have a question to ask me about whether I know of anybody or not, you would be well advised to speak to your Prime Minister, who indicated on television that there is reason to believe such payments were made, not to the Liberal party but to Liberal members.


John Ross Matheson: That is not true.


Malcolm MacInnis: You will have your chance to get up and say whether or not it is true. If you did not follow the remarks of your own Prime Minister on T.V., at least you can get the transcript of what he had to say. At the same time the Prime Minister indicated that he would never place himself

Supply-J ustice
in the position of accepting money from Hal Banks. I might say that it is very well known that a fairly highly placed member of the Liberal party has indicated that he was offered a contribution and refused it. Why didn't the rest of the Liberal members refuse them?


John Ross Matheson: Who accepted such a contribution?


Malcolm MacInnis: Go and ask your Prime Minister.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the member for Cape Breton South is certainly misrepresenting very badly anything that I said in this house, and I do not think that is proper. I do not believe the member for Bow River needs anyone to defend him, but the member for Cape Breton South is so sensitive to criticism, as displayed by the manner in which he carries on his political campaigns with his fists-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. There is no question of privilege in what the hon. member for Halifax is now saying. Certainly what he has been saying up to this point indicates only that he disagrees with what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and that is no reason for raising a question of privilege at this time.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, realizing how pressed we are for time this afternoon I intend to go no further than to stuff down the hon. member's throat what he said. He said I have misrepresented the facts. I would call your attention to the last column on page 10405, where the hon. member for Halifax is reported as saying this:
The trained seals opposite had nothing to say during those six years on this subject.
Hon. members opposite used to be referred to as the Pearson team. If this sort of thing continues-and in all likelihood it will catch on-it is more likely to be called the Pearson gang. The hon. member for Halifax had this to say:
Not one backbencher had anything to say about Hal Banks.
I say this is complete disregard for the truth.
When I came here in 1957 I was aware of the fact that representations about this had been made. I see the hon. member for Kootenay West present in the committee, and he has indicated to the house in the last month or so that he, along with other members of parliament, had been making rep-

resentations on this matter as early as 1956. So that again I say that the hon. member for Halifax with complete ignorance showed utter disregard for the truth of this matter.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I rise on a question of privilege. I would point out that as reported at page 10405 of Hansard I had started to say that not one backbencher had had anything to say about Hal Banks, but at that point in his usual manner the hon. member interrupted me. I then completed what I had started to say when I next had the opportunity, and as reported on the following page I said they did nothing about Hal Banks and said nothing that was constructive and produced results. That is what I intended to say had I not been interrupted by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
The hon. member has also misrepresented the situation regarding the time of the alleged contributions. There was no royal commission under way at the time of the alleged contributions, which was during the 1962 campaign. It was only after that. The hon. member also said I suggested that it was all right for contribution to be made by labour leaders direct to members. I never said that or never intended to say such a thing. Naturally I meant contributions made in the usual manner to the campaign funds of a candidate.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has just made an interesting observation. He said there was no royal commission set up at the time of the alleged contributions, and then he referred to the date of the contributions, 1962. That is rather ambiguous, because I am led to believe that there were actual contributions, and that has now been admitted.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Alleged.


Malcolm MacInnis: I said alleged. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to the fact that although I referred to page 10405 of Hansard there were a number of remarks made after the hon. member for Halifax made his statement, and I would respectfully ask the Chair to rule on his question of privilege, as it did on mine last Monday.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member will admit to the Chair that he had completed his remarks. The hon. member for Halifax had the right to rise. Whether he prefaced his remarks with the statement that he was raising a question of privilege is rather immaterial. He has the right to speak and he took his right to speak.

I might say that if I were requested to rule I would recognize that there was no question of privilege here but simply a rectification of what the hon. member considers were inaccurate statements made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, you used the phrase "inaccurate statements" made by me. I am sure the Chair did not intend that.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I have only one question to put to the Minister of Justice. Even if some members on the other side of the house seem a bit surprised, I am not going to let it distract me.
Since 1958, it has been decided that a penitentiary would be built in the municipality of St. Pie de Bagot. To this end, four plots of land were bought at a cost of $83,000; work has been performed by various experts at a cost of over $20,000. In addition, the cost of plans prepared by an architect for the institution in question amounted to $50,000. As you can see, at least $150,000 in taxpayers' money has been spent.
According to the statements made by the Minister of Justice, conditions at the present time in penitentiaries are said to be unsanitary, and living conditions almost indescribable. But, owing to the political partisanship of the predecessor of the present Minister of Justice, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the construction of the penitentiary at St. Pie was immediately cancelled after the 1963 election.
I do not hesitate to say, Mr. Chairman, that this was a measure of reprisals against the riding of St. Hyaeinthe-Bagot which had elected a Conservative member of parliament.
I want to ask the minister what he will do with the lands which were bought, because the farmers who owned those lands left them and also removed the buildings which were on them.
I would also ask the minister to tell us why the construction of that institution in the riding of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot was cancelled, if not through reprisals because its population elected a Conservative to the House of Commons-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The reasons have been given ten times already. That will be the eleventh time.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public Works interrupts while remaining in his seat but he does not have the courage of
Supply-J ustice
getting up to tell the house why the project has been cancelled. The Minister of Public Works is unable to deny categorically that this change was motivated by political considerations on the part of the former minister who was known throughout Canada as the minister of injustice.
You are unable to do so.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, naturally I did not intend to participate in the debate on these estimates. However, since the hon. member has challenged me to give the reasons why the construction of a maximum security penitentiary at St. Pie de Bagot has been cancelled, I feel I have to state those reasons.
I told him a while ago, and I repeat it, that those reasons were given to him at least ten times. First of all by the previous minister of justice, Mr. Chevrier; then I myself gave him an answer once or twice on the orders of the day and, if my memory serves me right, the present Minister of Justice also gave him a reply.
We are the owners of the land that we bought and we keep it. We have already told the hon. member that it is quite possible that we may use that land to build a federal building.
We are now considering such a possibility but I would not want him to take my remarks as a certainty. However, such a thing is under consideration.
In the second place, it was said a number of times following the whole revision of the penitentiary program, that such a penitentiary should not be located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, but rather on the north shore, and that is the only reason why the penitentiary would be built at Ste. Anne des Plaines. Such a decision was taken and we must carry it out, whether it pleases the hon, member or not.
As far as the retaliation referred to by the hon. member, we would not like to give the hon. member more weight than he carries.
We will rely on the voters of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot county.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public Works has just shown his ignorance in this matter.
He is talking about a maximum security penitentiary, while the decision was that a minimum security penitentiary would be built at St. Pie in the county of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: That does not matter.

Supply-Justice


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


Auguste Choquette: Him again.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I will point out to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that he can resume his seat to make the remarks which he did not have the gumption to make otherwise.
There you see how inaccurate the Minister of Public Works can be. He does not know what he is talking about. When he rises to make statements in connection with matters he knows nothing about, when he says he will let the voters of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot county decide the fate of the one who now has the floor, I extend to him an invitation to come to my county. The former minister of justice came twice to my county and each time my majority increased by 1,000 votes. When the incompetent who interrupted a moment ago comes into my county, my majority will increase not only by 1,000 but by 2,000 votes.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, we have witnessed during the past 18 months a series of crises in which the government of this country has found itself. Almost every week something new is divulged that is of the greatest significance to the nation as a whole, and of the greatest concern to the people of this nation, relating to the manner in which this country is being run. Certainly what has transpired this week gives no one any justification for the feeling of security as to the manner in which justice is being administered. This week we have witnessed perhaps the greatest crisis that this government has had to face, yet we have been denied the presence in this chamber of the leader of this government, the Prime Minister of this country. We have not had an opportunity to ask him the questions which are foremost in the minds not only of us but of all the people of Canada, in relation to his obligations to this nation and to the administration of justice in this nation.
It is indeed very significant that the Toronto Globe and Mail on Thursday of this week had as its lead editorial one which stated that his place was in Ottawa. I am going to place this editorial on record because it is the type of editorial which indicates the degree of concern shown by responsible people in this country toward the attitude of the Prime Minister, as evidenced by his complete disregard for his responsibilities as the leader of this nation.
The editorial reads as follows:
Events of the last 48 hours In Ottawa have both bewildered Canadians and given them cause for deep concern. A judicial inquiry has been ordered into the involvement in a narcotics extradition case of two executive assistants to cabinet ministers and a member of parliament who was parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Lester Pearson.
It is true that the shadows will not be lifted until this judicial inquiry has sat and sifted the whole of the evidence and made its report. But it is equally obvious that the existence of the inquiry will not dispel the interest of the opposition parties in related issues, or prevent them from calling into question the integrity of men in the government and their servants.
Mr. Pearson has left the House of Commons and gone to fulfil a prearranged schedule of engagements in Saskatchewan, leaving the nation in the hands of external affairs minister Paul Martin, justice minister Guy Favreau and an aroused opposition. He may have felt that by so doing he would communicate a feeling of confidence to the people. But in these troubled days the presence of the Prime Minister, not only in the house but in his party caucus, would be a reassurance to Canadians. Mr. Pearson should come home.
Mr. Chairman, if the Prime Minister left this house at the time he did with the intention of keeping pre-arranged meetings on matters of great significance to the future of this nation, I am certain no member of parliament or citizen of Canada would argue about the merits of his doing so. However from what I have read in the newspapers, both since and prior to his departure, I have gained the impression conveyed by these stories that the Prime Minister was going to western Canada to feel the pulse of the people of that part of this nation, with the possibility in mind of calling a general election, and to determine how the funds are flowing. I imagine that many sources of funds have dried up in the past week and that the Prime Minister will have to stay there for some time in an attempt to sink some new wells to replace the dry holes he has drilled this week.
Mr. Chairman, we have a Prime Minister who can be compared to the famous Roman emperor Nero who fiddled while Rome burned. The Prime Minister is out west endeavouring to find oil somewhere to salve his conscience and the conscience of his supporters because of the manner in which justice is being administered at the present time. He could have come back to this house today, giving the opportunity to members to pose questions which, because of the growing concern across this country, should be answered. Since I have been in this House of Commons no government has been under such an aura of suspicion as now exists because of the way justice is

being administered. I think all members of the house feel it was the duty of the Prime Minister to be in his seat. Certainly, from the look of things, Canadians do not have to worry about the government calling any elections for some time to come. Certainly the Prime Minister will find other times when he will see more enthusiasm in the greetings of his supporters than at the present time. Canadians are shocked. They are bewildered. They do not really believe such a thing could have happened in this nation. They hope for, and fear, the results of this inquiry, and certainly all members as well are fearful of the results.
I say that a great deal more in the way of information should have been forthcoming from the government and would have been forthcoming if the Prime Minister had remained in this house and answered questions honestly and emphatically, in the way he should have answered them with regard to this situation. The fact that the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister found it necessary to resign his position because of his involvement in this affair, and the fact that at the same time the Prime Minister would feel he could get up and walk out to go on a barnstorming tour for political funds, is just unbelievable and beyond the comprehension of most Canadian people. I say that the Prime Minister's position has reached a new low in this nation as a result of the action he has taken this week in leaving the House of Commons in the atmosphere in which we find it at the present time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I wish to place our position on the record with regard to the amendment before embarking on further remarks. The amendment was introduced last October 7, and will be found on page 8849 of Hansard. I believe it would be worth while for me to read my remarks immediately preceding the presentation of that amendment into today's Hansard. I quote:
The S.I.U. do not provide these facilities for nothing. Because of the manner in which the government has failed to act on this matter; because the minister has shown a singular lack of understanding of the function with which he is charged in carrying out the responsibilities of his office; because of the degree to which the law, good order and justice in this country have been dragged in the mire by the inaction of the minister and of the government as a whole, it is both my belief and the belief of a good many of us on this side that the minister is no longer fit to hold the portfolio of Minister of Justice. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South:
That vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice be reduced by the sum of $16,999.
Supply-Justice
That will leave by way of salary for the minister $1 per annum.


Harold Edward Winch: Question.


Erik Nielsen: I hear hon. members calling for "question", and I will be brief, I can assure them, if I may speak without interruption. These remarks are as applicable now, indeed the more so. I believe the minister is unfit to hold his portfolio. He has shown deplorable conduct in the handling of matters to which I referred in this house last Monday and during subsequent days of this week. The minister has shown a singular lack of common sense, of good judgment, indeed a singular lack in my view-perhaps after I have completed my remarks, in the view of others-of a knowledge of the law applicable in the circumstances which were brought before him on August 14. There was a particular course he should have followed on August 14 which he did not follow and which has not yet been discussed in the house. I intend to raise it this afternoon.
One point should be raised before I proceed. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona was speaking this afternoon and the minister replied in French. I have since that time been supplied with a copy of the translation of the phrases which he used. I do not vouch for its accuracy, but if it is accurate then it raises some question in my mind and in the minds of others. The minister, I believe, in reply to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, said this in French:
"As soon as the final report-not the final but the last report available in the files was received, I made him-
Referring to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
"-aware of it and together we discussed this affair. We took together a decision relative to his executive assistant. So far as the other question, that is the legal procedure, is concerned, naturally I took it myself."
Now, that is the English translation I have of the minister's words. If it is accurate I feel it again shows a deplorable lack of good sense, of good judgment and a departure from what the responsibility of the minister was. In the light of the circumstances, he should not have taken it upon himself to make any decision with regard to this matter with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The first course to follow, I do not want to belabour the point, was to have referred the whole matter to the independent scrutiny of and to have obtained the opinion of the law

Supply-Justice
officers of his own department. But it raises this question, if the translation is accurate, what decision was taken by the two ministers? What decision was taken by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at that time?


Guy Favreau: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to interrupt I must say in all fairness to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that, so far as he was concerned, the only matter with which he dealt in relation to the report was a matter of internal administration, and his relationships with those of his department with his own executive assistant. So far as the question of deciding whether or not to lay an information on the state of the evidence available at the time, I must take full responsibility therefor. Of course, it was not the duty of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to take any decision in this respect. He did not, and that is why I made this distinction this morning.


Erik Nielsen: What is the final report the minister had reference to in his reply to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, the final report which he discussed with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Yet he has been referring throughout to an open file. I think the minister has some explanations to go into in this regard. These and other questions, of course, occur to all.
Throughout, Mr. Chairman, this has been an extremely serious matter. Since I raised it on November 23 I have tried to be meticulously and scrupulously certain of every fact which I have placed before the committee. None of these facts has been denied by the minister. I want to be meticulously and scrupulously certain not only of the facts but I want to continue to be sure that the manner of stating those facts leaves no room whatever for any misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
I am sure there are a lot of questions occurring, not only to members of the treasury benches but to all members of the house with regard to how I came into possesion of the information which I have disclosed, the information I have. I have seen many people and I have been outside Ottawa in search of this information. I want to assure all members of the house that I have no knowledge of any matters relating to this affair that are not in the police report.
I want to say that I have done nothing unlawful in any of my activities in connection with the obtaining of the information which I have obtained.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: We will find out.


Erik Nielsen: I want also to tell the house that I have shared with no one the whole of the knowledge that I have.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: I thought there was no secrecy in your party.


Erik Nielsen: In reply to the hon. member who so flippantly interjected, I am sure all members will admit quickly that the information which I have carried about with me was weighty material to say the least. I wanted no one to share the responsibility, and I mean of the whole of the information which I did carry, and which I still carry and intend to do so unless by lawful requirement I am required to disclose it.
I have a high regard for all judicial bodies, judicial bodies which I feel were thwarted in this case, and no one will find me reluctant to comply with the letter of the law in this or any other matter. But I want to say immediately I consider the content of the material I have of such an explosive nature that I did not want to share that responsibility with anyone else.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Not even your leader?


Erik Nielsen: I have told hon. members that I have shared the knowledge with no one and it was in consideration of others that I did that.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member allow a question at this point?


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the emphasis the hon. member has now placed repetitively-I think four times in the last five minutes-in view of the weight of burden he has been carrying, the knowledge which he has not yet disclosed, is it the hon. member's intention to share this weight of knowledge and facts with the royal commissioner who has been appointed to investigate all phases of this matter?


Erik Nielsen: I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver East that he read carefully my remarks in Hansard and he will find that I answered that question just a moment or two ago. And again I am being extremely careful of what I say in the house and I want to be meticulous in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I would suggest to hon. members opposite who moan and groan that they should do the same.
I want to say a word too, before leaving the matter, about Mr. Lamontagne, the counsel

lor the United States government who was acting, and is still acting in this matter, the matter ol Rivard, that I feel words are not adequate to express my admiration for this-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Again I hear flippant grunts over on the other side.


John George Diefenbaker: Where do they come from? Identify them.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Lamontagne, I might add, is a loyal-and I use the present tense-loyal member of the Liberal party. I cannot find adequate words to express my admiration for the integrity, the professional integrity of this young member of the bar.
It is extremely refreshing to me to find someone of his calibre who is able to resist not only the oilers and pressures which were brought to bear prior to last Monday on him with respect to this matter, but subsequently as well, and when I say subsequently I mean the barrage of questions which must have been directed at him by members of the press and by others.
I think one of the hon. members on my left referred to the harassment and embarrassment that he has subjected himself to by reason of his confirmation, in substance, of what I placed on the record on the 23rd of this month. It took courage, it took integrity, and this young gentleman had both in good measure.
I want now to deal for a moment with the law, law of which the minister should be aware, law which he should have followed with respect to this case and law of which I can only assume he must be unaware. I am going to read to him first a very short paragraph from volume 8 of "Halsbury's Laws of England", the most recent edition, the third edition, at page 12 under the heading ''Obstructing officers of the court":
Contempt by obstructing an officer of the court is punished, not for the purpose of vindicating the dignity of the court or the person of the officer, but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice.
I want now to refer him to the most recent case of which I am aware, dealing with matters of this nature, to be found in volume 40, 1963, of the "Criminal Reports". It is a case coming from the minister's own province, a case decided on June 5, 1963. It is in the Quebec court of queen's bench, the appeal side, and three eminent judges, Mr. Justice Bissonette, Mr. Justice Owen and Mr. Justice Rivard sat on the matter. It is entitled "Sommer v. the Queen."
Supply-J ustice
Briefly the facts in that case as stated by Mr. Justice Owen are these, and they are relevant so I put them on the record:
This is an appeal from a conviction for contempt of court. While a judge exercising criminal jurisdiction was conductng the hearing on a writ of habeas corpus, the object of which was to obtain the release of one Ripple from a mental institution, the appellant wrote letters attacking the presiding judge and the courts. The letters were produced and, on a verbal motion by the attorney for the mental institution, a rule nisi was issued by the presiding judge. This rule was served upon the appellant who was thereby ordered to appear at a fixed time before the presiding judge to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court and sentenced accordingly. The appellant appeared as ordered, was interrogated under oath by the presiding judge, was convicted summarily, and was sentenced immediately to three months in prison.
I draw the procedure to the attention of the minister, if he is not aware of it; that procedure being summary procedure, procedure under which no information is necessary to be laid and which allows a judge to require the presence of a person accused in circumstances such as these, summoning him immediately before the court and interrogating him under oath and immediately thereafter giving a decision as to whether or not there has been contempt. By way of explanation I think I should put on record that this procedure is a rare one. It is set up for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the courts, to prevent any undue interference with the administration of justice. As reported at page 429 of the case I have cited, Mr. Justice Owen, in the course of his judgment, used the following words:
But when we consider the process of summary punishment for contempt, the position is different. Here the power to award punishment is inherent in the court, as already stated: not in the judge and jury, but in the court itself, and being so inherent, it has to be adequate to meet the conditions which call for its exercise. Thus, it is conceded that the person charged not only does not have the right to put forward the testimony of witnesses on his behalf, but is even exposed to have to answer interrogatories. Neither has he the right to a trial by jury.
It is an extraordinary power, but it is me which is necessary, as I have said to protect the courts from undue influence or interference in matters affecting the administration of justice. The point I am making is that in this case, as was quite proper, the Quebec attorney general brought the matter to the attention of the judge concerned at the moment the offence was committed. The judge dealt with it summarily and immediately passed sentence. The report I read from was

Supply-Justice
the report of the appeal court where the decision of the judge in the lower court was upheld.


John George Diefenbaker: Excepting as to sentence.


Erik Nielsen: Excepting as to sentence.
The minister has by now, I am sure, no longer any doubts as to the suggestion I have been implying thus far. I intend to make it clear, now, by asking him this question. He is an eminent member of the Quebec bar and, as such, he is an officer of the Quebec court. Why did he not bring this matter immediately to the attention of the judge? Why did he not at least bring the matter to the attention of the provincial attorney general of Quebec and let him deal with it as he dealt with the matter in the case I have cited? The very least the minister should have done was to have informed the Quebec attorney general fully as to the situation. I repeat, he should have been fully informed. I might also add that the minister will also find a reference in the report I have read to the effect that if an accused person is a lawyer he loses his status as counsel when he appears before the judge under an order compelling him to appear in circumstances of this sort. So he is not treated as a lawyer at all, and all the privileges which counsel usually have in the courts are lost to him.
The remaining question with which I intend to deal concerns the terms of reference of the order in council. Now these have been finally defined.-I assume this is the case-I have made up my mind to allow the judicial inquiry to take its course without hindrance from myself-


An hon. Member:: Bully for you.


Erik Nielsen: If hon. members will allow me to complete my words without interrupting-*


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will you assist?


Erik Nielsen: I will assist the judicial inquiry in every way I can. I did not mean to be presumptuous by my previous statement and if hon. members opposite had allowed me to complete it they would not have found it so. I intend to be of every assistance to the judicial inquiry if I am called before it. I also wish to say with respect to the inquiry that if I were to deal any further with the questions which have been referred to the inquiry then, certainly, I would have grave doubts as to whether I would be doing the proper thing. Having those doubts, I have resolved them in favour of

silence in the house and I will follow that course now.
I am sure this matter will be dealt with fully by the judicial inquiry and I am just as certain that all the details will be before that inquiry as soon as it sits. I am sure all such witnesses will be called before it as are necessary to fulfil the terms of reference contained in the order in council and I am sure the first thing the judge will call for will be the police report in order to familiarize himself fully with the details it contains, because that report is the source from which he will derive the most useful information upon which to base his decision as to which witnesses should be called and which information he should seek in order to fulfil his function as the commissioner appointed under the order in council.
Having said these things, I believe I have covered those aspects with which I intended to deal this afternoon. I regret, as many other members have so expressed themselves, the conditions and the circumstances which made it necessary to reveal and expose this whole situation to the committee but I feel, without intending any injustice to the officials involved in the R.C.M.P. and in the department, that had I not brought these matters to the committee's attention they would in all probability not have seen the light of day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have already made myself clear with respect to discussing the facts surrounding this affair. There has been a very real suspicion raised in my mind. I do not intend to do the hon. member any injustice, nor do I wish to imply or leave anything by innuendo because of the question that I am about to put to him, which is this, that some of the things he said last night, particularly the reference to "20 days", leads me to believe that he may well either have seen the police report himself or have had passed on to him information from it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I still have not had an answer to my question. I am just wondering-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be quite brief in this matter and refer to only two of the points made by the hon. member for Yukon in the speech he has just completed. The first of these-and I hope the hon. member will correct me if I in any way inadvertently misrepresent what he said -is that he indicated to the committee that he was in exclusive possession of all the information he has laid before the house during the present week. The deduction is my own; I do not think the hon. member said that. I think he implied that he had
Supply-J ustice
arrived at his own conclusion that there was at least a prima facie case established, from the material he had in his hands, that criminal offences had occurred, and he has taxed the minister very much for failing to take action both in his public capacity and in his private capacity as a member of the Quebec bar or the bar of any province of Canada. He has taxed the minister for not bringing these matters to the attention of the proper authorities, for failing to take action on them.
The question which is raised in my mind, and which must have been raised in the minds of all other members is this: Why, if the hon. member had this material; why, if he had these feelings-and I am naturally basing my conclusion on the fact that he must have thought there were criminal offences involved here-did he not himself bring this material to the attention of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.?


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hon. members say "Oh".


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the minister for?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope that I did not draw from that reaction that there is any imputation on the character of the commissioner. Or why did not the hon. member himself, as any private citizen can, lay an information and bring it to the attention of the public and the authorities in this way? This is a question which I hope the hon. member will take the opportunity of making clear.
The second matter I would like to refer to is with regard to the question of law as raised by the hon. member for Royal last night and the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon today. I have reference to the function of the attorney general, either of a province or of Canada, with respect to evidence which is brought to his attention through the police authorities and in respect of which it appears that a question of criminal conduct might be brought into issue. I do not intend to put my own views in this respect before the committee; I would like to put before the committee the views of Lord MacDermott, Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, put forward in the course of the Hamlyn lectures of recent years. The book from which I shall read is entitled, "Protection from Power under English Law". Lord MacDermott there makes reference to the obligations of an attorney general in certain circumstances. I am saying, on the advice of law officers of the crown, that the conclusions set out here accord with their

Supply-Justice
understanding of the role of the attorney general of Canada. I refer more particularly to page 25 of this book-


John George Diefenbaker: Does the hon. gentleman say that he consulted the law officers of the crown to see what power should be exerted by the attorney general?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I consulted the law officers of the crown, as the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues did not with regard to the beating of Captain Walsh at the instance of Hal Banks.


John George Diefenbaker: It is pretty late to be consulting the law officers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I quote as follows:
The power to prosecute may be abused in ways which have nothing to say to the procuring of evidence and the procedure at the trial. If it is important that the accused should be protected while he is a prisoner, it is also of importance-. (a) that the executive should not be free to prosecute or refrain from prosecuting in order to serve its political ends, and (b) that prosecutions which are vexatious or without evidence capable of supporting them or against the public interest, should be stopped as early as possible. If it is wrong that accused persons should be unfairly treated in connection with their trial, it is also wrong that those against whom no proper case can be made should be subjected to the distress and expense which a prosecution may entail.
It is in the discharge of what are now the firmly established traditions and functions of his office that the attorney general protects the subject from both these dangers.
Further, at page 33 of the same lecture it is said:
The considerations which weigh with the attorney general in deciding whether or not to prosecute go beyond the existence of evidence proving the commission of the offence in question. He must also regard wider issues, such as the effect of a prosecution on the public interest and any special circumstances which may have a bearing on the justice or rightness of a decision one way or the other. In all this he must exercise his own judgment and his own discretion-
I emphasize that:
-but he is entitled to inform himself of the relevant facts and probable consequences and, in doing so, to seek from his ministerial colleagues such help as they can give him. This sort of consultation may sound a delicate business, but once the underlying rule is accepted, the line separating the functions of the consulting ministers can be easily drawn and maintained in the right place. Mr. Attorney, for example, should never ask or be told whether or not he should prosecute. But he can ask and be told with perfect propriety what effect a prosecution would have on the common weal.


Bert Raymond Leboe: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, are we not now arguing something that is going to be taken up before a commission?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would say that if what the hon. member for Yukon had to say about the conduct of the minister was relevant and permissible, surely it is also permissible to reply in this way to what has been said. I will be guided by the Chair in this regard. I would therefore point out that it is a long established tradition, and in fact a tradition which all members of the bar in this house and elsewhere recognize, that there is an element of discretion and judgment which must be taken by the crown-in this case I am referring to the attorney general of Canada-with respect to any charges.
I presume, although we have not had the full description of this, that that is the same element of discretion which was exercised by the former attorney general in connection with the conspiracy to assault Captain Frank Walsh, for which Hal Banks was ultimately convicted. The witnesses at the trial, which was held in 1963, indicated that they had put their evidence earlier before the government of the day, and I presume the former attorney general of Canada, Hon. Davie Fulton, exercised that same discretion on his own initiative without referring it to the law officers of the crown, as I am advised was the case-the same initiative and discretion which every attorney general has and which has been set out by Lord MacDermott in the passage I have just quoted.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question before the hon. member resumes his seat. Is it not normal, when a point of information is laid in a given jurisdiction, that that point of information, though it be investigated beyond the jurisdiction, requires evidence to be presented to the crown attorney responsible for the jurisdiction in which the offence took place?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I appreciate that the hon. member is not a lawyer, and when he refers to an information, which might have a special meaning I do not think he is using the expression in this sense. I have just indicated that in this particular case the evidence connected with the particular transaction, as was the case here, was laid, as was the evidence of the beating of Captain Frank Walsh, before the ultimate attorney responsible, the man ultimately responsible to parliament and the country for the administration of justice, namely the attorney general of Canada. That evidence was presented to him, just as at a lower level the evidence would be presented to the local crown attorney who would make

his own judgment on it. I would say that this is an exact parallel with the normal situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question, because he is thoroughly conversant with this case from beginning to end. Would he tell the committee how many days it was after Mr. Lamontagne alleged he had been offered a bribe, or that threats had been made to him, that he brought this question to the attention of the Department of Justice?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would first say, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot claim to be thoroughly familiar with this case; I have not examined the police report. But even if I were, I would think the proper answer is that that particular police report, as the hon. member for Yukon has requested, will be made available to Chief Justice Dorion, and that evidence will be immediately available to him.


John George Diefenbaker: Then let me direct this question to the Minister of Justice. Last evening the hon. member for Verdun made a very good presentation, and I like to see young members making good presentations. But among other things he asked: What if the fact is that Mr. Lamontagne waited 20 days after the alleged bribe before he said any-think about it? Was that information passed on to the hon. member for Verdun and has it any basis in fact?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I should like to answer that.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking the Minister of Justice. When I want information from the Minister of Justice he is the one from whom the information should come.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This information did not come from the Department of Justice. I will reveal my source of information if the hon. member for Yukon will reveal his.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a very important matter, something which has been kept from the committee, and I should like to get this information from the Minister of Justice. There is every indication in the remarks of the hon. member for Verdun that Mr. Lamontagne had been derelict in his duty, had he waited 20 days.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, if it is the purpose of the right hon. gentleman to elicit information which might have a bearing on the comportment of the Montreal lawyer who originally referred the allegation to the R.C.M. Police, I am not willing to do something in
Supply-Justice
connection with a matter which is within the purview of the terms of reference of the commissioner.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is the same old smokescreen with which the Minister of Justice has surrounded himself from the beginning. All this week he has gone through this attitude of hiding and concealing and only revealing when he could do no other. The answer of the hon. gentleman now is convincing evidence that there was no dilatoriness on the part of Mr. Lamontagne whatever. This brings me to ask the minister why it was he did not bring the information to the attention of the attorney general of Quebec or the judge presiding over the application for bail. In light of the case referred to, the Sommers case, why did the minister not proceed by way of contempt of court proceedings for interference with the course of justice, which would have placed these alleged wrongdoers in the position of being brought before the court? The Sommers case is very clear in this regard. In this case there would have been contempt of a gross order, which would be bad enough if committed by ordinary persons, but when committed by a parliamentary secretary or executive assistant in the government it is that much more serious. Why did he not give the information so that proceedings could be taken for contempt?
Under proceedings for contempt-such proceedings do not take place very frequently because this kind of thing never comes to light-what happens is that the alleged wrongdoer is brought before the judge. He is required to take an oath. He tells his story and the court listens to his story. It is always possible there will be lack of corroboration and the like with respect to bribery or intimidation or threats. All of these matters would have been immediately placed before the court had the attorney general of Canada discharged his responsibilities. These people would have had the opportunity of telling their stories on oath, and if there was no basis for the alleged wrongdoing they would have been cleared immediately. What is more, the Department of Justice would not have been placed under the cloud of suspicion which now hangs over it because of the failure of the minister, coupled with the co-operation of another minister, to bring to light a matter which should have been fully revealed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.

Supply-Justice
Amendment (Mr. Nielsen) negatived: Yeas, 30; nays. 111.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one or two questions on a topic unrelated to what we have been discussing. Can the minister tell me whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and in particular a team of officers named McCarthy and Boutel, have been interrogating persons including Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Sheehan about events that took place on July 29, 1954, which was the day the then minister of citizenship and immigration approved an order which permitted Mr. Hal Banks to remain in this country?


Guy Favreau: The matter is under investigation, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not hear the minister.


Guy Favreau: I am informed by the commissioner that this matter is under investigation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I assume that the R.C.M.P. and the government have decided that this whole question should be investigated in view of various rumours that may exist. Can the minister state whether he or any of the members of the R.C.M.P. have had conversations or discussions with a man by the name of Mr. Dan Riley, who I believe has a position with one of the provincial governments of this country, and who at one time was a Liberal candidate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was a member here for awhile.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I am informed by the commissioner that he will have to check on this, but I can say that I personally have not had occasion to discuss this matter with the commissioner. I do not think it would be proper for me at the moment to discuss an investigation which might be pending.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to press a matter that is under discussion, but because of the interest that has been displayed by members of this house in the past, particularly over the issue of the order which permitted Mr. Banks to stay in Canada, or the order which quashed or killed a deportation order, will the minister undertake to provide the house with a resume of the investigation when it is completed?
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, at the time the investigation is completed and the report received, at which time matters may be disclosed, I shall make the necessary disclosures.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have one other question I should like to ask the minister relating to what seems to be rather a mystery about the question of where the vouchers may be which would indicate that payments were made to Liberal candidates. Certain individuals have indicated the existence, in the files of the Department of Labour, or in the papers of the Norris inquiry, of these vouchers. Yesterday the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked a question about the working papers or records kept by Mr. Watson in connection with this case. Can the minister indicate where the responsibility for searching for these vouchers in the files or records falls, and is a search being undertaken by the Department of Labour with any assistance from the Minister of Justice?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, since it is a matter about which hundreds of investigations are obviously made at the same time, I cannot be informed of their day to day progress.
When I spoke in English a little earlier, I think I used the wrong expression when I said that when the time came and the report I was referring to had been completed, I would make "the necessary disclosure". Of course what I meant and the word I should have used-and I think the hon. member for Port Arthur will admit that such should have been the case-was "decision". I will make, at such time, the necessary decision.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I understand the minister to mean by "disclosure", that he will tell us the results of any investigation carried out. I assume he means he will determine whether he can make any decision to institute an action as a result of an investigation. Is that what the minister means?


Guy Favreau: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Therefore the minister is not leaving me with any suggestion that he will at a later time let us know the results of an investigation, and whether any information is turned up that would be of interest to members of the house, or whether nothing has been found at all?


Guy Favreau: I must say, Mr. Chairman- and I believe it is understandable-that I should, when the time comes, make the required decisions with regard to any revelation which might be made according to the nature of the file, according to my information, but one thing is certain at the present time, at least in the mind of the hon. member, and that is that the matter is being investigated.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that he in a sense indicated that there were hundreds of inquiries taking place. Many members of this house are particularly interested as to whether these vouchers are going to be found. I want to point out to the minister, and this has been touched upon by other members, although I do not know whether anyone has put it this clearly before, that there is one citizen in Canada, Mr. Bob Reguly, who writes for the Toronto Telegram, who has stated in at least one story, and I believe in two, that he has seen records which indicate that such vouchers exist, including vouchers which relate to payments to at least six Liberal candidates in an election two years ago.
Now, the point I want to make to the minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would allow me to ask him a question at this time? Is he accurate in what he has said? I have not read the particular article, but I did read one article which said something about agents. I have never seen anything in print in any way about candidates.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It makes quite a difference in law.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I had forgotten the names, but they were agents, anyway, and one was for the hon. member sitting right there. What I want to point out to the minister is that we have every indication from Mr. Reguly, and I suggest he check with Mr. Marc Lalonde, who was counsel, and Mr. Watson, that these cheques exist. Then we would get a complete picture of the whole matter of these vouchers. It seems very odd to some of us that the particular file which confirms this information should not be available. If the minister or the Minister of Labour cannot provide the actual vouchers, then certainly the house and I think almost any court, would be willing to
Supply-Justice
accept the record that was kept by either Mr. Lalonde or by the firm of Allan Watson.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I should like to clear up the confusion which may have resulted from my remarks.
As I understand it, the hon. member's question deals with two points.
The first of these is the Sheehan case which, as I said, is being investigated and about which I shall have to decide whether a statement should be made eventually.
The hon. member also spoke of the receipts or documents that he calls "vouchers". Let there be no misunderstanding on that point. No investigation has been carried out by the R.C.M.P. in that connection because no one alleged that a theft or some other criminal offence has been committed.
I understand that the Minister of Labour and his department are the ones who requested the investigation which is being carried out at present.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, I assume the minister is suggesting to me, in effect, that the responsibility for providing the information to the house in respect of this particular matter rests with the Minister of Labour. I wanted to draw to the attention of the minister that if the search, as early indications show, proves that the information is not available, we have the indication from Mr. Reguly that the information exists or a record of the information did exist, so I think it would be worth while for the minister or his officials or the Minister of Labour to get the information that Mr. Reguly has put before the public. I have every confidence that this is accurate information. I could also provide a name privately to the minister of a gentleman who is prepared-I have not asked him this but I am sure he would be prepared-to swear to the existence of the record covering these vouchers. There are at least two people with whom I have talked personally who say it existed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there are just one or two questions I want to ask the minister, and they are disconnected. I want to make it clear that, because of the application of the guillotine tonight, some of these questions may be asked later on orders of the day since no opportunity is now given to ask about various matters that would otherwise have been carefully examined.
The first has to do with the appointment of counsel to the Dorion commission. This
10S50

Supply-Justice
commission will have a very difficult and trying experience. I should like to find out from the minister if consideration has been given to the appointment of counsel. I would think that under the particular circumstances, with all the political suspicions and implications that are inherent in this matter, a counsel free from active political partisanship would be of the essence. I know how desirous the minister will be that the fullest possible information be secured, that nothing be withheld or anything done that would lead to a suggestion that something improper was done. Things do happen, you see. You take these cheques in the Banks case. It is an unusual thing, but apparently these documents have legs; they just naturally walked away. I would have thought there would have been great care in the preservation of these documents. Certainly, they were of great importance to some members of parliament, yet apparently there is nothing in the record to show that the files were removed, either in the Department of Labour or the Department of Justice. When files are removed, a receipt is always acquired. There should be no difficulty, if those records are available, in ascertaining who was the last person to secure them. In the event they are not available, the originals have gone, then as the hon. member for Port Arthur has said, copies should be available and would have the same probative value. The first point I raise is in connection with counsel to the commission.
The second point has to do with a matter that has hung fire for months and months. The minister has been a very busy man. One has seen something of his activity in connection with the matter we have been discussing the last several days. It is a matter that has taken up a great deal of time. But surely that is not the explanation for the fact that two mounted police officers, Superintendent Belec and Inspector Poitras, were recommended for dismissal away back in July. I know the consequences are serious when men who have served for years, one of them I believe served for almost 34 years, should have visited upon them the obloquy of dismissal. It has to be pointed out that they received a trial within the law under Royal Canadian Mounted Police auspices and regulations. There is a right of appeal to the Minister of Justice. It is a re-examination which is, in effect, a right of appeal because the matter comes to his attention and he is not altogether in the position of being a

rubber stamp. What is the reason that August, September, October, November-four months *-have passed by and there has yet been nothing said regarding the disposition made in the case of these two officers?


Guy Favreau: Does the right hon. gentleman mean that four months have passed by since I was seized of jurisdiction in the matter?


John George Diefenbaker: As I recall it, and I am
speaking from recollection, as far back as July 18 the minister was asked whether the matter was before him.' That is my recollection. I think Hansard will generally establish that; but now the minister indicates he had not the matter before him. I do not have the Hansard copies here but it is my recollection that in July and August these questions were asked, and the minister said the matter was receiving his attention then. If I am wrong, then my recollection of what I thought was in Hansard is simply an error in memory. But I do not make many of those errors in memory, and I seem to recall it was about July 17 last. I am simply asking why the delay? Why have this hanging about all these months? If it was a man in the mounted police with the rank of constable, corporal or sergeant, delays like that are not common. What is the reason that the minister has had this matter before him for so long? I will let him fix the date himself of when the matter came to his attention.
If there had been the same degree of acceleration in connection with this matter as there was in connection with the narcotics matter, there would have been action long ago. Possibly the minister wants to answer at this time, and then I shall go on to another matter.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition just gave us a clear illustration of the danger involved in supposing something which has not been verified, in giving the impression that something shady, irregular or inaccurate exists, and then asking questions. Starting from an erroneous statement he just formulated, in a few minutes he managed to ask five or six times: Why this, why that?
Now, here are the facts: When I answered- [Text]


John George Diefenbaker: Let us have the answer and no evasion. We have had enough evasion this week.


Guy Favreau: Wait. I believe that it is extremely important to show to what extent this system can be obnoxious and vicious.
When I replied to the question, the case was being appealed. After August, or rather after September, two investigations were held in this matter because two persons were involved.
The inquiry was held before an investigating commissioner appointed by the R.C.M.P. commissioner, and he was chosen at Edmonton to preside over this case in Montreal. The investigation was held and two reports were submitted-one for each inquiry.
In accordance with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, if a report is brought down against an officer or a member of the R.C.M.P., an appeal may be lodged with the commissioner. In the meantime, the minister must set up a revision board consisting of three members of the R.C.M.P. who will review the file and submit any recommendation to the commissioner. Then, it is up to the commissioner to maintain or refuse the appeal or to amend the decision rendered in the first instance.
The commissioner, after studying the report of the revision board in each of those two cases, rendered his own decision and submitted his report which I received on September 8, 1964.
Since September 8, 1964-because there should not be one single doubt and because doubts seem to arise so easily and so unjustly -I had other matters to look after, and I think everybody knows it-well, as it involved, in one case, one of the officers of the R.C.M.P. who had an honourable record and who, after 31 years of service, was to have been retired in four years time, and, in the other case, an officer with 15 years of service, each with a family, I was called upon, of course, in view of the seriousness of the circumstances, as Minister of Justice who would finally make recommendation to the cabinet, to perform my duties in the most responsible way.
I therefore asked for the report containing the evidence, the whole file. I asked my law officers to prepare a report on the whole matter. I reached my decision, and a preliminary draft of my recommendation and submission to the cabinet was ready 15 days ago, and my recommendations are now before the cabinet. It is as simple as that, and I think the right hon. Leader of the Opposition
Supply-Justice
will agree that, under the circumstances, all necessary precautions had to be taken.
rText]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned very clearly and definitely that after 34 years service-I was wrong in that, it is 31 years service-naturally one would expect that, but I also expect and anticipate no one will criticize me when I say that a decision made by the commissioner of the mounted police, with the years of his experience, having those same feelings and regard for length of service, and no doubt personal knowledge of the persons in question-such a decision or recommendation on his part would not be made on loose grounds and without the fullest consideration.
When I mentioned that the matter was brought up first on July 17 I was speaking from memory but it so happens, as recorded at page 5625 of Hansard for that date, the question was asked whether or not-
-two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been tried and sentenced for an offence concerning the misapplication of funds, and that their sentences are under review.
The minister said on that day, July 17, that the matter had not yet been before him. I simply say that in the interests of justice and of efficiency in the force, and for the welfare of the individuals in question, a delay of two months since the matter came to the attention of the minister does not reveal that regard for the seriousness of the situation that should actuate him. I am not going to say any more about it. He says the matter is before the cabinet, and that is the end.
Now I come to the third matter. We have endeavoured for some time to ascertain from the minister what is the plan of the government in connection with the technique to be followed in order to bring about the patria-tion of the constitution. This is something which comes peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. It was he who presided over the conference with the provinces, at which the provinces and the federal government agreed on the patriation of the constitution.
I do not intend to argue as to the terms. I hope we shall have an opportunity, because I want to say immediately that no decision and no action in this regard should be taken by this government without the fullest consideration and examination, the most careful scrutiny by this house. In other words, a matter as important as the terms upon which our

Supply-Justice
constitution shall be patriated and amended are of such consequence that this house must have the fullest opportunity to consider and examine them. Indeed I would say there should be a committee of parliament set up to look into the implications. It is not for me to argue the terms at the moment, but certainly there is a difference between the terms presented by Hon. Davie Fulton and those presented by the Minister of Justice. Indeed, the Minister of Justice himself said in this house in September that the reason Quebec had not agreed to the constitutional plan which was placed before the provinces had to do with section 91(1) of the British North America Act. Under the plan agreed to by the federal government and the provinces, it has been removed. In addition, two other sections have been added-sections 6 and 8. I am not entering upon a discussion of the facts except to say this-that Quebec and Saskatchewan would not agree in 1961. Quebec gave reasons. Now Quebec is in agreement, once a change has been made.
The minister has admitted in the course of a television appearance, when he was asked whether or not this new formula would permit the setting up of associated states, that it would "to a degree".


Guy Favreau: On a question of privilege, this is about the seventh time this has been untruly stated. I never said that. The right hon. gentleman was not there to look at the program. He read the transcript and the way he read it in the house and elsewhere was completely wrong and false. I never said that the delegation formula or any part of the amendment formula could lead to the application of the associated states theory. All I said, tongue in cheek-and it is awful to have a statement made in that fashion interpreted in the terrible way in which the Leader of the Opposition has interpreted it throughout the country-all I said, tongue in cheek, was: Yes, but if the other nine provinces decided to delegate the same powers at the same time and Quebec did not, it would leave Quebec in a special position.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I suggest there will be an opportunity for the hon. gentleman to make his comments after the Leader of the Opposition has made his statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I can well understand that the finer sensibilities of the minister have been exacerbated, because I heard him make the statement when he was asked whether or not this new formula would permit the setting up of associate states. His

words were: "To a degree, yes". I simply point that out, and I will produce the record. Deny it as he may, that is the statement he made and he has been running for cover ever since because he is anxious to get away from it. I do not have to take any other interpretation. I can read what the Liberal press has to say in that connection. I did not intend to do this until I was forced to bring it up in this connection.
On October 20, the Toronto Star, which has never been noted as being one of the papers in this country which gives slavish adherence to the Conservative party, said this:
It may be nothing short of a national disaster if parliament rubberstamps the agreement reached last week between the federal and provincial premiers regarding the amendment of Canada's constitution.
It ends:
The agreement as it stands, in fact, represents a triumph for the extreme "provincial rights" faction which wishes to exalt the role of the provinces and reduce that of the federal government to a minimum. It could be a milestone in the break-up of confederation.
Again, in another issue, the same paper says this:
The national debate over strong central government versus greater provincial autonomy has become lopsided in favour of the provincial position largely because Prime Minister Pearson prefers to stand above the battle, smiling encouragement at both sides.
Then it goes on to indicate-quoting, here, from one of the parliamentary secretaries-
Canada is not a concept in the air. Canada is a collective identify of all those who fulfil this everyday living of the Canadian fact.
We want to know the facts. Parliament has a right fully to discuss this matter. I am simply pointing out, now, that we cannot accept a suggestion on the part of the government that it can enter into an agreement relative to a matter such as this, without parliament. Let that be very clear. That is what we are asking-that parliament shall decide. It is all very well to try to build a smokescreen and say the Fulton formula is much the same.


Guy Favreau: It is identical.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not, with section 91 removed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Fulton says so.


John George Diefenbaker: And whether it is or not, back in 1961 the Levesques, and those people, were not talking about associate states in Canada and dividing this nation.


An hon. Member:: There is the truth.


John George Diefenbaker: We were talking about one nation then, not two nations within a single state-


Mr. Prud'homme:: What have you got against Mr. Levesque?


John George Diefenbaker: One nation-Canada.
I did not hear the hon. member's intervention. I have no doubt it is as intelligent as those in which he usually indulges.


George Albert Proud: I will repeat it. I just asked the right hon. gentleman what he has against Mr. Levesque?


John George Diefenbaker: Nothing at all, except that the parliament of Canada shall decide. I notice that the other day Mr. Levesque received the approval of one of the ministers of this government, I think it was the Secretary of State, who said he "stands for great things". Mr. Chairman, he stands for an associate state and a nation within a nation, something this confederation cannot accept and which would not permit the continuance in the next hundred years of this country in all its strength and its power.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, absolutely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the right hon. gentleman now admitting that the power of delegation which he recommended two years ago showed so little foresight that it would make it possible to have an associate state?


John George Diefenbaker: I have mentioned that there was delegation. But there has been change.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nobody more helpful than the Minister of Transport, because he just blindly gets up and blurts something out; he has no idea what the answer will be. He is a wonderful fellow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I can tell the right hon. gentleman that I know there would be no direct and honest answer to that question.


John George Diefenbaker: I know the care that the hon. gentleman always exercises in what he says. I am not going to deal with it today, but I will have the opportunity soon of quoting some of his remarks regarding some hon. members of this house, and I am sure he will be ashamed that he ever made the statements.
Supply-Justice


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister ask what they were?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no, he does not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not interested in any Pickersgill regurgitations.


John George Diefenbaker: I recall that on March 28, 1963, in Sudbury he spoke of the hon. member for Red Deer, the leader of the Social Credit party, and said, "He has got nothing. He is the most pathetic creature I have ever seen in parliament in my days. He has nothing but a Pepsodent smile and is able to comb his hair". That is what he said about one whom today he draws to his bossom in political embrace. I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but that is just one sterling example of the changed attitude of the hon. gentleman between March, 1963 and November, 1964.
I say this, Mr. Chairman, that in so far as this formula is concerned, we want it examined. We want to know from the government what we have not been able to secure information on, namely, do they intend to take the British North America Act as it now is, bring it before parliament and re-enact it as a Canadian statute? Do they intend to give us the opportunity to deal with it section by section? What is the plan the government has in this regard-for I warn the government now that in so far as any agreement is concerned respecting repatriation, this parliament is going to have the right to give it the fullest consideration.
I do not know why the minister has been so evasive in this regard. He has been asked several times, "What is your plan? What do you intend to do? Do you intend to bring the act as a whole before parliament?" I ask him now, let us know. I know he has been very busy in recent days, weeks and months; but this is something regarding which Canadians have a right to know the course of action being followed. We want to know whether in the amendment of the constitution we are to be assured by the government that this nation shall be preserved on the basis of the principles of an equal partnership between the English and the French, at the same time with equality for all Canadians over and above the constitutional rights. I ask the minister, what is the plan?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister, who has been dealing with this matter in the house, if my memory serves me correctly, stated some days ago to the house

Supply-National Defence that the final plans with regard to the manner in which the matter of the constitutional amendments would be brought into the house would not be announced until such time as the agreement of the provinces to the formula had been obtained.


John George Diefenbaker: Has not the government of Canada any plan? Why should parliament be kept in the dark? Is the plan submitted to parliament going to be different, depending on whether or not the provinces express their views in this regard? What is the reason for delay? Why cannot we be told? I would like to know, why all the concealment? It seems that the Department of Justice has, under the present minister, developed to the highest degree possible the techniques of keeping under cover the things that parliament has the right to know. Surely there must be some plan; or are we to take it from the evasive answers that have been given that what the government has in mind is to bring about this change and not allow parliament a section by section examination of the British North America Act and the changes that have been agreed upon?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act. and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,289,221,625 for the purposes of votes 1, 5. 10. 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 42, 45 and 50 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $799,648,500 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $3,917,825.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, there are two matters I would like to raise with the minister at this time. I spoke on this item initially but there are two matters I wish to bring to his attention. First of all, yesterday the minister answered in sort of a discursive fashion questions relating to the state of the navy in Halifax concerning six ships which had been laid up under skeleton crews because of the lack of skilled technicians. Then we find further disclosures have been made to the effect that the net loss to the navy of trained personnel is about 75 men a month, and there have been examples of people leaving the navy in such large numbers that almost

the whole, if not the whole, of a class of trainees left on graduation or did not sign on for a further term of service.
There is something radically wrong within the service if this is the condition that exists. I am making these remarks because of my sincere worry and concern for the navy, because the Department of National Defence should be taking care to provide training for its men. They have devoted a tremendous amount of money to bringing forward these trained men, and yet we see them disappearing from the service. The minister himself will agree that there must be something wrong with a state of affairs that produces this result. These men are going out into industry. Certainly there will be a certain amount of wastage, and this applies to the air force and to the army; but to the extent that it applies at the moment to the navy there must be something radically wrong. It certainly is not only limited to questions of pay allowances; there must be some worry on the part of these men about their future in the service. I have had this opinion expressed to me by men who left the air force this year. They were offered extensions of commission and they said, "Not on your life"; there was too much uncertainty to induce them to remain in the service. These are men with relatively few years in the service; they are young men who have been trained at a cost of thousands of dollars. Yet they have not confidence enough in the service to remain in it. There is something fundamentally wrong when numbers of men leave the service, be it the army, the air force or the navy.
I have one particular question in this connection. We would like to hear a fuller explanation from the minister than was given in the question period yesterday, and we want more than what seemed to be a script of apology that was given by some correspondent, on behalf of the navy, last night over the news system.
The second point I make is on behalf of the hon. member for Oxford, and it is a matter into which I should like the minister to inquire because something is fundamentally wrong. I should like to refer to question 1,745 and parliamentary return No. 2,572, dealing with four questions asked by the hon. member for Oxford concerning a certain Department of National Defence vehicle bearing Ontario licence plate number 27120F and its performance between the hours of 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. on Monday, August 17, 1964. The hon. member for Oxford asked what the vehicle was doing at

those times, under whose charge it was, and so on. The answer to the second of his questions was:
This vehicle was assigned to and under the control of a member of the privy council office, assigned as office manager in the secretariat of the third commonwealth education conference at the time in question.
The answer to the third question was as follows:
Two assignments were carried out during the hours of 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m.-
Then (a) is not pertinent because it concerns a trip to the queen's printer in Hull. The answer continues:
(b) The driver, accompanied by a messenger, proceeded to a local business establishment to obtain supplies for the commonwealth education conference.
This is the official reply given to the hon. member for Oxford. He cannot be here today but he tells me that he was an eye witness and saw this vehicle at 11.15 a.m. outside the national Liberal headquarters on Cooper street, and certain personnel were removing boxes and parcels of papers or documents, in any event stationery of some kind-pamphlets or something of that nature. These documents were loaded into this army vehicle at precisely 11.15 a.m. I am wondering whether the euphemistic phrase "a local business establishment" has been substituted for the exact establishment. It would be interesting to know why this vehicle which was assigned to an officer in the privy council office would call at the national Liberal headquarters to take documents from that location to whatever destination they were taken.
I would ask the minister to look into this matter very carefully because I do not think we can stand army vehicles being used for the transportation of party literature or documents from any location at all. I do not think the minister would tolerate this if he knew about it, and I should like him to look into it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, on the first question raised, as I said yesterday there are many factors in respect to re-engagement rates and I believe it is the case that they are not satisfactory. One of the factors, probably the most important factor of all, is the question of opportunities in the civilian economy. It just happens that there are many opportunities at very good salaries and wages for highly trained technical personnel, and consequently when terms of re-engagement are considered and opportunities are available in private life which pay more money with
Supply-National Defence equal security it is not unnatural that a number of people take advantage of the situation and go to other employment. So that you will find if you plot re-engagement rates over a long period of time that there is a direct correlation here, and probably the most important factor is the opportunities existing in the civilian economy. Particularly does this apply to technical personnel-electricians, electronic engineers, and so on-who are in most short supply.
There are also other factors affecting the situation. It is difficult to gauge the proportion of one factor to another because it is a subjective analysis, but certainly in the Halifax area housing is an important consideration and has been for a number of years. There is inadequate housing for naval personnel, particularly at rates that ratings can afford. Consequently this has a direct bearing on any decision they might make to go into civilian employment as against remaining in the Royal Canadian Navy. I have no doubt that the reorganization which is taking place is another factor, and this is inevitable. We have made no attempt to hide the fact that in a major reorganization of the kind now in process you cannot avoid some dislocation and uncertainty. I think this is regrettable but it is the fact; you cannot achieve what we are trying to achieve without there being an element of uncertainty, at least for a period of time.
Having said that I again reassure the hon. gentleman and the committee that every effort will be made to overcome as many factors as can be overcome. The shipbuilding program, which may have some bearing on the sense of insecurity which members of the navy may feel, will be announced as soon as we can get governmental approval.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will it be destroyers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The type will be announced in due course. The housing situation is being reviewed at the moment to see whether something can be done in that area. I am sure that the civilian employment situation is something which hon. members will applaud -the fact there are opportunities available in the civilian economy. But this means that we have to compete with and offer more than those opportunities.
With respect to the question of uncertainty we will make every effort to end this uncertainty, or as much of it as we can, as early as we can; it is a matter under active study. I agree with my hon. friend this is a matter of concern, but I say again it is not a new

Supply-National Defence problem. However, it is one we must face, and every reasonable step will be taken to overcome the shortage.
In respect to those particular ships which have been put in alongside, this is not a matter of too great importance, because as my hon. friend knows they do not add very much to our operational capability. They are old and long in the tooth. But that does not mean that we must not take every step to see there are crews available for our first line fighting ships in the future.
With respect to the second point raised, about the car, I am as surprised as is the hon. gentleman. I can assure him that if his allegation is true, and I certainly do not doubt the word of an hon. member, I not only do not condone it but I will issue instructions that it must not happen again. I was informed that this car was under the control of the privy council office. I think it is one permanently assigned to that office. I am afraid I cannot give any more satisfactory explanation than that at the present time, but I will undertake to look into this question and if any instruction is necessary I will see it is given.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, there are a considerable number of matters I should have liked to go into in detail, but in the very few minutes remaining it is obviously impossible to do so. Therefore I will briefly touch on two or three.
The minister has just told us something about the difficulties involved in maintaining a sufficient number of technical personnel as far as the navy is concerned. During the past year or so I have expressed concern on a number of occasions about what has been an apparent decline in the efficiency and effectiveness of our naval forces. Again only yesterday an announcement was made that six more naval vessels are being tied up at Halifax because of an inability to man them with technical personnel. I think this is conclusive proof of the extremely serious decline which has taken place in our naval strength and effectiveness.
Only a little more than two years ago, at the time of the Cuban crisis, all six of those vessels now tied up were at sea, plus nine other vessels which have since been taken out of commission. Those vessels were all crewed at that time with sufficient technical and other personnel to enable them to carry out their jobs. The minister is shaking his head, indicating that is not the case. I was the minister at the time and received good


reports about all of these ships. I am willing to admit that there has always been some shortage of technical personnel, but we had a sufficient number of men to man those ships and enable them to carry out their tasks effectively. I do not think there is a senior officer now in the navy who will say anything else.
In two years time we find that over 16 ships, which were manned two years ago, at sea and prepared to do whatever was required in the event the Cuban crisis developed as it was feared it would at one time, cannot now be manned and are being tied up. The excuses given by the minister as to the difficulty involved in maintaining a sufficient number of personnel are inadequate. They are excuses which will not hold water.
The basic reason for this drop in the number of technical personnel, and I think the minister is aware of this, is the decline in morale in the navy resulting from the discouraging things this government has done. One of the most important of those discouragements is the cancellation of the shipbuilding program and the failure, at least to this date, on the part of the government to replace that program. The minister has spoken of a shipbuilding program, but he has been speaking along those lines for several months, and nothing has come of it. If the minister does have a shipbuilding program in mind, the time is long overdue for an announcement so that the program can get under way. After a decision has been made it will take four or five years to put the ships into operation at sea. The time lag in this regard is already serious, but the excuses given by the minister relating to the lack of technical personnel are inadequate.
The housing problem, to which he referred, is no worse now than it was two, three or four years ago, and in fact I suspect it is better now than it was at that time. The opportunities for employment in civilian occupations has been a factor in this regard throughout the time period I mentioned. No real change has taken place in that regard. The real change which has taken place is the result of what the government has done or failed to do. This has been discouraging to naval personnel and has broken down their morale, causing the personnel to feel that there is little use in continuing in the navy because there will likely be no future for them, and that they had better get out while the getting is good. That is exactly what has been happening.

I want to make one last plea to the minister to make some changes in the announced plan as far as reserve forces are concerned, and to continue to maintain some of the squadrons and companies in rural areas, which have throughout our history been among the best sources for militia men. It is essential that these units continue in operation in those areas, and I might mention particularly the Hastings-Prince Edward regiment, whose outside companies are disappearing, and the New Brunswick Hussars, which was the best armoured militia regiment for a number of years. I doubt very much whether any money will be saved by doing away with these detached companies and squadrons, and I make one last plea to the minister to reconsider some of these cuts, and to maintain some of these rural units and companies.
One other matter I should like to deal with relates to a return which I received, dated October 28. My question had been on the order paper for some three months, and was related to the number of officers of the rank of commodore and above in the navy, and officers with similar ranks in other forces that have ceased to be members of the permanent force, or have been given notice that they would be retired, or who have sent in their resignations. In each case I asked for the name of the officer, the appointment held and, where applicable, the number of years and months the officer would have to serve until normal retirement age. In each case I asked that an indication be given as to whether the officer retired on reaching normal retirement age, whether the officer put in a resignation on his own volition, or whether he was asked to retire.
I must complain bitterly about the return I received in this regard, Mr. Chairman, because it is a false return. The retirement age of a lieutenant colonel is laid down as 51 years of age; of a full colonel, 53 years of age; of a brigadier and major general, 55 years of age. However in this return, and I am not going to take the time to read it all, the majority of officers retired below the full age of 55; yet under the heading "Remarks" appears the notation that they were normal retirements. One air commodore retired at age 53, which is two years earlier than normal retirement age. Yet under the remarks appears the notation that this is a normal retirement and there was no length of time left until normal retirement age, and no extra payment made. There is no indication as to whether this was a voluntary retirement or whether the officer was asked to retire.
Supply-National Defence
Another air commodore, who was chief of telecommunications, retired at age 53, and in this case the notation is that it was a normal retirement.
Another air commodore retired at age 51, four years before normal retirement age, and the notation in this case is that it was a normal retirement. He was the deputy commander 29 region NORAD.
Another air commodore retired at age 52, and the notation is that this was a normal retirement. I have just given a few examples to indicate that this is not a correct return. If the officers had retired at normal retirement age, they would have retired at age 55, and if they retired younger than that, there should have been some notation as to the number of years still to be served until normal retirement age, and whether the officers retired voluntarily or as the result of a request. I object strenuously to this kind of incorrect information being provided to members of parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether I may be permitted to answer that allegation at once. First of all, may I just say one further word in respect of naval technical personnel. For some time, when the hon. member was minister and since then, ships have been manned by taking naval technical personnel off ships, as soon as they tie up for refitting, and putting them into another crew on a ship on its way out to sea. This has created a serious condition of overwork for naval technical personnel. It has contributed also to a considerable decline in morale amongst them.
Now, the new cyclical use of ships crews eliminates that practice. This will improve morale, but at the same time it means that we do not overwork the technical personnel to the extent that they have been overworked in the past. Consequently more technical personnel are required in order to keep the ships operating. I think my hon. friend will appreciate this.
In respect of his allegation that the information contained in the return is incorrect or false, this is not right and I deny both allegations. The information given was correct. The question asked for information as to the names of all officers of brigadier or equivalent rank who, since January 1, 1964, have ceased to be members of the permanent force or have been given notice that they would be retired or have sent in their resignations. In each case, the name of the officer was asked for, the appointment held by him, his age and where applicable the number of

Supply-National Defence years and months to go to normal retirement age. Information was asked also as to whether each officer retired on reaching normal retirement age, put in his resignation of his own volition or was asked to retire.
In answer to this question, information was given as to name, rank, age, appointment, length of time to normal retirement and remarks, that is normal retirement by notice of voluntary retirement. The age given was the age of the officer at the time the return was prepared. The length of time to normal retirement age was interpreted as the time to go between actual retirement date and the date at which the officer would reach compulsory retirement age.
An example given by the hon. gentleman, I do not think he named him, was that of Air Commodore Timmerman. He will reach compulsory retirement age on February 12, 1966. He will start his retirement leave on August 19, 1965. He was informed to this effect on June 1, 1964. It is normal practice in the Royal Canadian Air Force to notify, whenever possible, all officers from 12 to 14 months prior to the date of terminal leave.
The other relevant point is that air commodores on the general list of air crew are retired at the age of 53, whereas air commodores and brigadiers on the other lists are retired at the age of 55. This rule has been in effect for a number of years. I can give the hon. gentleman, if he wishes, the names of four air commodores who were retired at the age of 53 when he was a minister. I do not know if he wants me to put those names on the record or just to send them to him. In February, 1961; in January, 1962; in May, 1961, and in February 1962, four air commodores of the pilot branch were retired at the age of 53. They, too, would have been given notice many months in advance when they were 52 or 51, depending on the length of notice the Royal Canadian Air Force had given them. This return, therefore, is correct in that detail. It is not misleading and there was no attempt whatever, nor was there in fact, any misrepresentation with regard to it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not accept that explanation as being correct in these cases. As I say, the normal retirement age is 55 for all these people, and to say that a man is given notice when he is going to be retired after six months leave and then take this case which was mentioned at age 51 and try to have it appear as a normal retirement, I do not believe stands up. I asked for the ages of these people. I think it is quite clear that the age that was required

was the age when the man retired. To put another interpretation upon it is to try to twist the sense of the question and twist the information which was required, out of context. In my view, this is an incorrect return.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the question of the Canadian militia. I will try to be brief. It is only because of the pressure of time that the minister is fortunate enough to escape a thorough discussion of his estimates which should normally take about three days. We have had just one day on them. I had hoped that the militia alone would have been the subject of a full discussion because it is an important branch of the service in Canada. I expected there would be some criticism of the minister's action with regard to the Canadian militia. The hon. member for Calgary North, when he was speaking, expressed the hope the minister would take another look at what he is doing to the reserve forces of Canada.
I do not expect the minister will take another look. In the over a year and a half that we have been dealing with him, I do not know of any suggestion from our side of the house which he has adopted. He has obstinately refused to change his position. This is most unfortunate. There is some value in getting advice from all sides of this house. I suggest that the minister should review his action with regard to the militia, but I hold out no hope to militiamen across this country, as I have told several of them, that he will do that. His record with regard to the militia is not good, nor is the record of the party he represents. I speak from the experience of 15 years of service in the militia. I know what I am talking about in this regard.
I know how desperately the militia, in the interwar years, was in need of assistance and how niggardly was the response to that need, particularly in the years 1935 onward when it was obvious to everybody who had any sense at all that we were facing an outbreak of war. I am surprised that the minister has dealt with the Canadian militia so carelessly. When we were dealing with the estimates before, I mentioned that the minister had said not one word about the Canadian militia. It was a subject uppermost in the minds of the members of this house, and uppermost in the minds of the militia across Canada. There was not a word, not even a word of thanks to the regiments that were being disbanded. I think that this is not right.
Surely, the government of this country has a duty to people who will give militia serv-

ice. It is not an easy service. People have to sign on in the full knowledge that, having signed on for service in the militia or in any reserve unit in this country, they are obligated to go wherever trouble occurs, to stand up and be counted or be shot at. It is a serious decision that men make when they enter the militia of this country. It is not just a casual occupation. It is not a social club, as I have been told by some people. I have never known that in all the years I served in the militia. There was not one word of thanks from this government to regiments that are being disbanded. Almost worse than that, there has been a massive silence across this country with regard to these changes in the militia; there has been indifference and apathy.
I have been shocked at the response in Canada to the changes made in the militia regiments, the changes that will occur in cities and towns because of the disbandment of regiments. Even those people who do such a good job from day to day disseminating news and editorial comment have published nothing in their papers but obituary notices concerning regiments being disbanded. In the newspapers and magazines I have not seen any series of articles dealing with the importance of the militia to Canada and the history of the militia. The history of the Canadian militia extends over three and a half centuries. It is an honourable one which should be known to everybody, and as Canada is approaching the 20 million population figure the militia, rather than being reduced in size should be enlarged to give young people an opportunity to serve their country.
The minister is wiping out the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Victoria Rifles, two regiments about whom the conscience of Canada should be bothered. These were the two that went to Hong Kong on that forlorn expedi-dition that was so disastrous, and now they are being wiped out, 25 years later. If there are any two regiments that should be maintained these are they, at least so far as the present generation is concerned. Do we owe a debt of gratitude to these regiments? I say we do, and that they should be maintained in the order of battle.
By question and short answer we have dealt with the Irish Fusiliers and the Irish Rifles. It is most unfortunate that the minister has taken such a stubborn stand with regard to these two important units in the militia, with such great tradition behind them. Indeed I am surprised that the people in the cities where they are located have not impressed upon the government the mistake that 20220-674
Supply-National Defence is being made. The minister is also wiping out the Princess Louise Dragoon Guards of Ottawa, a regiment that has 92 years history behind it. I do not name all of those which are being disbanded but I say the minister is giving the militia disgraceful treatment.
He and his advisers do not appreciate the work of the militia. I wonder if he and his advisers served in the militia and put in those evening drill periods, those week ends, and summer camps year after year. Militiamen do this, though there are things of greater interest to them that they might be doing.
One recommendation of the Suttie commission that I hope will be followed deals with a publicity operation with regard to the militia, to let the people of the country know the service being rendered by thousands of young men. This has been one of the serious weaknesses in the militia. Even at this time of crisis to the militia its officers and men are prohibited from publicly stating their case. They are under military orders, and so it is left to the civilians to protest the mistake. The officers and men cannot do that. They are dependant upon their outside supporters within communities, and that is why I am now speaking on behalf of the militia.
I shall not take up any more time of the committee except to refer it, and the newspapers of the country, to a book published a few years ago by the Macmillan Company, "Canada's Soldiers 1604-1954," written by George F. G. Stanley of the Royal Military College of Canada. It gives the story of Canada's soldiers right from the beginning of the country, and deals with the importance of the militia. I conclude by reading the last paragraph in the book in which is expressed very ably the debt that we owe to Canada's militia:
For three centuries and a half Canadians have borne arms. Essentially a civilian people, an unmilitary people, they have, through historical necessity, fought to preserve their freedom and their identity. No men have fought better: no men have as quickly discarded the skills of war to return to the farms and factories of peace. During their 300 years and more, Canadian soldiers have tramped over the white snows of Canada, the quiet countryside of England, the rugged mountains of Italy, and the muddy polders of Holland; they have battled the Indians, the British, the Americans, within and on the frontiers of their own country; they have fought the Germans and Italians in Europe, and the Japanese in Asia; they have left their dead behind them from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. Canada's soldiers! They are the farmers, the traders, the mechanics, the labourers, the doctors, lawyers, and teachers of peacetime. Very few of them have ever been professional soldiers.
But, militiaman and regular, they have carried the torch of Canada's military tradition. A brave buckskin, the white, the red and the khaki

Supply-National Defence
tunics. Their deeds are our history; their names are forgotten, but their achievements are commemorated in the very existence of Canada as a nation. This military story of Canada is a bold and mighty thing, and yet it is a bald tale and unadorned, a tale of those simple virtues of courage, endurance and self-sacrifice which war, for all its horrors and wanton destruction, seems to evoke in men inspired by a common sense of purpose. Perhaps out of this comradeship of arms, this memory of heroic past, will some day come that sense of inward unity which is born of perils shared and victories won.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I would like to congratulate the hon. members for Calgary North and Winnipeg South Centre on coming to the aid of the militia. It seems ironic that at this season, long dedicated to remembrance of the fallen, and indeed within a few days of the date solemn to their memory, which we celebrated at our cenotaphs, that one should be obliged to speak in defence of the traditions for which these men stood, and for the facilities and system that made their service possible. I believe it is an accurate statement now, as it has been for many years past, that Canada's defence is based on this hypothesis: a small but intensively trained regular army acting as an instructional cadre to the citizen-soldiers who form a well-trained and competent militia, which is brought quickly to full strength and training in time of war.
Modern weapons and their technology have complicated the soldiers' equipment and drills, but surely the will and the skill to defend is still the most important defence and deterrent the nation possesses. How can we foster these talents without a continuous attention to and emphasis upon the proper training of our youth within their various localities and in conjunction with home and school, as a healthy and normal activity?
Surely all will agree that for many years past our local militia units and the armouries in which they train have amply illustrated and stood for that will and that skill. Indeed they have been our only means of translating the nation's determination to action in the hard shock of war. Now I am given to understand that in my own constituency two militia units, those at Picton and at Napanee, are to be disbanded and if I interpret the verdict correctly their respective armouries are to be disposed of, with the likelihood that these valuable buildings will be torn down and sold to the highest bidders. I think they are worthy of a better fate than that. These units, their influence and their quarters, are simply to disappear. Is that true, Mr. Chairman?
It is well recognized that military reorganization is necessary from time to time, that

some units must merge with others or that units must change from one corps to another and be designated to other tasks. No one would dispute this. There would be no serious disruption if this were the case. What has caused the storm of protest is the appalling news that not only are the units to be disbanded but that the very armouries are to go as well. I have received 150 letters from the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox protesting against this measure taken by the present government-150 letters from ordinary people across the riding whose sons, yes and whose daughters, have made use of the training afforded by these two installations for the past 50 years in Picton and Napanee. The tragic news is not only that the units are to be disbanded but that the armouries are to go as well.
I wonder whether the full implications of this policy are really understood by all members of this committee-whether they can really appreciate what this will mean to small communities where communal activity of many kinds, civilian as well as military, centers around these noble and historic buildings? In cities, where a number of military formations exist, each with a headquarters to house it, an armoury might be removed without greatly disturbing the over-all efficiency of training and the life of the society, but to a small and largely rural community it is a disaster of no small proportions. The fact is that the rural communities contribute the greatest military potential per capita of any part of the country. Though people fail to realize it, no matter what condition may exist, and no matter what the reasons behind the decision may have been, if these armouries are destroyed, military training and all that it means is forever destroyed with them. I say to the minister: if he destroys the volunteer will to defend this country he will have to establish another system in its place in case of emergency, possibly conscription; and hon. members know how distasteful conscription is to certain parts of this country. He would do better to maintain the militia force, which has been of such value to this country in the past. If the armouries are destroyed, military training and all it means is forever gone. It is a dead issue and it cannot be revived.
The most serious aspect of this is the fact that the tradition of voluntary military service vanishes with it. Let there be no mistake: The voluntary participation by our young men in military service-the characteristic feature of Canadian defence-starts first in

these small towns, in these armouries across the land. If this spirit does not start with the volunteers it will not exist on the day war is declared. What will happen to these young men who are now engaged in military training, if present plans are carried out? On my last visit as a spectator on training night at Napanee armoury I counted a total of 34 young men of all ranks on parade. That was on November 5, one of the last drills being held by the 47th medium battery artillery R.C.A., Napanee. I submit that 34 men out to drill on a mid-week evening represents a very good turnout for a town of that size.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Pursuant to the special order passed by this house on November 18 last it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every vote outstanding in committee of supply-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order. I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that the terms of the order as drafted and as they appear in Votes and Proceedings indicate that not later than November 27 all main estimates and supplementary estimates A, B and C shall be dealt with as well as the necessary appropriations bill at all stages. There is no time indicated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I put it to Your Honour that certain items in the main estimates have not been dealt with. There is a mandatory order which says they shall be dealt with and I put it to you, in the light of the progress which has been made-I understand certain items may be withdrawn-that in half an hour or so the whole of the estimates and the appropriation bill could be dealt with. But in any event I do suggest to you that the wording of the order which is an order to this house, would supersede standing orders. There is no time limit, except for the date and, therefore, the hour of six o'clock set for the termination of our business in the standing orders would not govern our proceedings today.
There is a further point. The order directs the committee to deal with all the main estimates and supplementary estimates. If Your Honour rules that the discussion shall now cease, I put it to you that we are disregarding the order inasmuch as we shall not have dealt with the items, which will not even have been called. The list which is before Your Honour will not be dealt with because there are still a few items left. I put it to Your Honour that there is an order of the house to deal with this particular business, and that this supersedes any standing order. Therefore 20220-674i
Supply-National Defence
I would suggest to Your Honour that we carry on so that we can complete the business that is before this house, by order of the house.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I believe that the hon. member who has been in the past Speaker of the house and who has just resumed his seat, is wrong.
It is true that we agreed on November 27 as to the date for concluding the debate on the estimates, but normally the sitting on that day ends at six o'clock.
Standing order 6, paragraph 4, says: [Text]
When it is provided in any standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.

What we have to do now is to vote the items and, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, you cannot but maintain the decision that is before you.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two here. I think it was the understanding that we were going to make an honest effort, as a bunch of parliamentarians, to get the job done. I think we could go on for half an hour, as has been suggested, and get these items passed. I do not believe it will take us all night to do the job. Furthermore, if we did complete these estimates it would be some evidence to the country that we can discipline ourselves and get the work through this house. I suggest we should not hold up the business on technicalities. The spirit of this motion was that we would finish these items tonight. We decided that this would be done. I say, therefore, let us continue for a while and get the job done. There may be a few remarks to be made by some hon. members; let us not deny them this opportunity to say a few words. I think we should sit for half an hour or an hour and there would not be any problem at all. I do not believe we should be technical in this regard.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the order, it is an order of the house made last Wednesday and becomes one of the many orders in the rule book. I suggest that the order has to be read in conjunction with the order setting the hours of sitting, and the order setting the hours of sitting deals with the hour of adjournment on Friday. Also, Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Defence Chairman, standing order 6(4) sets out very clearly the duty of the chairman at that point in the proceedings. Therefore the situation, as I see it, is that it is clear under the rules that the obligation of the Chair at six o'clock is to put every question required to complete the whole business in this connection. Having said that, and if it is agreed that this is the correct position under the rules, I am not going to insist that it is now six o'clock; and if it is 30 minutes to six o'clock-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is 25 minutes to six o'clock.


George James McIlraith: If it is 25 minutes to six o'clock now, that is quite agreeable to me. But I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about my position as to the order of the house, namely that it should be carried out and that the position is clear, if read in conjunction with the other orders. Having taken that position, Mr. Chairman, I am quite agreeable to its now being 25 minutes to six o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I think the record had better be clear for the purpose of any future reference in a situation like this. I do not accept the statement of the minister that standing order 6(4) is applicable under the present circumstances at all. Just because the special order of the house of November 18 was not as accurately drawn as it should have been, he cannot now say that it has to be read in conjunction with standing order 6(4), which talks about standing orders. This is a special order of the house with which we are dealing, and it says these items will be dealt with. It also says "November 27", and there is no terminal hour in that special order. If we are of the opinion that some of the items should be discussed at greater length, there is nothing to prevent our going on for another two or three hours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I believe we cannot be placed under any restriction by the minister.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Arguments have
been submitted by hon. members in connection with the interpretation of the order with which the Chair and the members of the committee have to comply. I am afraid that I cannot in any way accept the contention of the hon. member for Edmonton West to the effect that a day means any hour of the

day. The order that has been made has the effect of a standing order-the hon. member knows that very well

and it has to be interpreted in the light of all other standing orders. According to our standing orders, this day is a day that ends at six o'clock. This is definitely the opinion of the Chair.
On the other hand, I quite appreciate that hon. members may wish to continue beyond the hour of six o'clock. However, the ruling of the Chair is that we have an order of the house, and the order is that the question on all votes should be put at six o'clock. This is an order of the house, and for that reason requires the unanimous consent of the house to be dispensed with. My suggestion to hon. members is that if there is not unanimous consent to our continuing the proceeding after six o'clock, the Chair has no alternative but to put before the committee for approval the question on those matters that are still unfinished.


Harold Edward Winch: Let us give unanimous consent now.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not give that consent, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: The question is on vote No. 1-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question before Your Honour proceeds. We are placed in this position. Your Honour is insisting that because unanimous consent was not given by the government side of the house each vote remaining uncalled should be called, there shall be no discussion on those votes and closure will be applied.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is to this, sir, that I object.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We made an agreement on November 18 setting an allocation of time, by way of trial, on the main estimates, and no one could foresee just how that would work out. It has so happened that on Tuesday of this week we sat through the supper hour except for 20 minutes, we sat late on Monday night and on Tuesday night; and today, by agreement-which we did not have to give-we sat through the lunch hour. We have co-operated with the government to that extent, and now the government is saying that the remaining estimates must be

forced through this house without the opportunity for us to say anything on them.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am still on a point of order and I am not yielding the floor to the hon. gentleman who has refused to give unanimous consent.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I want to explain why.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He wants to impose closure and use the big club, and we are not going to subject ourselves to it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You can shout all you like but I have the floor. I am suggesting we have played our full part in this. The suggestion to allocate time and the seven days came from me. We have co-operated by sitting these extra hours after ten o'clock and during the lunch and supper hours. I suggest to the government let them do the same thing and give us the opportunity, if we so desire, to discuss the estimates which have not yet been discussed, because we are still dealing with some millions of dollars.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, let me make one point quite clear. The hon. member referred to using a club, and I think after reading Hansard he might wish he had not said that. There is an order of the house in this regard. What he said about his originating the suggestion is quite correct. But it is not a question of an agreement; an order of the house was made by agreement. When requests were made to sit extra hours on my part, on some occasions the committee agreed and on other occasions representatives from the hon. gentleman's party did not agree. I think that was the case last night. On one occasion I think it was an hon. member in the N.D.P. who did not agree. In any event I think the experiment has been interesting, useful and a proper experiment. I do not recede from the stand I take on the interpretation of the rules, but if it is not six o'clock now I am happy to have some agreement to sit a little longer as far as I am concerned.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I would point out that this is an experiment in disciplining this house. Surely we are not going to see the spectacle, after we have tried to co-operate with the government, of the government not keeping its own members in control so that we can get cooperation from the other side of the house.
Supply-National Defence The situation is as plain as anything to anybody. We were co-operating with the house first to get the estimates passed, so we would not see the spectacle of having a flag debate extending to heaven knows when, and then having to go into interim supply in the new year. We now find we do not get unanimous consent from someone on the government side who is failing to co-operate with the house as a whole. If the hon. member wants to go home, let him go home, but let us continue with the business in a way that is in the spirit of the agreement we came to.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
I was called "a trained seal" this afternoon because I spoke to a member on the other side. I do not intend to consider myself a trained seal. We have rights, standing orders.
A house order has been issued to the effect that we should terminate our work at six o'clock and, consequently, we should abide by it.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) now talks of closure, while we are simply asking that the standing orders be respected.
I claim that no one has the right to speak as he has just done, saying "If the hon. member wants to go home, let him go." That is not the point. I want to comply with our standing orders which provide for adjournment at six o'clock.
Mr. Chairman, I ask you to declare that it is six o'clock.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Well, I am wondering whether much can be served by hearing the hon. member on the point of order. The point of order was originally raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West and views have been expressed by different members. I have listened to both sides and I do not think any hon. member assailed the interpretation of the rules made by the Chair. From my interpretation of them it would need unanimous consent of the committee to sit beyond six o'clock. If there is not unanimous consent obviously we cannot continue.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I do not agree with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since this party has not yet had a spokesman on this

Supply-National Defence matter I wonder whether I might say a brief word on the point of order. Hon. members will not he surprised if I say that I agree with the interpretation the Chair has placed on the position in which we find ourselves. But I also want to say that I was glad the house leader took the position he did, namely that notwithstanding the rules he thought we should go on.
Since some secrets have already been disclosed I want to confirm that it was the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who proposed at the house leaders' meeting that we have this seven day experiment in time allocation and I commend him for that. I now make a personal appeal to the hon. member for Hull. Like him I am concerned about the rules of the house. I think this is an important experiment we are making in parliamentary procedure. It will be a shame if a bad taste is left at the end of our first allocation of time on estimates, and in the interests of good parliamentary procedure and good will in this house I ask the hon. member for Hull whether he will give his consent to sitting till, say, seven o'clock-six o'clock Winnipeg time-to see whether we can have any discussion on the estimates that is desired.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I do not accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He talks of closure with only 12 Conservative members left in the house, and there were only 30 when the vote was taken this afternoon, and that is after four days' discussion. Time has expired.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on vote No. 1.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member cannot speak on vote No. 1. My interpretation of the rules is that each vote has to be called. The hon. member can vote against it if he wishes, but it would certainly be contrary to the interpretation I have given to the rules if we have debate on each single vote which comes before the committee, unless of course the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the committee to be heard and for the committee to proceed beyond six o'clock.


Alexis Pierre Caron: No.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a further appeal in this regard to the members of the committee.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is no use.


John Angus MacLean: The committee has voluntarily set a limit on the time it proposes to spend on estimates. We are fulfilling the spirit of that undertaking to have the estimates completed today. When I was first a member of this house it was common for unanimous consent to be given to complete any items we were considering, perhaps even a department. The committee frequently sat until at least midnight and occasionally later. Surely the government side will not insist on the letter of the law, even if the interpretation put on it is correct, which I am not questioning at all. Surely the government will agree to a few minutes. As far as I understand it, it is not the intention to have prolonged discussion on any of the remaining items, but surely we can allot ourselves two or three minutes on each one and proceed in an orderly fashion.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I would pair with the hon. member for Hull if he wants to get out.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The hon. member can get out if he wants; I will stay here and do not want to go anywhere else.


William Arnold Peters: Then will you read the votes, Mr. Chairman?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian army-
20. Operation and maintenance including grants of $1,800,000 to the town of Oromocto and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act and section 11 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act and subject to the approval of treasury board, to spend revenues received from the sale of surplus materials, supplies and equipment, $425,894,000.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to speak on this item, the Canadian army?


Lucien Lamoureux: The special order made by the order does not permit it unless the hon. member has unanimous consent.


Alexis Pierre Caron: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Closure by the Grits.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
20a. Operation and maintenance and construction for acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $349,000.
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you would read the full text of the items.


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member has the text before him.


Edward Nasserden: I think it is very important *that this be put on the record.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
35b. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $1,000,000.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, now that we have passed the defence estimates surely we can dispense with the reading of the other items.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I am quite agreeable to that suggestion, and I certainly did not intend to place an extra burden on the chairman today but I did want to indicate what could happen when members want to be unreasonable, as have hon. members across the way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: You be quiet over there or we will call for a division on each one of them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Telecommunications and electronics-
50c. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration ol the Radio Act and regulations-To extend the purpose of vote 50 of the main estimates, 1964-65, to include, in the case of a licence to establish and operate a new station performing a commercial broadcasting receiving service, or the amendment of a licence to establish and operate a station performing a commercial broadcasting receiving service to permit such station to receive signals from broadcasting stations other than those specified in such licence, authority to specify in any such licence the broadcasting stations from which the licensed station may receive signals, where the Minister of Transport is satisfied, having regard to any recommendation which may be made by the board of broadcast governors in that behalf after such public hearing, if any, as the board deems necessary, that the specification therein of such broadcasting stations is unlikely to inhibit the development of television broadcasting services performed by stations in Canada established or likely to be established to serve any area that includes in whole or in part the area that is served or that is proposed to be served by the licensed station, $1.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, I will ask the committee for leave to withdraw this item, because it would be quite wrong, since it is controversial, to ask parliament to pass it without debate in view of the fact it is new legislation. I would ask permission to withdraw it and to have the necessary consequential changes made in the bill. With permission I will be happy to do so, because I think it would be quite wrong to pass it without debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item 50c withdrawn.
Ways and Means
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
['Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?']
George James McIlraith: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, the sum of $1,053,832,908.69, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Mcllraiih (for Mr. Gordon) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-140, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1965.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-
['Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, the sum of $1,053,832,908.69, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: Are copies of the bill available?


George James McIlraith: Yes, a copy of the bill is available.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we have copies of the bill before we rush through things like this? There is nothing in the rules preventing us from having a copy of the bill, is there?


George James McIlraith: A copy of the bill is available.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A to D inclusive agreed to.
On the title:
['A copy of the bill is available.']
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure that this one item has been omitted from the bill.


George James McIlraith: Yes, the bill has been
amended. I had that done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is why I asked to see the bill-and it has been done.


George James McIlraith: I had that done in anticipation an hour or two ago, and this is a corrected bill.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and read the third time and passed.
It being thirty eight minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed [The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Legal and other services-
5. Combines Investigation Act-Administration, $719,000.
Correctional services-
10. Administration, operation and maintenance including compensation to discharged inmates permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $24,008,700.
12a. Payment in the current and subsequent fiscal years of pensions in respect of the late W. C. Wentworth, J. E. R. J. Tellier, J. H. Joyn-son, M. E. Jenkin and R. E. Farrell, all former penitentiary officers who were killed while on duty, to commence (a) in the case of the late W. C. Wentworth and J. E. R. J. Tellier as of the date of the death of the late W. C. Wentworth and J. E. R. J. Tellier, respectively, and (b) in the case of the death of the late J. H. Joynson, M. E. Jenkin and R. E. Farrell as of April 1, 1964, and to be paid at the same rates as if each of the aforementioned deceased was, immediately prior to his death, a person described in subsection (1) of section 27 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act holding the rank of inspector in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police but (c) in the current fiscal year, each of those rates shall be reduced by the appropriate rate, as determined by the treasury board, at which a benefit payable at an annual or monthly rate has been and is being paid pursuant to the Government Employees Compensation Act, chapter 11 of the statutes of 1914, the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1926-27 and the Appropriation Act No. 5, 1959, as the case may be, and (d) in each subsequent fiscal year, no amount shall be paid in respect of each of the aforementioned deceased pursuant to the Government Employees Compensation Act, chapter 11 of the statutes of 1914, the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1926-27 and the Appropriation Act No. 5. 1959; additional amount required for 1964-65, $10,840.
13b. Payment in the current and subsequent fiscal years of a pension in respect of the late E. J. Masterton, a former penitentiary officer who was killed while on duty, to commence as of the date of his death, and to be paid at the same rate as if deceased was, immediately prior to his death, a person described in subsection (1) of section 27 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act holding the rank of inspector in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but in the current fiscal year the rate shall be reduced by the appropriate rate, as determined by the treasury board, at which a benefit payable at an annual or monthly rate has been and is being paid pursuant to the Government Employees Compensation Act, and in each subsequent fiscal year no amount shall be paid in respect of the aforementioned deceased pursuant to the Government Employees Compensation Act; amount required for 1964-65, $644.
15. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $16,110,000.

[Stage Direction]
National police services, federal law enforcement duties and provincial and municipal policing under contract-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants as detailed in the estimates and pensions to families of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have lost their lives while on duty, $60,554,894.
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,811,000.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
Members of the Senate-
1. Allowance in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the Senate, $3,000.
5. General administration, $932,600.
House of Commons-
Members of the House of Commons-
10. Allowances in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and in lieu of apartments to the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons; allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $6,500.
15. Expenses of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group, of delegates attending other inter-parliamentary conferences, expenses connected with visits of delegates from other legislatures, Canada's fee for membership in the interparliamentary union, Canada's share of the expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association including subscriptions to publications of the association, and a grant of $19,000 to the Canadian North Atlantic Treaty Organization parliamentary association, $62,720.
20. General administration. $4,266,700.
Library of parliament-
25. General administration, $399,700.

[Stage Direction]
B-Atlantic development board-
20. Administration and operation, $508,300.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $12,114,500.
Accommodation services-
5. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds including the W. Clifford Clark memorial centre in Ottawa, the acquisition of office furniture and furnishings for government departments and authority to provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates, $55,284,400.
10. Acquisition of equipment and furnishings other than office furnishings, $1,454,000.
15. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $29,967,000.
15a. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for public buildings (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $665,000.

Harbours and rivers engineering services-
20. Operation and maintenance, $6,602,900.
25. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $1,056,100.
30. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for harbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $20,821,000.
30a. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $1,700,000.
Roads, bridges and other engineering services- 35. Operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the operating expenses of the New Westminster bridge, $321,800.
35a. Operation and maintenance, $30,000.
40. International, interprovincial and other bridges and related works listed in the details of the estimates, provided that the amount within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects may be increased or decreased subject to the approval of treasury board, $2,870,000.
45. Northwest highway	system-maintenance,
operation and reconstruction, $10,000,000.
Trans-Canada highway-
50. Construction through national parks, $307,000. Testing laboratories-
55. Operation and maintenance, $1,079,000.
B-National capital commission-
60. Operation and maintenance, general administration and interest charges on outstanding loans that were made for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, $5,420,000.
65. Payment to the national capital fund, $4,500,000.
68a. To authorize the disposition and acquisition hereafter of property by the national capital commission in accordance with orders in council P.C. 2476 dated October 4, 1938, P.C. 1662 dated June 29, 1939, P.C. 5209 dated January 5, 1948, P.C. 639 dated February 4, 1952, P.C. 3376 dated June 23,	1952, P.C. 1953-95 dated January 22,
1953, P.C. 1953-277 dated February 26, 1953, P.C.
1957- 722 dated May 27, 1957, P.C. 1958-241 dated February 11, 1958, P.C. 1958-923 dated June 28, 1958, P.C. 1958-1445 dated October 22, 1958, P.C.
1958-	9/1740 dated December 29, 1958, and P.C. 1959106 dated January 29, 1959, and all acquisition and disposition of property prior hereto by the national capital commission or federal district commission in accordance with the said orders in council is hereby ratified and confirmed, $1.
C-Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition-
70. Toward federal share of the cost of construction of an ice control structure, $4,000,000. 20220-675
Supply-Items Passed
Loans, investments and advances-
National capital commission-
L35. Loans to the national capital commission in accordance with section 16 of the National Capital Act for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, excluding property being acquired for the purpose of establishing what is commonly referred to as the "Green-belt", $9,700,000.

[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise-
1. General administration, operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from firms and individuals requiring special services, $44,388,500.
Taxation-
5. General administration and district offices, $42,703,000.
Tax appeal board-
10. Administration expenses, $149,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,381,000.
3. Construction of extension to research laboratory in Pointe Claire, Quebec, for use by the pulp and paper research institute of Canada, $600,000.
5. Contributions to the provinces in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the details of estimates, $7,910,000.
5a. Contributions to the provinces in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the details of estimates, $500,000.
Forest research-
10. Operation and maintenance, $2,246,000.
10a. Operation and maintenance, $50,200.
15. Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $396,000.
15a. Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $97,000.
Forest entomology and pathology-
20. Operation and maintenance, $3,829,000.
25. Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $1,441,000.
25a. Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $150,000.
Forest products research-
30. Operation and maintenance, $1,224,200.
35. Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $425,500.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Marine services-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, pensions, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act and, in respect of the Canadian coastguard service, authority to make recoverable advances for transportation, stevedoring and other shipping services performed on behalf of individuals, outside agencies and other
10G68
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
governments and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $23,774,400, $38,249,400.
5a. Administration, operation and maintenance, $375,000.
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land, vessels and equipment including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions toward construction done by those bodies, $31,942,000.
10a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land, vessels and equipment including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies- To extend the purposes of vote 10 of the main estimates, 1964-65, to authorize, in respect to aids to navigation, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, the making of commitments for the current fiscal year not exceeding the total amount of $4,785,000, $1.
Railways and steamships-
15. Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1964 in respect of the following services: Newfoundland ferry and terminals; Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals; Yarmouth, N.S.-Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service, $13,132,300.
20. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land, dock and terminal facilities, and of vessels and related equipment as listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects, $8,338,700.
20a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land, dock and terminal facilities and of vessels and related equipment as listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects, $2,497,000.
25. Payments in respect of the Maritime Freight Rates Act and for supplemental pension allowances to railway employees in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $15,045,400.
Air services-
30. General administration, $6,242,300.
Civil aviation-
35. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Aeronautcs Act and regulations issued thereunder, $38,008,600.
35a. Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,568,700.
40. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment with respect to national airports (as determined by the Minister of Transport) and related facilities; contributions toward construction done by local or private authorities with respect to such airports, amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act, and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $29,418,400, $26,359,000.
45. Contributions to assist in the establishment or improvement of local airports and related facilities, payments to the other governments or international agencies that are detailed in the estimates for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, including authority to pay assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the estimated equivalent in Canadian dollars, and other grants as detailed in the estimates for the development of civil aviation, $674,900.
45a. Contributions to assist in the establishment or improvement of local airports and related facilities, $28,300.
Telecommunications and electronics-
50. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Radio Act and regulations issued thereunder and Canada's share of the costs of the international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations listed in the details o<f the estimates, $25,884,800.
55. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $10,612,000.
55a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-To extend the purposes of vote 55 of the main estimates, 1964-65, to authorize, in respect to radio aids to air and marine navigation, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, the making of commitments for the current fiscal year not exceeding the total amount of $15,270,000 and to provide a further amount of $3,147,400.
60. Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company of the difference between revenues and expenses in the operation and maintenance of telecommunication facilities as detailed in the estimates in accordance with agreements entered into with the company with the approval of the governor in council, $230,000.
Meteorological-
65. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's assessment for membership in the world meteorological organization and $100,000 for grants in aid of meteorological research in Canadian universities, $19,751,000.
70. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,600,000.
70a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-To extend the purposes of vote 70 of the main estimates, 1964-65, to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, the making of commitments for the current fiscal year not exceeding the total amount of $2,800,000, $1.
B-Air transport board-
75. Salaries and other expenses including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $704,200.
C-Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
80. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,302,900.
82. Amount to be credited to the railway grade crossing fund, in addition to the amount to be credited to the fund under the Railway Act in the current fiscal year, for the general purposes of the fund and, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to authorize an in-

crease to $33,967,000 in the commitments (in addition to any commitments in respect of which amounts are appropriated under this or any other act) that may be made in the current and subsequent fiscal years, $100,000.
84a. To provide for balance of payments to companies subject to order number 96300, dated November 17, 1958, of the board of transport commissioners for Canada in respect of the period April 1, 1963, to March 31, 1964, payable to said companies for such diminution in their aggregate gross revenues during the said period as in the opinion of the said board is attributable to such companies maintaining the rate level for freight traffic at an 8 per cent increase instead of 17 per cent as authorized by the said officer, $400,000.
84c. To provide payments to companies subject to order number 96300, dated November 17, 1958, of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada of an aggregate amount of $20,000,000 in respect of the period April 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965, to be paid in instalments at such times as may be determined by the said board for the purpose of reimbursing the said companies for such diminution in their aggregate gross revenues during the said period as in the opinion of the said board is attributable to such companies maintaining the rate level for freight traffic at an 8 per cent increase instead of 17 per cent as authorized by the said order; and to provide payments to the said companies of an aggregate amount in respect of the calendar year 1964 of $50,000,000 to be paid in instalments at such times and in accordance with such methods of allocation as may be determined by the said board for the maintenance by such companies of the rates of freight traffic at the said reduced level, $70,000,000.
D-Canadian maritime commission-
85. Administration of the commission and the degaussing of Canadian government ships and Canadian-owned merchant ships, of 2,000 gross tons to 20,000 gross tons, of Canadian registry or of United Kingdom registry if subject to re-transfer to Canadian registry under special inter-governmental arrangement, $341,900.
90. Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $8,974,680.
90a. Steamship subventions for coastal services as detailed in the estimates, $1.
95. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $28,000,000.
95a. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $4,000,000.
E-National harbours board-
100. Advances to national harbours board subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet reconstruction and capital expenditures during the calendar year 1964 as detailed in the estimates, $2,113,500.
100a. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet reconstruction and capital expenditures during the calendar year 1964 as detailed in the estimates, $1.
103a. To authorize expenditures by the national harbours board, either by itself or on behalf of or in co-operation with others, for certain purposes relating to the Canadian universal and international exhibition, Montreal, 1967, and to provide, notwithstanding sections 28 and 29 of the said 20220-675J
Supply-Items Passed
National Harbours Board Act, for an absolute grant to the board for such purposes to be credited to the national harbours board special account, $5,237,800.
103b. To authorize expenditures by the national harbours board, either by itself or on behalf of or in co-operation with others, for certain purposes relating to the Canadian universal and international exhibition, Montreal, 1967 and to provide, notwithstanding sections 28 and 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, for an absolute grant to the board for such purposes to be credited to the national harbours board special account, $1,502,000.
F-St. Lawrence seaway authority-
105. Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority with the approval of the governor in council, and to authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, the disbursement by the authority of revenues derived from the operation and management of such canals and works, $2,838,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
E-National harbours board-
L39b. Loan to the Nanaimo harbour commissioners on terms and conditions approved by the governor in council to defray the cost of additional berthing facilities at Nanaimo assembly wharf, $300,000.
Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation-
L40. Loans to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation in accordance with section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $5,550,000.
L40a. Loans to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $1,522,000.
National harbours board-
L45. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1964 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Trois-Rivieres	$ 1,110,000
Montreal	 6,924,000
Vancouver	 1,847,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-Amount to be expended from replacement and other funds, $6,811,000, $3,070,000.
L45a. Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1964 on the following account:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Vancouver	$	710.000
Less-Amount to be expended from replacement and other funds, $709,999, $1.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
L50. Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $10,300,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed

[Stage Direction]
Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,109,600.
la.	Administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $26,000.
lb.	Administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $40,000.

[Stage Direction]
Production and marketing-
Plant and plant products-
35b. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $1,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
Fisheries management and development-
5b. Operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international commissions detailed in the estimates and of the costs of programs and projects shared jointly with the provinces and industry, $453,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Mining and metallurgical investigations and research-
35b. Administration, operation and maintenance, $81,500.
40b. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $201,000.
B-Dominion coal board-
75b. To authorize annual payments not exceeding $18,000,000 in each of the five fiscal years commencing on the 1st day of April, 1965 and ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, to be made in connection with the movement of coal. In accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, for the purpose of enabling Canadian coal to be laid down in prescribed markets at a price competitive with imported coal and imported residual oil, $1.

[Stage Direction]
A-Privy Council-
1. Maintenance and operation of the Prime Minister's residence, $32,500.
Privy council office-
Ministers without Portfolio-
5. Payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $7,500.
10. General adminstration including a special grant of $25,000 to the Stratford Shakespearian Festival Foundation of Canada, $995,000.
10a. General administration, $79,700.
15. Expenses of the royal commission listed in the details of the estimates and the expenses of the preparatory committee on collective bargaining in the public service, $2,476,000.
15a. Expenses of the royal commissions listed in the details of estimates, $845,000.
17a. Canadian contribution to the Kennedy Memorial library project, $100,000.
Governor General and lieutenant-governors-
1. Office of the secretary to the Governor General, $297,900.
5. To authorize reimbursement to the lieutenant-governors of the provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties up to a maximum per annum for each as detailed in the estimates, $142,500.

[Stage Direction]
Centennial Commission-
20. General administration, including the national conference on the centennial of confederation, $967,800.
25. Programs and projects of national significance including grants toward such programs and projects, $2,500,000.
30. Payment to the centennial of confederation fund to enable grants to be made to the provinces for local projects of a lasting nature (the total of such grants not to exceed $1 per capita of population per province) and other federal-provincial centennial projects, $4,000,000.
30a. Payment to the centennial of confederation fund-To extend the purposes of vote 30 of the main estimates, 1964-65, to enable grants to be made to the provinces for projects included in the federal-provincial confederation memorial program, $1.

[Stage Direction]
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
30. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act including the transfer of labour to places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $53,351,300.
A-Departmentlb. General administration, $360,000.
6b. Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council to provinces and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1964-65 and 1965-66 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding fifty per cent of the cost of labour incurred in the period from November 1, 1964 to such day or days in the fiscal year 1965-66 as may be determined by the governor in council, and in the case of projects in designated areas within the meaning of the Department of Industry Act and in areas determined by the Minister of Labour to be areas of high winter unemployment, sixty per cent of such cost; and to authorize payments in those fiscal years to provinces in respect of previous municipal winter works incentive programs, $35,000000.
8b. Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council under the winter house building incentive program during the fiscal years 1964-65 and 1965-66 of $5,000 per dwelling unit substantially built during the period November 15, 1964 to March 31, 1965, $15,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to military associations, institutes and other organizations as detailed in the estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the treasury board, for total commitments of $2,289,221,623 for the purposes of votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 42, 45 and 50 of this department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $799,648,500 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said votes and notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $3,917,825.
Inspection services-
5. Operation and maintenance, $7,134,300.
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $200,000.
Royal Canadian Navy-
15. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act and section 11 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act and subject to the approval of treasury board, to spend revenues received from the sale of surplus materials, supplies and equipment, $272,892,000.
15a. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $139,000.
Canadian army-
20. Operation and maintenance including grants of $1,800,000 to the town of Oromocto and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act and section 11 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act and subject to the approval of treasury board, to spend revenues received from the sale of surplus materials, supplies and equipment, $425,894,000.
20a. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $349,000.
Royal Canadian Air Force-
25. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act and section 11 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act and subject to the approval of treasury board, to spend revenues received from the sale of surplus materials, supplies and equipment, $655,769,000.
25a. Operation and maintenance and construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and major equipment, $839,000.
Defence research and development-
Defence research board-
30. Operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act and section 11 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act and subject to the approval of treasury board, to spend revenues received from the sale of surplus materials, supplies and equipment, $25,945,000.
Supply-Items Passed
35. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act and section 11 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act and subject to the approval of treasury board, to spend revenues received from the sale of surplus materials, supplies and equipment, $5,061,000.
40. To foster defence research in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence applied research programs, on terms and conditions approved by the treasury board, $4,150,000.
42. Research satellite program-to provide for the design and instrumentation of a series of satellites to carry out a scientific research program agreed upon jointly by the United States national aeronautical and space administration and the defence research board, $2,933,000.
45. Development, $20,990,000.
Mutual aid-
50. Contributions to infrastructure and the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the transfer of defence equipment and supplies and the provision of services and facilities for defence purposes in accordance with section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, not exceeding a total of $41,020,000 including the present value of defence equipment or supplies or the cost of services made available by the Canadian forces estimated in the amount of $8,420,000 and provided by appropriations for those forces in the current and former years in respect of which notwithstanding subsection (3) of section 3 of the said act, no amount shall be charged to this appropriation or paid into a special account-provided by this vote, $32,600,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
55. Civil pensions as detailed in the estimates and to authorize in respect of members of the Royal Canadian Air Force on leave without pay and serving as instructors with civilian training organizations operating under the British commonwealth air training plan who were killed, payments to their dependents of amounts equal to the amounts such dependents would have received under the Pension Act, as amended, had such service as instructors been military service in the armed forces of Canada, less the value of any benefits received by such dependents under insurance contracts which were effected on the lives of such members of the Royal Canadian Air Force by or at the expense of the civilian organization, $7,322.
57a. To authorize the governor in council to prescribe the terms and conditions (including conditions as to interest) upon which a person who when a member of the regular forces failed, due to erroneous treatment, to make an election in respect of prior service under section 45 of the Militia Pension Act, during the period October 1 1946 to September 30, 1947, and who subsequently made an election under paragraph (b) of section 5 o± the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, to pay for that service as a period of service described m clause (K) of subparagraph (ii) of that paragraph, shall be deemed to have made such election under the Militia Pension Act within the time prescribed therefor by that act, $1.
58a. To authorize the governor in council to designate by order as a special duty area any area outside Canada in which an officer or man or former officer or man of the Canadian forces is or has been required to serve on or subsequent to the first day of January, 1949; and thereupon the Pension
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Act shall apply to and In respect of every officer and man or former officer or man of the Canadian forces in respect of his service in such area on or subsequent to that date while the order is in force in respect thereto or during such later period as the order may specify as though such service were military service (other than service rendered in the non-permanent active militia or in the reserve army) rendered during world war II
within the meaning of the Pension Act and as though the service described in paragraph (v) of section 2 of that act included service in such special duty area in any of the services during such period; provided that where a pension is payable by virtue of an order herein in respect of any death or disability, subsection (2) of section 13 of that act shall not apply to or in respect of such death or disability, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 30, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Today, as the world knows, a remarkable man has reached a remarkable age. Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill is celebrating his ninetieth birthday anniversary. Just four months ago today, on July 30, we paid tribute to Sir Winston Churchill on the occasion of his retirement from parliament. At that time the right hon. Prime Minister, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the leaders or spokesmen of the other parties in this house acknowledged our "unbounded admiration and gratitude for Sir Winston's services to freedom and to free men everywhere".
In pursuance of a motion agreed to unanimously by the house I transmitted these tributes to the right hon. gentleman. Hon. members will be interested in the acknowledgement which I received in Sir Winston Churchill's own hand, and which I am sure they would want me to read into the record:
28, Hyde Park Gate, London, S.W. 7 8 November, 1964.
Dear Mr. Speaker,
I am indeed obliged to you for your letter of October 19. I have read with the utmost pleasure the motion passed in the House of Commons and the speeches which accompanied it. I am deeply honoured that this moving and eloquent tribute should have been paid to me by Canadians, whose country I hold in such deep affection and high esteem. I shall always remember your kindness to me.
Yours very sincerely, Winston S. Churchill.
I am sure that today all members of this house would again want their affectionate good wishes to go forth to him whom historians may well call "the greatest Englishman of the century". I therefore propose sending the following message to Sir Winston on behalf of this house:
It is my privilege to assure you, sir, of the undiminished gratitude, affection and admiration in which you are held by all Canadians as you begin your tenth decade of "days memorable in the history of our race". We fervently wish for you
and Lady Churchill many more years of strength, of good health and of happiness in your retirement. From all our hearts and with one voice we say, "Happy birthday."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the words you have uttered pay fitting and eloquent tribute to the greatest man of our time on reaching his ninetieth birthday, a stage which not many of us are likely to achieve. I think your tribute represents the feeling of us all. He is indeed a man of our century, this terrible twentieth century. He is a man of parliament. He is the man who led the struggle for freedom, and his name will live forever in the hearts of all free men.
Therefore I should like to move, seconded -if I may do so, Mr. Speaker-by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition:
That the message proposed by Mr. Speaker be sent by him on behalf of all members of this house to Sir Winston Churchill.
Righf Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join with the Prime Minister in this motion. Indeed, one of the fondest recollections I have of the period during which I was prime minister was to have the opportunity, on every occasion that I was in the United Kingdom, to meet and talk with Sir Winston. I was greatly impressed this morning as I listened on the radio by what happened yesterday in front of his home at Hyde Park Corner. Hundreds were gathered there and they were asking that he come outside. Finally he stepped up to the window. Then his wife went outside and said "I am saving him for tomorrow".
That, Mr. Speaker, has been his life history. One follows him in India, the Sudan, during the days of the first great war and throughout the years; often in defeat, always defiant. His record, as the Prime Minister has said and as you, Mr. Speaker, so very eloquently stated, makes him a great citizen, an immortal figure in the present century. We see him now at 90 years of age able to look back on several lifetimes, measuring time on the basis of achievement.
Great author, orator, parliamentarian, artist, historian, only once did he turn to poetry. There is only one couplet in his name:

Tributes to Sir Winston Churchill No more let us alter, or falter, or palter,
From Malta to Yalta,
From Yalta to Malta.
That epitomises his life story. He never paltered; sometimes he did alter his viewpoint with the passing years, but at no time did he falter. I think of one instance which took place in London, I think in 1959, during the occasion of a prime ministers' conference. Prime Minister Harold MacMillan gave a dinner at Downing street to my wife and me. She sat at the table between Mr. Macmillan and Sir Winston, and I sat across the table and some distance down. Beside me sat Mrs. Neville Chamberlain, the widow of the prime minister of the United Kingdom whose place Mr. Churchill, as he then was, took in May of 1940. During the course of the conversation I said "Is it not wonderful that he has lived this long full of alertness, never losing that sense of good humour so necessary to those who are in public life. He is enjoying himself tonight". Her answer was "You know, we would not be here if it was not for him". That to me represents the relationship in public life and in national affairs that gives substance to British parliamentary life.
I join with the Prime Minister in the motion he has moved. This house will never forget that day in December of 1941 when he stood where the Clerk of this house sits and used those words that had greater influence on this nation than any words ever expressed in describing the dark days of June, 1940. He said a French spokesman had stated that the generals believed it would just be a matter of three weeks before the neck of England would be stretched like that of a chicken. Sir Winston then said "Some chicken, some neck." Those are words never to be forgotten.
We salute him today, and in honouring him we honour the parliamentary system to which he gave so much and to which, as a House of Commons man, he devoted his life and his talents.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, you have expressed warmly and succinctly the appreciation and high standing of Sir Winston Churchill in this chamber and in the country. We join with pleasure in the motion put forward by the Prime Minister.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is with genuine pleasure that we in our party support this motion of greeting to Mr. Churchill on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday. I am sure there is no man in the world today who is regarded with just the same affection and respect as is this great man.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
I thought it was moving this morning when he appeared twice at the window of his home to receive the cheers and greetings of thousands of people, and when, later on, Lady Churchill appeared and said that he would not be back again because she was saving him for tomorrow. It is our hope and prayer that he will have many more tomorrows.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to add our own best wishes to those which other hon. members of this house have already extended to Sir Winston Churchill on the occasion of his birthday.
It gives us pleasure to support the Prime Minister's motion that the message you have read to us be sent to Sir Winston.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the opportunity may not be afforded otherwise perhaps the house will now allow me to raise a question of order in connection with the proceedings of this and succeeding days. As the house knows, there are two motions in connection with the flag question which will come up following the presentation of reports by standing and special committees. If we are to follow the course of not calling orders of the day we will find ourselves in the position that so long as the debate on the flag question goes on, we will be unable to have any answers to our questions or, indeed, to ask questions that come within the ambit of those asked before orders of the day are called.
I am sure the Prime Minister does not have such a course in mind at all and through you, Mr. Speaker, I put the suggestion to him that today and each day hereafter orders of the day be called to provide an opportunity for the asking and answering of questions, and that thereafter we revert to motions. To follow any other course would simply be to deny the House of Commons its right of examination and scrutiny through questions. I am sure the Prime Minister has no such course in mind, and that is why I raise the matter at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is, of course, nothing before the house, but the right hon. gentleman,

with your permission, has brought this matter to our attention. I recall that this question has arisen in the past, and it was felt on previous occasions that we should follow the normal procedure laid down in our rules. I do not think in following our normal procedure at this stage we should anticipate the future. It may well be that we will deal with this report as we deal with other reports of committees, and that it will be disposed of. So I suggest that for this day at least we should follow the normal procedure and see how we stand at the end of the day.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition respecting a question period during the time the motion for concurrence in the flag committee's report is before the house, I think we should consider one or two things.
Many days ago I asked the house leader whether any consideration had been or was being given to the matter of having a question period if the debate on the flag committee's report carried on for a long period of time. I think we will have to face up to the fact that even the Prime Minister does not have control over whether or not there will be a question period in these circumstances, because under standing orders unanimous consent by the house is required to change the order of procedure, and of course motions for concurrence in committee reports takes precedence over all other matters.
The other thing to be considered, regarding whether all members of the house would be prepared to give unanimous consent, is that before doing so we would have to reach the stage where the length and pattern of the debate were more of less apparent. We have already had something like 22 days of debate in the house on the flag issue. We referred it to a committee, composed of members of all parties, for the purpose of getting some kind of agreement, and I think if there are a number of hon. members who would like to make contributions to the debate on the committee's report we would do them a service by providing them more time by dealing with the report at the start of the sitting.
So far as I am concerned I do not think it would be prudent at this time to ask for unanimous consent to change the standing orders.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I may speak on the point of order that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not an un-
Business of the House
reasonable request that something of the normal business of the House of Commons be carried on. I point out to you, sir, that over the years it has been most unusual for the normal business to be interrupted by special motions or by lengthy discussion on the report of a committee. There are few instances that can be called to mind when we have been deprived of questions on the orders of the day, and I think it is generally recognized that questions on orders of the day constitute one of the essential privileges of the House of Commons so that the ministry may be asked important and urgent questions relating to their activities and affecting the lives and welfare of Canadians.
We are also well aware of numerous occasions when the house has changed its order of business, and frequently has reverted to motions for some special announcement or motion to be put before the house by the government. Faced with a recognized controversial item, namely discussion on the report of the flag committee, it may well be that the opportunity for asking questions on orders of the day will not be reached for some time. Therefore we suggest that the government, and the house generally, respond to this normal request that a period be set aside-I would say one hour-for the questions that normally precede the opening of the business of the House of Commons. By doing so we could not interfere at all with the discussion on the report of the special committee and would retain one of the great privileges of the house, namely the right to question the ministry with regard to their activities.


George James McIlraith: Might I be heard on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The rules are explicit. They say "The ordinary daily routine of business in the house shall be as follows", and it is set out very clearly.
Today at the start of proceedings, by unanimous consent that daily routine was interrupted-I think all members will agree very properly in the circumstances-to deal with a very special matter, namely to move concurrence in a suggested message arising out of Your Honour's remarks concerning that very great former prime minister of Great Britain who led us so outstandingly in the war.
At the conclusion of that proceeding you, sir, permitted the procedure to be interrupted by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in order to raise a point of order. I point out that there could be no point of order because there was no item of business before the house

Business of the House
at that stage. You had not called any item of business, and none was before the house. But in any event you, and the house, as an indulgence permitted the right hon. gentleman to put forward what he called a point of order which he saw fit to make.
That having been done, other members were heard, and the hon. member for Medicine Hat pointed out that this proposal had been suggested some days ago, to be precise on November 17. On that occasion it was pointed out quite properly that there was no evidence as yet that the motion for concurrence in the flag committee report would take up a long time. Furthermore, the hon. member concluded his remarks by indicating that he was unwilling to give unanimous consent today to the business being interrupted.


John George Diefenbaker: It looks like co-operation between the two parties again.


Mr.   Mc@: The right hon. gentleman, who sits beside the Hansard reporter, has a habit of putting nasty remarks like that on the record, and may I say I am not guilty of the implication. I have not had the pleasure -and I would regard it as a pleasure-of speaking with the hon. member for Medicine Hat on this matter, but when I do speak with him I would point out he does not make remarks that have an underhand implication.


John George Diefenbaker: Not underhand? Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: "Underhand" was the expression used.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely we can discuss this suggestion in a calm atmosphere.


John George Diefenbaker: To use expressions such as "underhand," that government over there-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: -that government should never use that expression after the experience of the last few days.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I thought the right hon. gentleman called the point he raised a point of order and, if that is so, he has no right to interrupt me on a so-called question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: We are to keep quiet over here and allow you to trample on parliament?


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Medicine Hat having indicated that he is not willing to give consent, I respectfully ask that

the business be proceeded with, and the business is as indicated on November 17.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is the one who would not give consent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I am entitled to hear a few, a very few, remarks from the hon. member for Edmonton West, as a former speaker of the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is only one point I would like to raise, and it is that if the motion for concurrence, which it is anticipated will come from the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, is proceeded with and the debate should carry on into other days, then I would point out to members of the government that if at any time they should desire to make motions they would be blocked by their own stand in this regard. I say this because once debate on the motion has been started it will have precedence over everything else and no motions or statements on motions would be possible. That is the only point I wish to make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I make one brief suggestion. It seems obvious that we shall not be able to reach any unanimous agreement on the floor of the house with respect to what is to be done today. I suppose, therefore, that we shall follow the rules. I suggest, though, that later today, or at any rate as soon as possible, the leader of the house should call a meeting of the representatives of the various parties to see whether an agreement can be reached for a later date.
I wonder whether the nodding of the head by the President of the Privy Council could be recorded in Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: In which direction? Vertically or horizontally?



PRIVILEGE


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because my study of the standing orders this morning leads me to believe this is the only way I can say what I want to say. May I

express our pleasure at seeing the Prime Minister back in his seat in the House of Commons. May I also say how much we appreciate that he lost his $1 bet by supporting the Hamilton Tiger-Cats against the B.C. Lions. I say to the Prime Minister and all others that they should not underrate the intelligence and fighting spirit of British Columbians, be it in sports or be it in politics, and do not forget it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me to comment on that point because my name has been mentioned in connection with it. The hon. gentleman should not underrate my own intelligence, because while I bet $1 on Hamilton I bet $2 on British Columbia.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I say that this completely proves what we have been worried about, that we now have a Prime Minister who plays both ends against the middle.


John George Diefenbaker: Hedging.



MR. DINSDALE-SERVICING OF R.C.M.P. CARS IN MANITOBA

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: rise on a question of privilege for the reasons outlined by the hon. member for Vancouver East and in the light of the discussion which has just taken place.
On Thursday last it was the pleasure of the citizens of western Manitoba to welcome the Prime Minister to Brandon on his official visit there. I think the Prime Minister will agree that it was a fine, non-partisan occasion. In the midst of the visit I was informed that the local R.C.M.P. detachment was under orders to reallocate the servicing of its cars by December 1, for no good reason and without informing those firms concerned.
After confirming this information I contacted the office of the Minister of Justice and was informed there would be no action in this regard. This was confirmed by my colleague the hon. member for Marquette. I am raising this issue at the present time because the action contemplated is contrary to the principle of non-partisan purchasing and servicing of cars which was adopted-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -which was adopted in recent years by the government of Canada, and I am happy to be able to say that the department of northern affairs was the first department to adopt this policy. Under this system-
Question of Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must admit I am slightly confused. I do not understand what the question of privilege is. It sounds much more like a grievance to me. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could reach his point quickly.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can; and as I said I take this course because it is the only course open to me under the rules. I was pointing out that this was the system adopted by the department of northern affairs and other departments and I am raising this issue because, under that system, tenders are handled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If this is a question dealing with tenders and administrative activities in connection therewith I am sure opportunity will be furnished to the hon. member within a short time, or within a few days, to deal with it. Surely this is not a question of privilege to be raised immediately.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On the same question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This is an action which will take place tomorrow, and under our rules I see no other way of dealing with it today.


Mr. Speaker:: There surely is a much simpler way of settling the question-get in touch with the Minister of Justice and discuss the matter with him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: This underlines the injustice of the government in putting on a guillotine which prevents grievances being raised in this house as long as the flag motion is before us. That is exactly what is wrong, throttling parliament and preventing members raising these matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would Your Honour rule whether or not there is a question of privilege and if there is not, could we not, with respect, proceed to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: I would rule on the evidence I have heard just recently that there is no question of privilege.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I feel you have not completely ruled out of order the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. It is one which concerns us. It concerns this house and it con-

Question of Privilege
cerns duplicity, back-tracking and doubledealing by a certain government department. I think the proper time to raise it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Oh, yes. Stand on your feet and then howl.


Mr. Speaker:: Rightly or wrongly the Chair has rendered a decision, and I propose now to call for the presentation of reports by standing and special committees.



MR. NASSERDEN-&quot;HANSARD&quot; REPORT OF SUPPLY COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

['I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not of English ancestry but rather my grandfather on my father\'s side came from the highlands of northern Scotland, and on my mother\'s side my great grandfather was Pennsylvania Dutch of loyal united empire loyalist stock. I was very proud today when the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) directed our attention to the fact that this is St. Andrew\'s day.\nAs I say, great disunity has been created in this country since the flag debate was first introduced in the House of Commons. We have had riots in various parts of Canada. We have seen flags burned. We have had an increase in the separatist movement in the province of Quebec. We have seen our armouries raided and robbed. Yes, Mr. Speaker, murders were even committed while this was being done.\nWhen I spoke on my own flag resolution I stated that I was expressing my own personal opinions as well as the opinions expressed in approximately 90 per cent of the letters and telegrams I had received up until that time. That was last June 1, Mr. Speaker, and previous to that date I had received nearly 150 signed letters and telegrams all asking me to support the retention of the Canadian ensign as Canada\'s national flag. This figure has now mounted to 611. Since June 1 I have received many letters supporting my stand on the ensign but since that date I have received only three letters supporting some other design than the ensign.\nIn all fairness to those who are writing me in support of the ensign and to those supporting some other design I propose to put on the record some comments from each side. Before doing so I may say that some time ago I received a clipping from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal, being an article written by Jean Sweet. The article is entitled "In My Opinion", and in my opinion it exemplifies the feelings, I am sure, of many millions of Canadians. I am going to quote from the article. This lady says:\nNormally, like most peaceful citizens, I\'m a coward about public issues. But I think the time\nhas come to stand up and be counted on this flag matter.\nMost people who ever saw a tree know that big trees rise from big firm roots. If you trim away the roots you weaken the tree. If too much root is removed you have nothing. The tree-that grew slowly over many decades-weakens, falls and decays.\nLoyalties grow the same way, putting down roots in friendly soil. Without loyalities, even misplaced loyalities, man is nothing but a drifting derelict.\nMillions of Canadians grew up as I did in the friendly soil of a Canada we learned from earliest years to respect and view with immense pride. We were taught not to brag loudly and constantly about our land, but instead to know what we had and to feel secure in its tenets.\nAbove all our flag has symbolized this land. It has grown with us. From pre-school age we loved the simple but intricately planned design of the union jack, so carefully integrating the major elements of Great Britain. We were proud when we saw the Canadian coat of arms in the fly of the beautiful flag. We sang songs to it. It meant our land.\nThrough school days I have no recollection of any "Quebec question". I remember Montreal as a fascinating place I longed to see where, right in our Canada, two languages were spoken and peoples from many other lands settled and lived.\nAbove all, as a child I watched the proud Van Doos march through the streets of our town, where they trained, headed by the tall lean figure of Colonel Vanier (I didn\'t know his name then, not until I met him as our Governor General). From that time I "saw" those proud French speaking troops "fighting for our flag" as news of their exploits trickled home. When we sang "We\'ll never let the old flag fall\'\' the Van Doos were in the picture, dying in France for that flag.\nWell, as far as I am concerned no one man, no one group of troublemakers, can tell me "here is your new flag". This is a matter of roots, Canadian roots. If my flag can be readily discarded, so can my country and any other belief I ever held in it. It is disturbing and makes me wonder: what next?\nMay I call it ten o\'clock, Mr. Speaker.']
Edward Nasserden: On a question of privilege. On Friday last you will recall that the closing stages of the debate-


An hon. Member:: Next.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, may I have
some order?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I dislike saying this, but I would appreciate a little more silence on this side of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: "This" being the government side.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope this will get on to the Hansard record. When you said "this side" I presume the reference was to the government side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: It certainly is not the purpose of the Chair to get into a debate with hon. members, so let us all assume a little of the blame.


Edward Nasserden: I must say that the noise was not coming from this side of the house.
My question of privilege relates to the Hansard report for Friday, November 27. Your Honour will recall that at six o'clock we reached a stage in our proceedings where a number of items had to be passed without discussion or consideration. I raised the question whether those items should be read into the record. I have consulted with the assistant clerk of the house and he tells me today that an item which is not discussed is placed at the end of the Hansard record. As I read this issue of Hansard it is difficult for me to segregate those items which no one wanted to discuss from those which, due to the procedure followed, it was not possible for hon. members to discuss because there was no opportunity to do so.
I believe that those items which members had no opportunity to discuss should be so

recorded in Hansard and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take this matter under consideration and see that our proceedings are recorded correctly in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention. I will certainly take it under consideration and see what may be done.



John Angus MacLean: I should like to rise on a question of privilege, one which I am sure is non-controversial. I should like to take a few moments to point out to hon. members that today is St. Andrew's day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: I am sure Canadians generally will join with Canadians of Scottish extraction all over this country in helping them to celebrate the day which is set aside for the commemoration of their patron saint. We hope that when next St. Andrew's day comes around Canada will still be one of the senior countries of the commonwealth where large numbers of citizens of Scottish extraction live and make a great contribution to the development of a country over which their symbol still flies in the national flag.


CANADIAN FLAG
Herman Maxwell Batten: that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964 be now concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move concurrence in the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag, which I had the honour to present to the house on Thursday, October 29, I do so mindful of the attitude of complete impartiality which I endeavoured to maintain in the deliberations of this committee and as its chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I shall endeavour to maintain that attitude in the few brief remarks which I have to make on this occasion. The resolution setting up this committee was moved in the House of Commons on Thursday, September 10, and in order that the record may be kept straight I would like to read that motion

again. On the motion of Mr. Favreau, seconded by Mr. Churchill, it was resolved:
That a special committee of this house consisting of 15 members, to be designated later by the house, be appointed to consider and report upon the flag question; that the said committee be empowered to report from time to time and that its final report be submitted not later than six weeks from the date of its first sitting; and that the appointment of this committee, its power to report and the capacity of this house to act upon the report be not restricted by any motions now on the order paper.
On September 15 this house appointed to the committee 15 members. Those members were: the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Cadieux); the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman); the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube); the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming); the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz); the hon. member for Megan-tic (Mr. Langlois); the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard); the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso); the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson); the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith); the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh); the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale (Mr. Rapp); the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard); the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) and myself. This committee held its first meeting on Thursday, September 17, and in pursuance of the resolution passed in this house it was therefore bound to report not later than Thursday, October 29.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment regarding the work of the members of this committee. In the years I have been in the House of Commons I, like other members of the house, have had the opportunity of being a member of various house committees. I would like to say to the house now that I have never had the opportunity of being a member of a committee that was so diligent in pursuing the task that had been given to them. For a very large number of the meetings 100 per cent of the members were present. The opinions expressed were strongly expressed; I believe that they were sincerely held. I say to the house now-and I do this on my own initiative-that I would like to commend the members of the committee for the excellent work which they did over a period of time when the meetings were many and the work rather concentrated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Following the organizational meeting on September 17, 45 meetings were
Canadian Flag
held. During those 45 meetings 12 witnesses were heard. They came before the committee with the understanding that their remarks would be considered in camera, but I would like to say now-and I know I am speaking for the members of the committee when I say this-how grateful we all are for the contribution which they made to the committee itself. They gave us a great deal of information on Canadian history, heraldry, protocol and flag design; and for the contribution which they made to the work of the committee I am very grateful.
During the deliberations of this committee approximately 2,000 new designs were examined, as well as designs which had been presented to the house on previous occasions. I would also like to thank those who were sufficiently interested in a Canadian flag to submit designs to the committee. All the designs submitted had a great deal of merit, and as the selection process continued it became more and more difficult for the committee to pick the design which it favoured most.
I would like to say a word regarding the method of selection. The flags presented to the committee were divided into three groups; those which had for their main part three maple leaves, those which had one maple leaf, and those which had the union jack or the fleur-de-lis or both. There was then a process of selection, and the committee was finally able to reach the point where there were five flags in each of these groups. From there on the process of selection was carried on by secret ballot. Finally the committee was able to get down to one flag in each of these groups.
Your Honour will recall that on November 18 the house passed a motion proposed by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton ordering that there be laid before the house copies of the final flag designs in categories (a), (b) and (c) as voted upon by this committee. For the convenience in debate of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, other members of the flag committee and members of the house in general, I should like now, with the unanimous consent of the house, to table photographic copies of these final flag designs.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I interject, as the mover of the motion, and ask that each member of the

Canadian Flag
house be furnished with a copy of these photographs.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If it is the wish of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should be very pleased to have this done through the distribution office.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on this matter. Would these designs which are to be submitted to members be in colour?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Because of the way these photographs were taken the colour is not particularly good, but all three designs are in colour.


Mr. Chatlerton:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if it is not possible to have them distributed now to members of the house.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not think it is physically possible to have it done just at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I think it will be done some time during the afternoon.
I should now like to say that the report presented to the house was read at the final meeting of the flag committee; and while there was not unanimous agreement in the committee as to the final flag selection, there was unanimous agreement as to the wording of the actual report itself. The recommendation made to this house by this committee and contained in the report is as follows:
Your committee, therefore, recommends that the flag to be designated as the national flag of Canada be a red flag of the proportions two by length and one by width, containing in its centre a white square, the width of the flag, bearing a single red maple, or, in heraldic terms, described as gules on a Canadian pale argent a maple leaf of the first.
I now have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to recommend this report to the House of Commons and to move, seconded by the hon. member for Danforth, that it be now concurred in.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that I appreciate the words of the hon. member for Hum-ber-St. George's concerning the attendance of members of the committee and, as he put it, the sincerity of the members of the committee. I think there was an awful lot of hard work done. I in turn, Mr. Speaker, should like to congratulate our chairman on the fact that he handled a very difficult committee in a very competent manner. I do not often go on record as congratulating a member of the government or a member of the government party, but I must say that he did keep us

under control with a kindly but firm approach throughout. During six weeks of very concentrated sittings, and facing a deadline, all of that time tension was increasing and nerves did become frayed; and the chairman deserves full credit, Mr. Speaker, for a job well done.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as a member of that committee I feel it is my duty to say a few words at this time. As the chairman mentioned, our first meeting was held on September 17 last. It was not held in camera; it was an organization meeting at which we elected a chairman, a vice chairman, and so on. At the second meeting, which was the first in camera and which was held on the afternoon of Monday, September 21, we discussed, first of all, our general approach to this question with which we were faced. I agree with the chairman that it was probably the best attended committee which has ever sat in this building. There was frequently 100 per cent attendance of that committee from that date on.
At that first meeting held in camera I was encouraged by the way various members sitting on the committee from both sides of the house appeared to be approaching our very difficult objective. There were several who spoke of compromise, mentioning retaining something of the past and suggesting something of what might be considered the new. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was doomed to disappointment.
The chairman has read out certain terms of the report of the committee, and I should like to read at this time the first four paragraphs:
1.	Pursuant to its order of reference of September 10, 1964, your committee had before it, for consideration and report, the flag question.
2.	On September 15, 1964, the House of Commons designated 15 members of the committee:-
The chairman has mentioned the names and I do not want to repeat them.
3.	A subcommittee on agenda and procedure was appointed. The members were-
And so on.
4.	Your committee held 45 sittings in camera-
I would emphasize those words "in camera".
-and heard 12 witnesses in the fields of history,
heraldry, protocol, art and design. The members of the committee express their gratitude to these witnesses for their efforts in providing detailed information and also to the nearly 2,000 Canadians who submitted flag designs and suggestions.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, with the chairman's words of appreciation to the witnesses who came before us and to those who presented designs for our consideration.

10S81
Now I should like to refer back to those words "in camera". First of all I should like to refer to some newspaper articles and quotations therein. I do not have them all by any means, but I should like to point out that to me there has been some inconsistency regarding the real meaning of the words "in camera" and the apparent interpretation given them by certain people.
The first reference I would make concerns a picture of the hon. member for Leeds which appeared in a newspaper under date of September 23, 1964. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the committee had been meeting since September 15. This picture depicting the hon. member for Leeds appeared in La Voix de L'Est, Granby, Quebec, under date September 23, and pictured him holding what at that time had been thought and claimed by the government to be their flag. That was the three maple leaves flag with the blue bars at the end. I do not know when the picture was taken, but it was published in this newspaper on September 23, 1964.
I pass now to an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on October 5, 1964 headed "Judy regrets harsh things said about proposed flag". This article is datelined Gander, Newfoundland, and goes on as follows:
Health minister Judy LaMarsh said Saturday the new flag under study in committee at Ottawa may "never recover from some of the outrageous things said about it".
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this was the tip-off that the government members were going to switch their allegiance from the three maple leaves flag to the one which is now described in the report, and were actually instructed to do so. I would point out that in the first interview which the chairman had with the press-perhaps it was his first press release after the committee's first meeting-the chairman suggested, I believe, that it would be appreciated if there was no pressure put on the members of the committee to reveal what was going on in camera, and I think pretty generally this request was observed by the press, at least up to a certain point.
At this stage I began to wonder how these news items concerning conjecture about what was going on in the committee became published. I have before me a copy of the Toronto Daily Star of Monday, October 19, and I should like to refer to an article written by Mr. William MacEachern in which he said the following:
Canadian Flag
Indeed, there is some question whether it will be able to make a report at all, unanimous or otherwise, by the Oct. 29 deadline set out in its terms of reference.
Conservative members are already pressing for an extension of the deadline but Liberal members are opposed.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer again to an earlier stage of the committee's meetings, and say without equivocation that at a very early stage of those meetings there were many members who indicated that if we were faced with a deadline and there appeared to be a possibility of coming up with something, we might ask for an extension of the six weeks time limit. That was our aim throughout the hearings from the first day we sat. However, this thought was expressed by more than just Conservative members, as I said, at an early stage of our meetings.
I should like to quote one other excerpt from this article, as follows:
According to one committee member "the Tory position hasn't changed one iota from the stand opposition leader John Diefenbaker took when he spoke on the flag question in the Commons in 1945.
I should like to know who that committee member is, because this article very definitely states "According to one committee member". I guarantee that he was not a member of our party, because our members had the sensitivity to appreciate what the words "in camera" meant. Apparently others did not so appreciate them.
The next article I wish to quote from appeared in the Peterborough Examiner of October 19, under the heading "Top Secret Lid Taken Off... Students get 'inside information' on Flag". I think I will read a portion of this very interesting article, as follows:
The meetings of the Commons flag committee in Ottawa have been labelled "top secret" and the committee room is strictly "out of bounds" to outsiders.
But a group of Crestwood secondary school students broke the barriers Friday and gathered an impressive array of previously hushed facts.
They were the first outsiders to gain entry to the room.
They learned the original backdrop of the Pearson flag may be rejected, and they saw a banner which could possibly be Canada's future flag.
They were told Canada now stands where the United States stood more than 100 years ago before its civil war and that Canadians may be on the threshold of a similar conflict.
The 37 students from grade 10 travelled to Ottawa with Stuart Howard, head of the history department.
Their tour of the flag committee quarters was arranged by Richard Honey (M.P., Durham) and Fred Stenson (M.P., Peterborough).

Canadian Flag
I am informed that Mr. Stenson had nothing whatever to do with arranging this visit to the flag committee. The article then continues:
John Matheson (M.P., Leeds), committee member, and Prime Minister Pearson's personal adviser on the flag issue, greeted the students and spoke to them on the issue.
"There were flags everywhere in that room," said Mr. Howard.
Mr. Howard described the physical appearance of the room with flags draped all around. Then the article states:
Mr. Matheson emphasized to the students the continual reappearance of the three maple leaves on the flags being submitted by the public, and mentioned their prominence in past Canadian flags and badges.
"He seemed convinced the national flag would include the three maple leaves," said Mr. Howard, "but he was not so sure of the background.
"He also said the sea to sea motif on the Pearson banner may be seriously altered."
Mr. Howard said the M.P. questioned the importance of the sea to sea idea, saying that about 50 countries used the format and "maybe some other aspect of our history should be used."
Mr. Matheson said wavy royal blue bars at the top and bottom of the banner-an idea submitted by the group of seven painter A. Y. Jackson-is getting considerable attention.
He then pointed at a group of flags resting at one end of the room and said they were getting the most serious attention from the committee.
Resting prominently in the centre of these was a large white banner with three red leaves in the centre.
"The leaves were the same as the Pearson leaves," said Mr. Howard, "only they were more upright and closer together.
"Below that was this same flag inset on the traditional military service flag in place of the union .jack."
Mr. Howard said several flags displaying the fleur-de-lis were to be seen.
Mr. Matheson told the students of a recent committee meeting when Dr. A. R. M. Lower, professor emeritus of history at Queen's University, addressed it and said Canada now stands where the United States stood just before the civil war.
I think I should point out at this stage that each witness who appeared before that committee was assured that none of the evidence given would be published but that it would remain completely private so they could be free to speak as they saw fit. This fact was impressed upon the witnesses so we could, as I am sure we did, receive from them their honest and candid opinions. This article is a good example of the information that has leaked out.
Again quoting from this article, and this is Mr. Matheson speaking:
"He said the flag is symbolic of the tensions in certain parts of Canada between the races," Mr. Howard said, "and in his opinion there could be civil war here unless the differences are settled."
Mr. Speaker, what kind of scare statements are those being made by a member of parliament, and a member of this committee, to
[Mr. Monteith.l
students of this country, particularly when one remembers that the meetings of the committee were held in camera?
I should now like to quote from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on October 20, under the heading "A. Y. Jackson's Flag Favoured". This article is written by Ken Kelly of the Canadian Press and states in part:
Famed artist A. Y. Jackson's flag design is reliably reported to be the choice of a majority of members of the Commons flag committee.
Informants say the committee probably will split 9-5 to recommend to the Commons that the 82 year old Canadian painter's maple leaf flag design become Canada's flag and that the Canadian red ensign be used to mark Canada's commonwealth connection.
Reliable sources say the Jackson design has the support of Liberal, New Democratic, Social Credit and Creditist M.P.'s so far.
The five Progressive Conservatives still haven't committed themselves and one source says they aren't expected to back the majority choice. Conservative committee members, many of whose colleagues in the Commons favour the Canadian red ensign as the Canadian flag, were reported to have proposed several designs to the committee. .. .It is anticipated that at least one effort will be made to get committee support for a request that the committee's deadline be extended.
Here again I ask, Mr. Speaker, who was this reliable source? I guarantee it was not a member of the Conservative party. I can only suggest that whoever gave this information to Mr. Kelly was certainly misleading him. Whether he was purposely misleading him or otherwise I would not know, but at any rate it is obvious that Mr. Kelly has been led down the garden path. I feel that this deliberate attempt to mislead the public must certainly have caused great discomfiture to that famed artist, Mr. A. Y. Jackson.
Then I come to October 23 and another article by Ken Kelly of the Canadian Press which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. I will only read some excerpts.
Most of the Liberals on the committee are insisting on a design containing three maple leaves. They do not want the union jack in any form. The majority of the Conservatives, on the other hand, are said to be insisting that the jack be present in some form and that the maple leaf theme be confined to any number of maple leaves except three.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, I point out that somebody has talked, but certainly not a member of the Conservative party. There is another article to which I should like to refer which appeared on October 24 under the byline of Mr. Douglas Fisher, M.P. I am going to read the following paragraph to which I should like to make particular reference:
Some suspect that the leader of the official opposition has been privy to every move of the

committee and has been piping advice through several of the Conservatives.


John George Diefenbaker: That is completely false in every particular.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I continue:
This suspicion is the explanation for the retreat to the Gatineau this week end, or so the story goes.
I cannot speak too strongly about this article. First of all I should like to point out that so far as the report we are now discussing is concerned, all votes had been taken prior to the so-called retreat to the Gatineau. I cannot speak too strongly against the words of the hon. member for Port Arthur and the innuendo to be found in this paragraph. He is implying that the leader of our party was in continuous contact with and was piping instructions to the Conservative members of the committee. I can say without any qualification that no member of the committee discussed this matter at all with the Leader of the Opposition until after the votes had been taken. Never at any time until the final vote had been taken did any member do so, nor was there any effort whatsoever on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition to pipe information to the committee members. I cannot say the same for the government members.
As hon. members know, the committee report was presented to the house on October 29, the last day on which it could be presented. I come now to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of that date, which is quite interesting. Incidentally, as you will remember, Mr. Speaker, the newspaper containing the article appeared on the streets of Ottawa some 45 minutes before the House of Commons sat. This is but another example of the Liberal party's contempt for parliament. Other speakers will no doubt refer to this article as the debate continues, but I should like to refer to one or two paragraphs of the article which was written by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). He wrote:
Here is the inside story which I am now free to tell provided I do not attribute votes or statements to individuals on the committee or reveal the confidential testimony of witnesses.
He denies the right of the hon. member for Leeds to reveal the testimony of witnesses, but the hon. member for Leeds did not show that integrity. I have read what he said as quoted in the Peterborough Examiner. There are many other excerpts well worth mentioning. I am not going to go into the article in detail at the moment, but here is another excerpt:
Canadian Flag
In the fourth week we were beginning to know what prices would be put on concessions.
I should like to know just what is meant by that statement "what prices would be put on concessions". Here is another paragraph:
Tension mounted as the day drew near. There was much lobbying from room to room and whispering in the comer. Frequent skirmishes broke out in committee sittings.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was running around lobbying from room to room, although it would seem he admits he was. He says he visited other members. I accept the fact that he undoubtedly did do a lot of lobbying but certainly no lobbying was done by the Conservative members on the committee. This gives an indication of the mood and thinking of the Liberal members throughout the sittings of the committee. We recall that the newspaper appeared on the streets 45 minutes before the committee report was presented to the house, and to me this is a complete abdication of responsibility to the House of Commons.
I have only one more reference, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is worth noting. I have here the Brockville Recorder and Times of November 2 last which contains a quite interesting article under the headline "Tory Strategy Backfired On Flag Says Matheson". I assume that throughout the hon. member for Leeds endeavoured to give his home town paper a sort of inside story as to what went on, but I should like to quote one or two excerpts from this article to show how ridiculous and how completely wrong the hon. member for Leeds was. He makes this statement:
It was at this point they-
Meaning the Conservative party members on the committee-
-were given full reign to set the rules.
This is utter rot and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) knows it. We never had any kind of control over setting the rules. I agree some of our suggestions were accepted. Some of the suggestions of other members of the committee were accepted. But when the hon. member makes a statement like-
It was at this point they were given full reign to set the rules-
-this is simply atrocious. I quote further from the article:
At this point, Mr. Matheson said, the Conservatives almost turned white in consternation since they had voted in violation of Mr. Diefen-baker's instructions to make sure there were no unanimous votes.

Canadian Flag
I go back to what I said earlier. Never at any time, until after the final vote had been taken, had there been any contact with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on any matters concerning the flag committee proceedings. That is correct, and you know it.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: May I ask the hon. member
a question?


Jay Waldo Monteith: You may get up and ask any question you like afterwards. Just sit down for the moment. Mr. Speaker, this is simply not true.
I think I should also put on the record one or two other statements made by the hon. member for Leeds in his article. There was a reference to the behaviour of the Conservative members of the committee. I presume he thought it was humour. I do not propose to quote it because I feel that does not deserve any notice whatsoever. I am sure he will understand what I am talking about. The article continues:
Mr. Matheson said he is happy with the committee's choice, although he had hoped for the three leaf design.
How ridiculous can you get. Here he is trying to indicate to his home town paper that he was standing behind his original choice, he who is presumed to have advised the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on this three maple leaf choice. Mr. Speaker, he did not vote for it. That is obvious, but here he is trying to leave the impression in his home town that he had been standing behind his original choice. I quote further:
"It's a beautiful flag," he added, saying all the talk about it looking like the Peruvian flag was not correct.
This is in reference to the design reported by the committee on October 29. I leave it to your judgment Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not this flag looks like the Peruvian flag. I suggest that the citizenry as a whole examine it and it will be very obvious to them whether the flag chosen looks like the Peruvian flag. I simply repeat that the condition to which government members have brought this flag question is a shameful mess. To Conservative members this was an in camera committee. To at least one or more other members it was not.
I now quote from paragraph six of the committee report:
Elimination by an agreed procedure left only one design in each category. A vote for the retention of each finalist was then taken with the following results:
A-The three maple leaf design was retained by a vote of eight to six (8 to 6);

B-The single maple leaf design was retained by a vote of thirteen to one (13 to 1);
C-The design containing the union jack and/or the fleur-de-lis was rejected by a vote of nine to five (9 to 5).
I would like to inform the house that when we were defeated in our desire to retain the red ensign, something which had taken place earlier, we wanted to find out whether the government and other members of the committee were taking an uncompromising stand. We showed our desire for a compromise in a design which was produced for the committee, containing the union jack and fleur-de-lis, but we just could not get any support for any flag with the union jack on it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or the fleur-de-lis.


Jay Waldo Monteith: On August 24 last I spoke during the flag debate and dealt at some length with my feelings on the issue. I do not propose to go into more detail in that regard today. I also dealt at some length with the reason that I believed in a matter so personal, so close to one's heart, there should be an opportunity for every citizen to express his or her preference through means of a plebiscite. I believe the majority of Canadians wish to have this opportunity, something which has been strongly borne out by opinion polls across the country.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp):
That the sixth report of the special committee be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out paragraph seven of the said report and substitute therefor the following:
"However, as the final vote of the committee did not reveal a sufficient degree of unanimity for the proposed design for a national flag for Canada, your committee therefore recommends that the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite to be held at the next general election in order that the Canadian people may be given their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag".
And that the committee for such purpose be revived.
I close simply by reminding the house of the Prime Minister's rather delayed expression to the effect that on anything concerning the flag there is to be a free vote.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Would the hon. member permit a question now?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would be glad to.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: The hon. member has stated that it was not until after the vote of October 22 that he told the Leader of the Opposition

of the committee's decision. Wasn't the committee still sitting at that time?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I simply said that I had not had one discussion with the Leader of the Opposition concerning the flag question until after the final vote had been taken.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: My question is, wasn't the committee still in session at that time that you advised the Leader of the Opposition of the result of the vote?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would reply by asking a question. Do you mean to tell me that no member of your party had any conversation with the Prime Minister during the course of the debate?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I see the hon. gentleman does not wish to answer because he knows the committee was still in session and that he was wrong in telling him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Is there any objection to this amendment?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A most unusual procedure.


George James McIlraith: The objection is on several grounds. The first has to do with the right to refer the report back to the committee. Such a right does not exist because the committee is a special committee, not a standing committee; it is a special committee whose final report has been made.
In support of this position I would refer Your Honour to citation 286 on page 236 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, where it is stated;
A select special committee ceases to exist on the moment its final report is presented to the house. The report cannot afterwards be sent back to the committee with instructions to amend it in any particular. If further proceedings are desired it is necessary to revive the committee.
That is the first ground of objection. There is a further ground of objection which is even more fundamental, and it is this. It will be recalled that the committee was set up after several weeks of debate on this flag question and it will be noted on reading the motion to set it up that the terms of reference were very special; this is not only called a special committee but it is, in fact, special by its very nature. The reason is easily understood by anyone who bears in mind the history of the flag question in the House of Commons this session. The motion will be found in Votes and Proceedings No. 145 of September 10 and it reads as follows:
Canadian Flag
That a special committee of this house, consisting of 15 members, to be designated later by the house, be appointed to consider and report upon the flag question; that the said committee be empowered to report from time to time and that its final report be submitted not later than six weeks from the date of its first sitting; and that the appointment of this committee, its power to report and the capacity of this house to act upon the report be not restricted by any motions now on the order paper.
The point I wish to make in this connection is the following one: Even if it were generally in order to refer a report back to a special committee this would not be sufficient in this particular case. The committee, in its present form, could not be revived by implication or even by a motion, as is sought to be done. What is involved here is the whole charter of the committee, its whole constitution, its whole character. This will be well understood if hon. members would bear in mind its history. It was to report back to the house within six weeks after its first meeting, and its first meeting was held some time in September-I forget the exact date. So even the implied revival of the committee is not effective. Sending back what is sought to be sent back to it for further consideration cannot be effective; it would be a mere nullity because the committee, by its own constitution, does not have the authority or the power to carry out the function which this proposal seeks to refer to it, because of the limitation of time in its constitution.
The authority for a special committee is very limited. It has only the authority given to it by the house. Perhaps I could read an excerpt from Redlich, page 196:
It remains, finally, to explain the legal relation of a committee to the house as a whole. The main principle to be attended to is that a committee only exists, and only has power to act, so far as expressly directed by the order of the house which brings it into being. This order of reference is a firm bond, subjecting the committee to the will of the house; the reference is always treated with exactness and must be strictly interpreted. A select committee therefore always acts under a special, not a general, authority.
The point I wish to make is that there can be no authority in the committee to do what is sought by the motion for reference back. If the constitution of the committee is to be changed, that of course will require a substantive motion which must be dealt with in the ordinary way. Notice must be given and it must be treated as any substantive motion is treated.
Those are the main grounds of objection. The last, I submit, is not open to any argument at all because of the nature of the instructions the hon. member has sought to

Canadian Flag
transmit. The first hinges on the fact that the committee is a special committee only, and the cases applicable to standing committees do not apply to it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have only a few remarks to make relative to the points of order raised by the President of the Privy Council on behalf of the government.
The hon. gentleman said the committee must be revived. Well, the amendment itself provides for the revival of the committee, if the minister insists that this should be a condition. If he would read the amendment he would see that the house, in adopting the amendment, would revive the committee if such a course were necessary for the particular purpose of the motion. So this condition has been provided for; even the citations and the precedents relating to this direction for revival have been met.
I turn now to the other point the minister raised. He seemed to think that because the committee had presented its final report it had, ipso facto, died in the literal sense and could not therefore be revived. But I would point out that we are considering not the final report of the committee but merely the sixth report. In logic, if on the presentation of the sixth report the committee were deemed to have come to an end, how could it present its seventh report? The seventh report is a matter of record on the order paper. I would say, therefore, that in so far as consideration of the sixth report was concerned we are not dealing with the final report of the committee and, therefore, for the purpose of the discussion of the sixth report, the committee has not come to an end.
What we have before us is in essence an interim report. Therefore, the argument that having prepared its final report the committee has died does not wholly apply. Certainly the discussion of interim reports, if such reports were delayed or adjourned until the presentation of what might be a final report, could not be curtailed by using this device as a tool to prevent any discussion of any report of a special committee-not a select committee but a special committee- by merely delaying, on the initiative of the government, discussion of any interim report until what is deemed to be a final report has been presented. Nor has there ever been such a rule, because it would serve to stifle any discussion or any amendment of any report of a special committee. My third point is that any references the minister has made
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
that have applied to select committees certainly do not apply to special committees, because there is a clearcut distinction between the two.
I would put it to the minister once again that his arguments against this amendment have been countered, first by the fact that the amendment provides for a revival of the committee for a specific purpose; second, that we are considering an interim report and not a final report; and third, that this is a special committee and not a select committee. For those reasons I put it to you, Mr. Speaker -there may be other reasons which other hon. members of the house may advance for Your Honour's consideration-that the amendment is in order for discussion at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is just one consideration which I would like to bring to your attention and one respect in which this particular special committee is different from, I believe, any other special committee that has been set up by this house. It is different, for instance,, from the special customs committee of 1926. It is different in that the order setting up this committee established a particular time limit within which the committee had to work. It was a decision of this house that this special committee should do its work within six weeks, and then it finished.
If it is now considered in order to move an amendment which in its terms revives this committee, we are then reversing by an amendment an order of the house which established a committee for six weeks. We would be restoring a committee without any time limit at all; it could go on indefinitely, because there is nothing in the amendment, presumably, which would prevent that. If it can go on indefinitely, it is entirely in opposition to the original motion which said the committee must end its work in six weeks. I know that arguments can be made for and against reviving by amendment special or select committees; we could argue that matter for a long time. But I do not know of any case, because I do not believe there is any case, where a committee was set up for six weeks to do a job and then an amendment of this type was accepted; because this amendment, if carried, would restore that committee for an indefinite period of time, thereby contradicting the order of the house that it be set up for six weeks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you have something of a mixed bag with respect to this point of

order. I am afraid that all I am going to do is put another element into the bag for Your Honour to consider. I confess that I am concerned about the fundamental point made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mc-Ilraith), now supported by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), namely that in their view there is no way at all in which this report can be referred back to the special committee.
I speak as one who would like to see this matter disposed of as quickly as possible, but it does seem to me that we have to look at the procedural points very carefully. The Prime Minister's contention that the original committee was set up with a time limit of six weeks is one that has to be considered, and it may be that any attempt on the part of the house to revive the committee should take cognizance of that time limit and amend the time limit by setting some other period of time. But it does seem to me to be not quite consistent with the authority of the house to say that, having set up a committee to do a job, we are prohibited from asking that committee to take another look at the matter which we referred to it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question on that particular point. Has the hon. gentleman considered the rule about reversing a decision taken in the house in the same session?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is because there has been a decision in this session that the committee sit for only six weeks that I think an amendment to revive the committee is not in order unless it takes cognizance of that fact; and I suggest it would be taking cognizance of that fact if it sought to amend that time limit. The reason I have said these things is that I think whatever ruling Your Honour makes on the point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council, Your Honour should keep open the question as to whether or not some amendment to refer back might be in order. I say that because even if-and I think there is a case for it-it can be argued that there is a right to refer back, I have questions about this particular amendment. I have already alluded to one. I refer to the fact that the proposal to revive the committee, if this is going to be done, should deal with the question of its time limit. But the other point that worries me about this amendment is that it deals with the question of a plebiscite. I point out, sir, that there is already before the house a government order, No. 44(A), in connection with which
Canadian Flag
there is an amendment and a subamendment dealing with the question of a plebiscite. I know that hon. members may argue that order 44(A) may never again be called; but the fact of the matter is that at the moment it is on the order paper, is therefore before the house, and it is at least theoretically possible for the present motion to be defeated and for the house to be asked to consider again the other question.
Therefore I ask Your Honour to look at that point. Since the house has already voted on an amendment in the name of the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) with respect to a plebiscite on the flag issue, and since this issue is still on the order paper, is it in order for the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) under another guise to move what is in effect the same question, namely that of a plebiscite? I think there is some real question as to the propriety of this amendment on that ground. But having said that, I wanted to make the other remarks that I did when I first rose to my feet because if Your Honour chooses to rule this amendment out of order, I hope Your Honour will keep open the possibility of the right of the house to refer the question back to the committee, if it so wishes, for a specific period of time.
As I have said, I for one would like to see the house dispose of this question just as quickly as possible. I think the members of the committee have done a good job and we should not call them back again; but I think we should be careful about the procedural proprieties on a matter of this kind.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Would not the adoption of the committee's report wipe out anything else that was on the order paper in connection with this flag issue?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would not wipe it out, but it would supersede it, and in all probability order No. 44(A) would not then be called by the government. But the hon. member is assuming that the committee's report will be adopted. Until such time as the house has made a decision, both order 44(A) and the motion of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) are before us.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this has been a rather unusual day. We started by asking the government, in accordance with the usual practice, whether or not the motion before the house could be held in abeyance until after questions had been asked. That request was refused by the government.

Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: By the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: By the Prime Minister himself, who brushed it aside and thereby denied to parliament the right-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor now. I know that having been out west-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A point of order is being raised.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the right hon. gentleman is entirely misrepresenting what I have said.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not ask that the rules be brushed aside. I asked that the rules be observed during today, and suggested we would then go on and see what happened.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister did his part to stifle questions because he was afraid of some questions which would be asked, and let that be clear. He was out west all last week when he should have been in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: He was out west speaking to the discoloured canines of western Canada, the unclean canines mentioned on election night. Now, having done that, an objection is immediately raised to this amendment. The government do not want anything in the nature of amendments. General objection is taken to an amendment to a motion to confirm a report given by a committee. This is another means to stifle parliament and to strangle parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Hon. members may laugh. They laughed in 1956 when hon. gentlemen opposite did a similar thing and the people did not forget. They laughed when last week evidence was brought out in this house which the Prime Minister should have been here to answer. They ridiculed us. I have nothing more to say as to the consequences, but I know what they will be.
Hon. members opposite now want to prevent an amendment being moved. Let me place before you, Mr. Speaker, examples of what has happened in this connection in the

past. A special committee of parliament was set up in 1926 for the purpose of looking into a certain alleged wrongdoing on the part of a minister of the crown, Hon. George Boivin, and also certain administrative officials. A motion was made to confirm the report of the special committee which was set up. This matter is referred to in the Journals of the House of Commons for 1926. When the matter came before the house the motion moved by Mr. Mercier (St. Henri) was that the third and final report of the special committee appointed to investigate the administration of the department of customs and excise be concurred in. Then Mr. Stevens moved an amendment to the motion in the following terms:
That the report be not now adopted, but that it be referred back to the special committee with instructions to add thereto as sub-clauses to paragraph six:-
And so as to make the record clear I will read the amendment-
The evidence further discloses that ministerial action has been influenced by the improper pressure of political associates and friends of the minister, or acting minister administering the department, resulting in the suspension and in some instances the abandonment of prosecutions against those charged with violation of the statutes, and in the loss of revenue to the country. Moreover successful appeals have been made to the minister and acting minister administering the department to improperly interfere with the course of justice between the conviction of the offenders and the execution of judgment thereon.
That was after conviction. There was no question of interference by ministers in 1926 or prior thereto. In those days there were only a couple of executive assistants. I think there were one or two parliamentary assistants at the time; in any event there were in 1919.
The Prime Minister and the government had knowledge for some considerable time of the rapid degeneration of the department of customs and excise, and their failure to take prompt and effective remedial action is wholly indefensible. The conduct of the present minister of the department, the Honourable George H. Boivin, in the case of Moses Aziz is utterly unjustifiable.
Your committee deplores the practice, as revealed by the evidence, of certain men influential in public life to direct appeals to the minister to relax and depart from the proper administration of his department for reasons of political expediency.
If there is any likeness between this situation and subsequent events it is merely coincidental that I am raising this particular matter.
Your committee is of the opinion that this practice is detrimental to the best interests of the country and prejudicial to the administration of the department.

Then there is added the following paragraph, which is also included in the amendment moved today by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith):
And that the committee for such purpose be revived.
Now that amendment, Mr. Speaker, to which I have referred is to all intents and purposes the same as the one now presented and put before Your Honour.
Then Mr. Woodsworth, the leader of the labour party at that time, seconded by Mr. Heaps, moved in amendment to that amendment the following:
That all the words after the word "instructions" in the third line of the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
"1. To add to clause 4 the following: Since the enquiry indicates that the smuggling evils are so extensive and their ramifications so far reaching that only a portion of the illegal practices have been brought to light, your committee recommends the appointment of a judicial commission with full powers to continue and complete investigating the administration of the department of customs and excise and to prosecute all offenders.
2. That the following be added to clause 6: Your committee deplores the common practice as revealed by the evidence, of members of parliament and others of appealing to the minister to relax the regulations of the department for personal advantage or political expediency.
Then there were added two further paragraphs in the subamendment, and then again the words:
And that the committee for such purposes be revived.
The Journals, at page 465, continues:
Mr. Meighen-
-who was then leader of the opposition- raised the point that the amendment to the amendment was out of order on the ground that it was foreign to the subject matter of the main amendment.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as appears at page 468, the Speaker ruled on the matter. I do not want to read it all but one has to read a portion of it because many of the matters raised could almost be contemporaneous in some respects. The Speaker said:
On Mr. Mercier's motion for concurrence in the final report of the special committee appointed to investigate the customs and excise department, Mr. Stevens moved that said report be referred back-
And so on.
To this amendment a subamendment is moved proposing-
And again I will not reread it.
A point of order was raised by the Right Honourable Mr. Meighen on the ground that an amendment to an amendment must deal with nothing but the subject matter of the amendment.
Canadian Flag
It was also argued that the adoption of the subamendment would prevent the house from pronouncing on the proposal contained in the amendment.
And finally the Speaker decided:
As long as Mr. Stevens has asserted his right to express his views by making his amendment he suffers no prejudice, if Mr. Woodsworth using the same right submits a subamendment asking the house to accept an alternative proposition.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to refer to the matters raised at pages 472 and 473, the votes on which are to be found at pages 475 and 476. Then there was an appeal from the Speaker's ruling as reported at page 477, continuing through to page 481.
Sir, I now address myself to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), or at least his reference to this subject, arising out of something which was said before I came into the house by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), if I understood him correctly, to the effect that because item No. 44(A) is still on the order paper an opportunity may yet be available to Her Majesty's loyal opposition to deal with the question of a plebiscite. I should like to read that particular motion, which is as follows:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag; and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Churchill.
The suggestion is made that this will stay on the order paper and we may come back to it, but let me make this very clear. During our meetings of the leaders of the parties I asked the Prime Minister whether or not this particular motion would be gone ahead with, and I said that we were prepared without discussion at all to have a vote on this subamendment which set out in detail the nature of the formula for a plebiscite, and on my amendment which simply asked for the plebiscite. I said if the Prime Minister would agree to that we would be prepared to let him withdraw items Nos. 44(A) and 44(B).
We believed that the people had a right to a determination, through the operation of parliament, as to the trust to be placed in those gentlemen on the opposite side in this connection. The Prime Minister's answer was that he would not agree to the proposal unless we were willing to consent to a limitation on the time of debate.

Canadian Flag
That being so I simply ask this question, Mr. Speaker, that you consider the fact that this motion No. 44(A) will not be brought back in view of the fact the Prime Minister made it very clear that he was not agreeable to our suggestion.
I could immediately see the difficulty that the government was in, having stood for the three maple leaves through thick and thin and finally backing out, because we would not have the opportunity of letting the Canadian people know how parliament would vote on a plebiscite. I may say that according to a major poll taken in this country, 60 per cent of the people in Canada are in favour of that procedure. Are we to be denied the right to move an amendment asking for a plebiscite because the government refuses to go ahead with the motion they originally moved? Surely this house is not going to be throttled in that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They may laugh over there, but they are denying us the right to give the Canadian people an opportunity of knowing how they would vote on the question of a plebiscite. They interrupt, they scoff and they ridicule parliament; but you, sir, are the protector of the rights of parliament.


An hon. Member:: You never gave us the chance to make any decision.


John George Diefenbaker: Who is that that speak-eth without knowledge?
Mr. Speaker, you are the protector of the rights of parliament and I ask you to recognize that fact and not deny the opposition the right to move an amendment because there is on the order paper a motion that will never be touched upon by the government. The government would deprive parliament of the right to speak and the right of those who do not agree with the majority to have their cases decided in parliament by a vote of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to read and consider carefully what happened in 1926 in the month of June as recorded in Hansard. If you do I have no doubt as to the decision you will make. In other words, I ask you to decide that the amendment is in order, and suggest that to decide otherwise would be placing handcuffs on the members of parliament, preventing them from carrying out their responsibilities. This would also place muzzles on members of parliament.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Those on the other side would like to see that done.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, just look at the hon. member for West Kootenay; he has brains to burn, yet he is the one who is laughing over there.


An hon. Member:: East Kootenay.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry, I meant the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish the Leader of the Opposition would not confuse me with the hon. member for Kootenay East.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. gentleman, for whom I have tremendous respect, that there is no possibility of anyone coming to the conclusion that he and the other member would ever have similar views on anything dependant upon common sense.
I am asking you, sir, on the basis of the record of 1926, and the similarity is very apparent, to maintain the right of the opposition to move this amendment. Otherwise motions Nos. 44 (A) and 44 (B) on the order paper being long since both deceased, we should be deprived of our rights, because the government chose to swallow itself and change its viewpoint after having introduced those two resolutions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the ground covered by the right hon. gentleman in respect of this request for a procedural ruling, I feel I should say a few words.
What we have done is ask you whether the amendment moved to this matter is or is not in order. I suggest it is important that we have a ruling on this matter because it is an important procedural matter, and I believe unprecendented. Having taken that stand we will cheerfully abide by your ruling, whatever it may be.
We have heard during the last 20 or 25 minutes the right hon. gentleman suggest that we are handcuffing the house and muzzling hon. members by not allowing the house to vote on an amendment dealing with a plebiscite. He has suggested that we are throttling the house. We had a resolution before the house, to which an amendment was moved dealing with a plebiscite, and about which we had 165 speeches made, most of them by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side. We are now asked to consider that these are the same people who are throttled and muzzled. Those speeches were made by members on the opposite side to prevent a vote. We witnessed

23 days of talking about the plebiscite, yet in respect of that procedure advanced by the government-


John George Diefenbaker: Why didn't you go ahead with the resolution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and after 23 days the right hon. gentleman insisted, and I do not quarrel with his insistence, that the matter go to a committee for six weeks. This was a six weeks committee, Mr. Speaker. The six weeks are over and the committee has reported. We ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not an amendment sending this matter back to this six weeks committee is in order. That is the question, Mr. Speaker, and we would be very grateful to have your ruling on it. If your ruling is in favour of the amendment, then we will go on with the debate on the committee report and perhaps my right hon. friend will at last feel unmuzzled.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the Prime Minister did not take any stand on behalf of the rights of parliament in his intervention just now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the question before you is whether or not the amendment is in order.


An hon. Member:: The same old bunch.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it has already been clearly established that it is in order, that a special committee may be revived, as the amendment suggests in the closing words, and that to that special committee as to any other committee of the house instructions may be given letting the committee know what the house wishes. It is a long established practice.
The Leader of the Opposition has cited to you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most famous case in Canadian history involving the report of a special committee which was debated in the house and to which an amendment was moved for reference back to that committee. I do not see how anyone can go beyond that case in any decision whether or not, first, a special committee may be revived and, second, whether or not instructions may be given to that committee to do something other than it has done.
As you are well aware, sir, there are appropriate references in the books of rules, Beauchesne, Bourinot and May, and if you wish me to do so I can give you the necessary page references. The three books I have mentioned all deal with the case of a special committee, or a select committee as it is called in England, and the power of the 20220-676
Canadian Flag
House of Commons to refer committee reports back to committees with instructions to sit again, and reach some other conclusion, either to add to their report or to strike out something from their report and substitute something else. That is what we are suggesting in the amendment now before you.
The problem raised by the government side with regard to the committee being limited as to its time of consideration does not seem to me to be relevant at all under the circumstances. The house as a whole overrides the work of any committee, and what the house has the opportunity of determining according to our amendment is whether the committee might not take other action than the action it has recommended. So it seems to me that the period of sitting of the committee is absolutely irrelevant to the question under consideration.
The other points raised have already been dealt with. The government house leader raised a point about the final report of the committee but it has been indicated already that we are now dealing with the sixth report and not the final report. Finally, I do not see how we can go beyond the decision reached in 1926 in one of the most famous cases in our history dealing with a special committee and instructions given by the house to that committee to take other action.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is one point that I believe has not been mentioned which might be mentioned very briefly and which differentiates this situation from what happened in 1926. As Your Honour knows and as was mentioned by the chairman of the committee, I believe, when he moved concurrence in the report, the first vote taken by the committee was on the question of a national plebiscite. The committee has discussed the matter of a national plebiscite and has decided it by voting it down nine to five. This amendment now seeks to have this six weeks committee revived to reconsider the matter of a national plebiscite on which the committee has already taken a decision and voted it down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Three or four members from the official opposition have spoken and I think it is my duty now to call upon the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert in parliamentary procedure, but it seems to me that after using all the means at its disposal

Canadian Flag
by the rules, the official opposition is now trying to use one that is forbidden.
When there is talk of reviving a committee to send back a report to it, that is insinuating that the committee still exists and that it can be asked to resume its work. The special flag committee, however, even when it was set up, was meant to disappear six weeks later, so that even parliament is powerless to bring it back to life.
Of course, if the committee report is adopted and then a motion setting up a new flag committee is also adopted, that could be done, but it is impossible to ask that committee to reconsider its report because it has ceased to exist. At the end of the session, every special or standing committee of the house immediately ceases to exist. Furthermore, even at the following session, parliament cannot revive them. The only possible way to extend the existence of a committee would be to make a motion, before it ceases its activities, asking for its continuation but not for its revival after it has ceased to exist.
In my opinion, the house cannot now revive that committee. After the report has been considered and voted upon, I think the house could then, if it so desired, make a motion to set up another committee, for it can do anything it wishes. But the very motion setting up this committee provides for a definite period. Therefore, the matter cannot be reconsidered.


Mr, Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to one point raised by the Prime Minister. He said that the committee had dealt with the question of a plebiscite but I should like to refer to Bourinot, fourth edition, page 479, where there is the following:
A report may be referred back to a committee for further consideration, or with instructions giving them power to amend the same in any respect. In this way a committee may regularly reconsider and even reverse a decision it has previously arrived at.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I was about to make the same point just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. However, I think I should point out to the Prime Minister, who in his last intervention apparently thought he had a telling argument, that if he had looked at the report of the committee he would have found that at one point the committee decided unanimously there should only be one flag and then later returned to the matter, opened it up again and reversed that decision. Therefore
[Mr. Marcoux.l
it is certainly obvious that the committee is not going to be embarrassed at all by having something referred back by the house. I suggest that the house has the right to refer something back to the committee to be reopened while the committee itself does not have that same right.
I did want to mention the time limit. The remarks of the Prime Minister would seem to indicate that a committee of the house was established to sit for a six weeks period. I thought that the committee had been set up to consider the flag resolutions and to bring in a recommendation to the house and that the question of time was incidental, although there was supposed to be some urgency. I think the main point perhaps was to satisfy the Prime Minister's vanity by having a flag before Christmas. But certainly the question as to time limit was regulatory only, and not of the essence. I think the Prime Minister would want to correct the impression he gave the house just now that in setting up the committee its main function was to sit for six weeks.
With reference to the point raised by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) about reversing a decision of the house already made, when we talk about the time limit I suggest that that time limit served its purpose, that the committee obeyed the time limit set out originally and that, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) says, the committee is subject to the will of the house. So it is open to the house to give the committee additional instructions and the question of additional time must be inherent in them.
This is not a case of reversing a time limit already given. That time limit has already had its effect and therefore I suggest that the amendment is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very appreciative of the information and procedural advice given this afternoon. Obviously the question is a very difficult one to decide, and obviously I need time to consider very carefully all the arguments advanced and to refresh my mind vis-a-vis them and other precedents which have not been cited this afternoon. Needless to say, I have been doing a little homework on the point, but I would request hon. members to let me consider very carefully the arguments presented this afternoon. I suggest that in the meantime the debate could be carried on without prejudice to the rights of hon. members. I shall do my very best to come to a carefully considered and, I hope,

proper decision in as short a time as possible, 

I would hope by eight o'clock, if that is humanly possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Would it not be better to have over night on this? Your Honour may have done a great deal of work on the subject but I do not think anyone would be harmed if you waited until tomorrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all hon. members will hope you take all the time you need. If you feel you are in a position to make a decision at eight o'clock, perhaps that would be a good time to do it; but if you need more time I do not think any purpose would be lost because in one sentence the report does mention a plebiscite, and the debate can take place irrespective of your particular decision on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank hon. members and assure them I will take as much time as is necessary to arrive at a proper decision.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to second the recommendation of the committee and the motion for concurrence in the committee's report. In his opening remarks the chairman of the committee mentioned that throughout its proceedings he had tried to preserve the impartiality he has exhibited in the house. I know I can speak for all members of the committee when I say that he preserved this tradition of impartiality from the beginning to the end, and all of us were most impressed with the way he conducted the proceedings in the committee.
I would like to say just one word about the suggestion of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith). I came to know the hon. member very well during the course of our hearings, and I cannot say how disappointed I am in the tenor of his remarks. All of us on the committee held very strong views, and I thought that at the end of our deliberations we had agreed to disagree, if this had to be the case, but that in so doing we would not impute any sinister motives to any other member of the committee. I felt that in his remarks he was imputing motives, and I felt very sad to hear the tenor of the speech which he gave us this afternoon.
After the long and detailed debate that took place previously there really is not too much new that can be said in connection with the flag question, but I think there are one or two points which ought to be made on behalf of the committee's report.
Canadian Flag
First of all I think the design itself is one which conforms in every way to the proper traditions of heraldry and flag making. Red and white are the national colours of Canada. Many of us felt that the blue being mixed into the previous designs, or into some of them, was improper; but in this case-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Reid Scott: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is your authority for saying red and white are the national colours for Canada?


Reid Scott: My authority is the evidence given to the committee by various expert witnesses who testified and informed us that the national colours of Canada are red and white and were assigned to us in 1921.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Can you give me the exact words in the proclamation of 1921 that declare red and white to be the national colours? I suggest you cannot.


Mr.   Scoll@: I am sorry I do not have the actual information here but all of us on the committee did follow the evidence of our expert witnesses most carefully and, subject to being corrected, I at least am satisfied, and I think so are most of the members, that these are the national colours of our country and as such they, and they alone, ought to appear on our national flag.
I really did not feel the inclusion of the maple leaf design was very difficult to arrive at, and in this connection I point out the committee had before it literally thousands of designs from Canadians from coast to coast. I believe I can safely say that a ratio of five to one contained the maple leaf and that, therefore, in the minds of a good many Canadians there is absolutely no question of what constitutes the symbol of Canada, that the symbol is the maple leaf, and as such it is included in the recommended design.
I am aware that some members of the committee felt very strongly that a flag ought to contain the union jack and the fleur-de-lis. That is a view we listened to with the greatest of respect and we explored every possible argument pro and con. I respect that view, but in the end most of us came to the conclusion that by putting emblems such as that on our national flag we would be merely giving ourselves a perpetual reminder of the things that divide us, and that it would be preferable to have a distinctive flag that says just one

Canadian Flag
thing, Canada-not French Canada, not English Canada, not ethnic Canada, but Canada.
As I have said, I respect the views of those others; I only regret that I do not share them.
The main thing about the whole question is that it must be decided. Ever since the debate took place in the house I am sure many hon. members have visited their constituencies and have had an opportunity to get around to various parts of the country. Without exception I think almost everyone with whom I have spoken, no matter what their view, whether they wished the red ensign or a new flag, with unanimous voice said that they hoped at least parliament would make a decision.
The one thing which it seems to me is significant about the committee report, and which lends great weight to its recommendation, is that if anything can be said it is that this is a parliamentary flag. This is not the flag of any particular party. It is not the flag of any particular individual. It is the best consensus that we were able to get from the members of all the parties represented on the committee. I know it was not unanimous, and all of us regret that. But as I said in the beginning, we respected each other's views and we agreed that if necessary we would disagree in good faith. I think it is fair to say, however, that this design does command support among all parties in the house. I realize a good many members of the official opposition are perhaps not prepared to support it. But there is support for this design within their party, as there is in all quarters of the house. If anything, this flag is the flag chosen by the parliament of Canada and by nobody else.
I could go on at great length but I do not think it is important that I do so. Many of us feel the whole matter of the flag has detracted from this present parliament. If we had been able to spend as much time and energy discussing other matters such as automation, education and important problems of this nature, the present parliament might have been more distinguished in its accomplishments. At the same time we realize that these events are not within our control. The Prime Minister chose to have a decision reached on the subject at this time. Nobody is quarrelling with his prerogative. Many of us thought it was not an opportune time to raise this question, but at least the Prime Minister had the courage to deal with a subject which has been a most contentious one in Canada for very many years.
IMr. Scott.]
I conclude by repeating that this recommendation is the result of a serious study by all the members of the committee. We tried to hear and take account of the views expressed by everybody. It is unfortunate that we could not achieve unanimity but I think the design recommended is a proper one and a fair one, and I hope that in time it will win the allegiance of the Canadian people.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, in joining this debate today I wish to express my appreciation for the confidence my colleagues placed with me when they chose me to represent them on this committee.
I was all the more happy because I realized the importance of the work this committee would be called upon to perform, taking into consideration all the difficulties it would have to face.
If we recall the numerous discussions which occurred and the various opinions which were expressed during this debate which preceded the creation of that committee, we know that it was not without apprehension that the 15 members gathered to study this matter and endeavoured to reach a solution in order to present unanimously, if at all possible, a design to the house.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the committee dedicated themselves to this task for more than six weeks and some 45 meetings averaging two hours each.
For my part I think I went through a wonderful human experience, because it is certainly a great experience, a difficult but most rewarding one, for 15 men to be confined to a room, sitting in camera for such a long time to discuss but one subject.
What made for an interesting discussion was the fact that each member of the committee expressed his views in all candour. And here I should like to express my appreciation to each and every one of them for the manner in which they acted. I feel it is most unfortunate that we could not reach the complete agreement which would have resulted in a unanimous report, but I do not believe that any member acted in bad faith in not making this possible.
They all expressed their views verbally or by their vote. They were free to do so, since it was their duty, and I respect everyone's opinion.
Mr. Speaker, we are called upon today to approve a report submitted by the committee.
I should like, however, to remind the house that when this debate opened last June

the members of our party stated their position quite clearly, namely that every one of us was free to decide, according to his conscience, the position he intended to take in this connection.
Today, this report must be concurred in. I must say that this position still holds and that all our members are still free to approve or reject the committee's report.
However, may I assure the house that the committee's report will have a more than substantial support from the members of our party; I believe that the work of the committee deserves our appreciation inasmuch as the report which has been tabled is well thought out, is the result of work which, in my opinion, could not have been accomplished better.
Since the beginning of the debate today, we have heard various points of view expressed and I should like to comment on them a little.
I do not think that at this point we stand to gain anything whatsoever by referring this matter again to the committee. After six weeks of work the committee has made its decision known and I cannot imagine that by taking up the matter again it can in any way arrive at another decision.
The decision arrived at is the best we can reach under the circumstances. Personally, I cannot accept to return to this committee to reconsider something which I have already studied thoroughly and on which I have already committed myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Lessard: Now, if I may, I should like to say a few words to my friends in the Conservative party. I should like, also, to make a sincere appeal to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). Although I have been in this house for only two and a half years I can remember many occasions on which the right hon. gentleman correctly and strongly stated that, provided sufficient time is allocated for members to express their views on a subject, good democratic government must be assured by permitting the voice of the majority in the house to decide. This is my interpretation of words used by the right hon. gentleman on many occasions.
In my own opinion-and I think this is also the opinion of the majority of Canadians-this house has been afforded plenty of opportunity in the past to discuss this issue
Canadian Flag
and it is time for us to decide by voting on this question. I recognize that all hon. members have the right to express their views one way or another, but I do not think Canadians will condemn them in any way if they put an end to this debate and vote according to their consciences. If members find themselves opposed to the design put forward I think it is their duty to vote against it. But I do not think they have the right to prevent the majority of the members of this house from deciding. It is time we brought this debate to an end and allowed the majority of members to declare their position on the question by their votes. The people of this country have entrusted us with responsibility and we should discharge our responsibility by voting upon this subject. If we are wrong, I am quite sure that Canadians will judge us in the next election. Those who have not expressed the wish of their constituents will be defeated and others will take their places.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time for us Canadians to adopt a distinctive flag. If you consider the international situation today, which is getting more and more troubled, it becomes increasingly necessary for Canada to fully establish its identity and to let people see clearly that it is independent from any other nation. I think that by deciding today to give ourselves a distinctive Canadian flag, which will have nothing in common with the emblems of our mother country or the other countries which dominated us in the past, we are taking a step which the whole population has long awaited.
I am sure that in a few years those who will come after us will be grateful to us for making that decision which is a very difficult one, I will admit, and which might bring criticism to several of us, but we are here to face such criticism and to assume our responsibilities.
If we are in this house it is because we have been sent here to make decisions. Today, we have the opportunity to make a decision which, above any other, is of great significance. In my opinion, this decision should be made by a vote according to our conscience so that in Canada, at the beginning of 1965, we could fly a flag which would be a Canadian flag, in short, the flag of the whole Canadian people.
There have been criticisms on the choice of the design. If someone in Canada could suggest to us a symbol more representative

Canadian Flag
of Canada than the maple leaf, I would ask him to rise and suggest it. Up to now we have been unable to find one more representative of Canada. The maple leaf is typical of Canada. Even if that maple leaf cannot be found in every little part of Canada, it must be agreed that, at the present time, this symbol is still the most popular in Canada and does not appear on the flag of any other country.
In my opinion we must all unite in a gesture of Canadian solidarity in an effort to build a strong and united country. Let us prove to all our Canadian citizens that when important matters are at stake we must set aside some particular and partisan interests for the general interest of the country. I believe that today we have the opportunity of doing so.
Finally, I ask all members of the house to set aside their petty grievances, their petty private interests in order to grant our country a truly distinctive flag. I only wish that this flag should receive the unanimous approval of the members of the house.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. This is not the first time I have spoken on the matter of a Canadian flag. On May 28, 1963, I took the opportunity to speak on the Canadian flag, the red ensign. I spoke at that time with some emotion because I listed all the matters that I thought should be considered when dealing with the Canadian flag. I said the red ensign was the first free flag I had lived under, and I hoped my family would continue to enjoy living under this free flag. The second time I spoke on the question of a Canadian flag was during this debate.
Mr. Speaker, it was an honour for me to be a member of the flag committee. Reference was made to the fact that the chairman of our committee handled the committee's business very effectively, and I give him full credit for that. But at the same time I must say it was a strange committee. It was a committee in camera, but if any one of our members missed something the day before, he could read it next morning in the newspaper. I went into this committee as a red ensign man. I still respect the red ensign as a Canadian flag. However, at the same time I went into the committee with the understanding and conviction that if the committee could decide on a flag that was acceptable to all people in Canada, I was

ready for a compromise. But I was not ready for a compromise between the three maple leaf flag and the one maple leaf flag; I was ready for a compromise which would incorporate the past history of Canada, as set out in the flag I now hold in my hand, incorporating the union jack and the fleur-de-lis.
When I look at the United States flag I see that it is a flag which does justice to their past history; the 13 stripes on that flag represent the 13 colonies that were instrumental in bringing about the United States. I thought a compromise flag should do justice to our past, too. What is wrong with having a flag with the union jack in it? What is wrong with having a fleur-de-lis also in that flag? Some members of the committee and others said this had no connection with France; but the fleur-de-lis is the Quebec flag.


An hon. Member:: So what?


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, somebody said, "So what?" What right have we to pass up our history? Not very long ago three students from the University of Ottawa came here to discuss this matter with me; they wanted to know if I, as a member of the flag committee, could give them some information on it. When I showed them this compromise flag they said, "Why do not the people of Canada better understand what a compromise flag means?" It is exactly the same as the one maple leaf flag approved by the committee, except that it incorporates these two symbols, the union jack and the fleur-de-lis. I am sure if the people of the country were given the chance to vote on these flags by way of a plebiscite- that is, the flag approved by the committee, the red ensign and the compromise flag- we could then say proudly that the people had made their choice.
What right, Mr. Speaker, has this government to make the decision? It is not a government elected with an over-all majority. They have no mandate to bring in such legislation. This government was appointed by the governor general and that is the reason they are in power. Therefore, for that reason more than anything else I think the people of Canada should be given the right and the privilege to decide the flag issue. Only 71 or 72 per cent of the committee voted in favour of the recommended flag, about 28 per cent of the committee members opposing it. Most of them opposed it because it was not a compromise flag.

I should also like to point out that the motion for a plebiscite was voted down nine to five. The second motion, which was for the adoption of only one national flag, was carried 14 to 0. However, after two or three weeks of debate we discovered there was going to be a second flag. I brought this matter to the attention of the chairman of the committee and to the attention of every other member of the committee, because all of our discussions from the first day onward were based on the understanding that there would be only one national flag. Then to our surprise in the last week again the question came up: What about a second flag? As a minority group in the committee we had no choice. We abstained from voting because all during the committee proceedings we had understood we were only dealing with one national flag.
The second point I should like to raise at this time concerns some of our discussions. We had heraldry experts in attendance who gave us some very valuable information. We thought the maple leaf design was good because it had the maple leaf as our national emblem; therefore the maple leaf on a white square was adopted because it was a Canadian symbol. Since the union jack and the fleur-de-lis were not in the corner of this flag it meant they were nothing more than emblems.
After my second speech in the flag debate I received thousands of letters from my constituents-and I mean thousands-all of them asking me to support the red ensign. After the first vote was taken in the special committee and the Canadian red ensign was voted down ten to four, it was apparent to many people in Canada that there should be a compromise flag. It was also apparent that the people would be willing to accept it. Therefore, why do the people not get the chance to vote on the proposed flag by way of a plebiscite? In such event justice would be done to everybody. Instead of splitting the people and disuniting them on the flag question the correct thing to do is to hold a plebiscite and the people will be pleased to accept the result. This plebiscite could be held at the time of the next election; it does not require special action.
Again I return to the proceedings of the committee. Thousands of flags were presented for the consideration of the committee. Finally we arrived at the point where we had the original three maple leaf flag with the blue bars at the end, then the flag with a maple leaf on a white square with two red bars at the end, and then the same flag with
Canadian Flag
the other two symbols to which I have referred. They were the last three flags on which the committee voted. By way of the elimination process, which I thought was a very good way, we arrived at a final design. To start with we eliminated by a show of hands various choices until there were four or five flags left in each group. One group represented flags with three maple leaves, some with blue bars and some with no bars. The second group consisted of one maple leaf designs. The third group comprised flags of compromise design. One was a red ensign with the fleur-de-lis superimposed on it. Another had a maple leaf in the centre, another had it on the side, and there was also the fleur-de-lis with the red ensign superimposed on it.
This matter, Mr. Speaker, is of great importance to the people of Canada today. We have been debating the flag issue for some time and the people want an answer. They know parliament is not able to come to a decision which would be adopted by the people of Canada, so for that reason I urge the house to give serious consideration to holding a plebiscite. Thousands of our people have fought in two wars. Many of the people who came to this country looked upon the Canadian flag as the flag under which freedom is the order of the day, under which there is no persecution and there is freedom of speech, freedom to speak one's own language, although the law decrees there are only two official languages, English and French. If you were to ask many of these people of ethnic origin what the Canadian flag means to them, they would point out that one reason so many of them came to Canada and are still coming to Canada is because the Canadian flag stands for democratic freedom. Indeed if we dispose of or do away with the Canadian flag, generations will pass before people will accept another flag as the flag of Canada. Although the committee did not come to a unanimous decision, I had the impression that the members of the committee commenced their meetings with the idea of deciding on a Canadian flag. As the days passed we in this group found ourselves isolated, not because we were the members who stood for the red ensign, but because we were the members who wanted a compromise embodying the symbols of the founding races. I still feel the committee might have decided to recommend the adoption of a compromise flag. Had we done so, I am sure we might have avoided dividing the nation, as it is now divided as the result of doing away

Canadian Flag
with the red ensign, while at the same time using some of the familiar symbols on a flag as recommended to the committee.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, as the moment for a final decision on a national flag for Canada draws near we are sensible of the trust imposed on every member of parliament to act wisely for all Canadians alive and unborn. If ever there was a time when we should discipline our tongues and elevate ourselves to the dignity of sane and disinterested patriots, this is it. Each of us in this chamber I know loves Canada with a poignancy that is too real to express-our "quiet lakes reflecting the glory of the sky and the shadows of the upland forest; the wide firmament flooded with crimson sunset; the long haggard hills formless and low; the desolate mountains"-places like Heart's Delight, Val d'Or, Red Deer, Nakusp. What flag is worthy of such a land?
Speaking for myself I have come out of the flag committee, after its six weeks sitting with nothing but respect and, I must say, affection and regard for every other member of that committee. I stand earnestly in support of the recommendation of this committee that the national flag of Canada be a red flag of the proportions two by length and one by width, containing in its centre a white square, the width of the flag, bearing a single red maple or, in heraldic terms, described as gules on a Canadian pale argent a maple leaf of the first.
I would remind members of this house that this is the third time a flag committee has been designated in the Commons of Canada. If members care to refer to Hansard of June 17, 1925, page 4364, they will find that a question was raised by Mr. T. Church in which he asked Right Hon. Mackenzie King who was asking for such a Canadian flag and for such a change, and why. The prime minister reported that he had set up an advisory committee consisting of G. J. Desbarats, Esq., C.M.G., deputy minister of national defence; Thomas Mulvey, Esq., B.A., K.C., under secretary of state; A. G. Doughty, Esq., C.M.G., LL.D., dominion archivist, Commodore Walter Hose, C.B.E., A.D.C., director of the naval service; Major General H.A. Panet, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., adjutant general, and Group Captain J. S. Scott, M.C., A.F.C., A.D.C., acting director of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
It is 1 think to be deplored that as a result of very strong objection taken in respect of the composition of that committee, not-
[Mr. Rapp.)
withstanding the fact that two of them were on the original arms committee appointed by Sir Robert Borden, it was dissolved without action taken.
You will then recall, Mr. Speaker, that on November 6, 1945, as reported in Hansard, the prime minister appointed a committee to consider and report upon a suitable design. So in fact when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) on September 10, 1964 reported to the house the establishment of a special committee on the subject of a Canadian flag, this was the third time this sovereign nation had made an attempt to establish a banner denoting its sovereignty.
This is a subject not of recent date or of recent concern to Canadians, but is something that goes back a long while. I have before me an article written by John S. Ewart, K.C., in 1907 which appeared in a Canadian magazine. I should like to read two brief extracts from this article. Mr. Ewart said:
A flag should denote correctly the sovereignty which it represents.
The second extract is:
Canada's self-respect requires that her acknowledged right of independent self-government, her accession to national rank, and her admission to a footing of equality with the United Kingdom itself, should not only be amply recognized at imperial conferences, but should be evidenced by her flag-by the flag of the Dominion of Canada.
Weeks ago, sir, it was drawn to my attention as a result of our trip to the archives, that the "Royal Reader" of Nova Scotia, a pleasant book for junior scholars, published by the T. Eaton Company Limited of Toronto, and Winnipeg, for 11 cents, portrayed a flag flying over a maple tree with these words: "The union jack our emblem dear guards our maple tree." What we seek now is a change in emphasis. The revered old union jack remains undifferenced and unaltered and will remain as a precious kindly memory of our inheritance, while this sovereign nation now flies its own device and colours in the position of precedence and honour. In October, 1923, in Montreal, David Lloyd George spoke of Canada's contribution in the first world war in these terms: "The maple leaf was embroidered forever on the silken folds of the banner of human history." It is about time, sir, that we recognized this fact at home.
One of the books we discovered at the archives was a little book entitled "The Story of the Union Jack", written by Barlow Cumberland, and in it is "A plea for the maple leaf". Incidentally this article was written in 1897 and Mr. Cumberland stated:

Flags are signals to be used for conveying Information to persons at a distance; their details should therefore, be simple in form and be displayed in simple colours.
The maple tree is found in luxuriance in every province of the dominion.
He then stated as we have already heard during our earlier flag debate, that this maple leaf was an emblem of the festival of St. Jean Baptiste, in French Canada, in 1836. He pointed out that the maple leaf was on the colours of the Royal Canadians, the 100th regiment, raised in Canada in 1865, and that it is still worn as the regimental badge of their successors, the Royal Leinster regiment. It is on the northwest medal of 1885, and on the uniform and accoutrement of the Canadian infantry and of the Northwest Mounted Police.
Mr. Cumberland also points out that it has revelled in poetry and prose; is the theme of the songs of our children, and that the stirring strains of "The Maple Leaf" form an accompaniment to our British national anthem.
Everywhere throughout the world the maple leaf has won recognition as the emblem of Canadians, and may well be displayed upon their flag. So, at any rate says Mr. Cumberland. This story was written many years before Canada achieved the dignity of arms.
The committee has recommended to parliament a flag of classic simplicity, consisting only of national colours. I must say that I agree with every word I heard the hon. member for Danforth utter in respect to the heraldic proprieties. This recommended flag consists only of Canada's national colours as provided in the proclamation to which my friend referred, of November 21, 1921. Displayed in the crest is a lion holding in its right paw a red maple leaf.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, during his quite scholarly address of some weeks ago referred to some of Canada's heraldic traditions and devices. Actually since 1868 the maple leaf, in one form or another, has by overwhelming consensus been accepted as emblematic of Canada. The flag colours, that is, the combination of white and red, may be found in the Fenian service ribbon, which was for the period 1866-70 which also covered the Riel rebellion, the Royal Military college flag, the Canada medal ribbon and finally in the Canadian decoration.
This flag sends one message-"Canada". It is in good heraldic taste. The committee's unanimous choice is immediately distinguishable from every other flag in the world and it is conspicuously Canadian in character. From the first day this flag flies it will be recognized 20220-677
Canadian Flag
I know, as being the flag of this country. It will look striking whenever occasion calls for it to be flown or draped alongside the union jack.
It might interest hon. members to know that the Royal Military college was founded in the year 1876 and since its founding the colours of the college have always been red and white as evidenced by their uniforms. This was, of course, the college of the nation. The original uniform was a red tunic, white trousers and white belt. That hat was a black shako, with white plume and red tip. The sash, which was worn in the wintertime, was red and white striped. In the late thirties, the library was destroyed by fire, but from ex-cadets we know that the R.M.C. flag of red, white and red was flown certainly in 1916 and again in 1918, and many of us on the defence committee have seen it since then. I remember studying it for some time during the past summer.
Now, sir, we find opposition to this maple leaf emblem. I refer to the Montreal Star of Tuesday, September 15, 1964. You will note that the committee was appointed on September 10, 1964. The heading of the article is: "Maple Leaf Out-Diefenbaker; Says Emblem Has No Place On New Flag". The article reads in part as follows;
Mr. Diefenbaker, "taken aback" by this statement-
The reference is to a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
-took to the air waves last night to suggest that the maple leaf had no place in any Canadian flag...
"Now I have no objection to a maple leaf," Mr. Diefenbaker said. "I don't criticize it as a symbol of the country-but can you tell me any country in the world that ever put a symbol on its flag?"
I have been challenged in the house not only today but on previous occasions with regard to a change in my position. I will not deny, sir, that for quite a time I had hoped that Canada's flag would carry the royal badge of three red maple leaves on a white field. There has been a good deal of research into this matter, and it was indicated that Her Majesty, on August 15, 1962, entirely on her own initiative had caused to be created by the College of Arms a banner as Queen of Canada. This was our Queen's personal tribute to this honoured realm, her gift to Canada, the first of the nations of the commonwealth beyond the seas.
This flag when designed was sent by Sir Anthony Wagner, Garter King of Arms, to Canada for approval in 1962 and it was approved by the then prime minister himself, now Leader of the Opposition. Recently we

Canadian Flag
have had occasion to examine this banner carried by our Queen on her B.O.A.C. and Air Canada aircraft, on H.M.S. Britannia, over her several dwelling places in Charlottetown, Quebec and Ottawa, and at every saluting stand where she has presided. I believed that after the royal visit to Canada the significance of the three red leaves on white would be understood by all. Yet on Wednesday, October 28, the evening before the flag committee tabled its report, the Leader of the Opposition referred contemptuously on national television to the "troika flag" introduced in the government resolution.
I had felt, and was confirmed in this belief by some of the best heraldic authorities we were able to consult, that we should follow the example set by Her Majesty in 1962 when she created her Royal flag from the ensigns armorial. Certainly since October 8, 1957, when Hon. Ellen Fairclough issued a news release with respect to the arms of Canada, there was no questioning the fact that our colours were white and red and that our national emblem was three red maple leaves on a white field.
I would also point out to hon. members that on November 21, 1962, the government then headed by the present Leader of the Opposition caused a communication to be sent to the College of Arms through government house advising as follows:
Needless to say the emblems of particular interest to the government of Canada are those granted In the royal proclamation of November 21, 1921, including "three maple leaves conjoined on one stem proper".
Sir, I thought they meant that. I thought the Conservative party was quite serious in believing that this was the national emblem because on the day that their government was defeated, February 5, 1963, they submitted in written form an answer to my question No. 1,449. The first part of the question was:
Does Canada have national colours and, if so, what are these colours?
The answer was:
Yes, white and red.
The second part of the question was:
Does Canada have a national emblem and, if so, what is the emblem?
This was the answer:
Yes, three maple leaves conjoined on one stem.
I thought it was fair and reasonable to suppose this was not the "Pearsbn pennant" or "troika pennant" but was the royal badge. I am simply putting this on the record be-
[Mr. Matheson.l
cause I do not want any vilification of this national emblem to detract in any way from the very fine work that has been done by our armed services for something like 40 years in bringing their badges and many of their devices into harmony with our ensigns armorial. But I must agree with the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) that while we must regard a flag as being in the area of heraldry, there is a licence and a freedom to deal with such devices and generally speaking a lot more freedom than there would be in the case of a shield or crest. The flag that has been recommended to the house is a strong and very impressive flag. We have been satisfied that it will meet the heraldic requirements of the most exacting experts in the world.
I know it is regarded that those of us on the government side have changed our position in voting for this proposed flag. By what he said the Leader of the Opposition would have preferred to see us locked tightly to a particular design. Thus he would have been able to gain disagreement in the committee which might have frustrated the choosing of a national flag for decades to come. Quite frankly, sir, in spite of strong feelings on this matter we felt this was a matter of great national importance. I went to the committee with a strong personal preference, as I have said, that the device accepted by the Queen should be recognized as the official emblem of the nation, but with the resolve that my personal preference would not impede the creative work of our committee. I prayed that I might forget my own heraldic notions and views and think only of Canada and her welfare.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, reference was made before the dinner hour by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) to certain items that appeared in the press, and I think I would be doing him a discourtesy if I did not refer to them. He mentioned the fact that a picture appeared in the publication La Voix de I'Est. I never saw this paper but I can assure the hon. gentleman that the picture to which he referred was taken some several days before the creation of the flag committee.

He also referred to press comment in the Recorder and Times but I can assure him I never made a speech on this subject. I did have private conversations with a good friend of mine who is the editor of that paper, and who questioned me with respect to the final report of the flag committee which he had read as it appeared in Hansard. I must confess I did not appreciate that this would be the subject of a press report. This was, of course, my indiscretion. Perhaps in my remarks I was a little undiplomatic but at least I am sure that what I did say I said honestly.
With respect to the visit of the grade ten children from the Peterborough school, it is true that at the request of certain members of the house, and I include among those the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Honey), the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Stenson), and the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb), all of whom were present, a number of children were in our flag committee room; but this was by no means the first such visit. I think the hon. member for Perth will remember that several groups were admitted, and that they moved around and examined suggested designs shown on the walls. On that occasion I did give each of the children a copy of a rather outdated address I made in the house on June 17, 1964, which may perhaps explain some of the press comments in that regard. However, I do not think I disclosed anything which was secret in character, but if I did I pray the hon. member's forgiveness.
I assure him that to the best of my recollection I did not have any conversations with members of the press, in relation to the flag, during the period we sat as a flag committee, nor indeed with my leader, directly or indirectly. I can assure him of that fact.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), whom I never had occasion to really know before sitting on the flag committee with him, and where I must confess I learned to respect and admire him very much, has referred to the fact that a new flag for Canada should contain in it the symbols of our national origins. I respect his view, just as I sincerely respect the view of anybody who would like to see the Canadian red ensign in its present form continue to fly as the flag of Canada. I am sure there is not anybody on this side of the house who does not love this old flag and feel deeply with respect to what it has meant in our past.


An hon. Member:: They like it in Brock-ville too.
20220-677J
Canadian Flag


John Ross Matheson: I am sorry I was not able to hear that remark, but I shall be happy to answer questions at the conclusion of my comments. But directing myself very briefly to the matter raised by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale I think I should read to him a letter which was drawn to my attention, a letter written to several papers in Canada by Lewis Grant McNab who served as an artillery counter-battery officer in world war I. He lives at 4250 Sherbrooke street west, apartment 18, Montreal, Quebec and under date of September 11, 1964 he wrote this letter:
Dear Sir:
On a recent trip overseas, there was an Anglican clergyman on my continental bus tour. He has a parish just outside London. It is what is known as a royal living, the property belonging to the crown. As such this reverend gentleman has enjoyed close contact with the royal family over a period of years.
I was talking to him about the current flag controversy in Canada and he told me something which I thought was very interesting. He said that King George V felt very strongly that the commonwealth nations should have a flag of their own which did not embody the union jack, and that if they wished to fly the union jack, they could do so under their own flag.
I took the trouble to telephone Mr. McNab about this, and I may point out he is well known in certain military circles.
I should now like to read from a letter written to me by J. R. B. Walker, a very distinguished scholar enjoying the appointment of Lancaster and Registrar, I believe since 1953, at the College of Arms, Queen Victoria street, London E. C. 4. His letter is dated May 27, 1964, and reads:
As the union jack symbolizes the union of England, Scotland and Ireland I would have thought it would be rather illogical to incorporate it in the heraldry of any other country; but the sovereign can do anything she pleases, and if she decided that the union jack was to be incorporated in the national symbol of any country in the commonwealth other than Great Britain, her decision would, of course, be perfectly valid.
My hon. friend from Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, as do I, believes in this exciting development of the commonwealth, and in fairness I think he will recognize that India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Ghana, Malaya, Cyprus, Nigeria, Tanganyika, Sierra Leone, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Malta have all followed the guidance of the College of Arms. Very recently Rouge Dragon, Dr. Conrad Swan, who was in Canada for a few days, informed me that nearly every new nation in the commonwealth has taken instruction from the old College of Arms with respect to national flags,

Canadian Flag
and that the style and pattern of incorporating the union jack in them is no longer followed.
A friend of mine has just passed me an article which appeared in the Daily Gleaner of Tuesday November 17, which shows a plaque recently unveiled in Jamaica. The inscription on the plaque reads:
On this spot was erected the flag staff from which was lowered the union jack and on which was hoisted the flag of Jamaica to mark the beginning of the independence of Jamaica at midnight 5th-6th August 1962.
Here also was sworn in the first native governor general of Jamaica, Sir Clifford Campbell G.C. M.G., at 8.50 p.m. on Saturday 1st December 1962. This plaque was presented by Herbert G. Macdonald, O.B.E., J.P.
We must recognize that we are living in a new and changing commonwealth of nations, where new things are expected of us if we are to play the type of leadership role that as Canadians we are expected to play.
Certain comments were made by earlier speakers with respect to the flag of Peru and I feel these must be answered. I feel Strongly about this. I referred a few moments before the six o'clock recess to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had referred to the three leaf flag containing the royal badge as "a troika flag". On the same occasion, on television, in an interview with Mr. Geoffrey Scott over C.B.C.-T.V. on October 28, the night before our flag committee was called upon to present its report, the right hon. gentleman was asked: "Would this be acceptable to you as a national flag?" Mr. Scott was referring to the flag which is now the subject of discussion. The Leader of the Opposition replied: "Certainly we couldn't accept that type of flag". Later on in the program he added: "Not this Christmas- or any other Christmas". His words were:
All I have to say about that, aside altogether from the fact that it shows nothing of our heritage, is that it would be far from being distinctive. As a matter of fact, it would be the Peruvian flag... If we ever get that flag, we would have the Peruvians saluting it anyway.
As I say, I feel strongly about this because only a few hours before the right hon. gentleman taped that broadcast for national television I had produced to the flag committee the admiralty book Flags of All Nations, volume 1, which sets out the national flag and ensign of Peru, the merchant flag and the jack. Not one member of that committee took exception on the grounds that our recommendation was not clearly distinguishable both in its proportions and in its general appearance from the Peruvian
[Mr. Matheson.l
flag. The comment made by the right hon. gentleman is therefore in my opinion, completely unfair.
This has been a difficult time for some of us on the government side. If it is felt that we have acted sometimes in a discourteous manner, believe me we have been under tension, too. I do not want the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) to feel he is the only person who has at times felt trapped. Listening to the attacks made on us with respect to what we thought was an honest effort to find a good flag, one recommended by the highest authorities, listening to it being assailed as a "Pearson pennant" and a troika, we have been disposed to shout at the Leader of the Opposition as Churchill did over the B.B.C. on one historic occasion when his foes across the channel were harassing England with bombs: "You do your worst and we will do our best."
We sought to find an acceptable flag design on the basis of the royal badge. That would not do. On the flag committee we struggled hard to find a strong and distinctive flag which represented a fresh approach. For a moment, indeed, we achieved unanimity- and then we discovered that the Leader of the Opposition was even more contemptuous and scathing than he had been before. I think it is quite impossible to please this angry man. I say to him, in the language of Tom Jones:	"I am very sorry, sir, for your
unhappiness. Whatever is the occasion of it?"
We have tried to do our best. The original design, I must say, meant a great deal to me. However, I can tell the house with complete conviction that I love this new design.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You said that about the other one.


John Ross Matheson: Hon. members opposite
laugh. But I am wearing the cuff links of the Royal Canadian Legion. Some members are wearing the badge in their buttonholes. I think legionnaires will be interested to compare the proposed flag with their own Royal Canadian Legion badge. It is not that the flag is derived from their badge. Actually each derives its colours and its motif from the same armorial proclamation of 1921-the proclamation referred to by the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Scott). No flag expert in the world can criticize this flag for design, concept or propositions. It meets all the tests for a distinguished flag. It is a flag of dignity and grace, worthy of a great sovereign nation. I believe it has a great purpose to serve in

this nation as a uniting factor, something around which we can all rally, together with that beautiful old device, the union jack, which I hope will never cease to fly in this country, not as our national flag but as a flag to be used on proper occasions for demonstrating our allegiance to Queen and commonwealth.
I believe that increasingly this country will be playing a larger role in certain international areas of responsibility. Those of us who have been active in the defence committee and who have taken part in the defence debates can, I am sure, be satisfied that the reorientation of our defence activities is in the direction of peace keeping. It has been manifest from the time of Suez to the present day that it is not helpful for us to continue flying a flag which is a colonial ensign or which appears to some to have that connotation.
In bringing my remarks to a close I should like to refer to an address delivered in England on June 2, 1941 by the grand old man we all honour today, we think of him almost as one of our own. Mr. Winston Churchill, speaking to Canada on June 2, 1941 used these words:
X speak to you this afternoon from No. 10 Downing street, here in the capital and the governing centre of this battered but indomitable city and island. Our people have been through much in the last few months. They have learned much-and some things they will never forget. But above all they have learned their own strength... no one doubts that we can or that we shall see it through: and that when at length we march again into the light of happier and easier days, Canada will play her just part in laying the foundations of a wider and a better world.
This is not the kind of country that is only for us Scots. Of course we are happy to celebrate St. Andrew's day today, and we will never forget the rock from which we were hewn or the pit from which we were digged. This is the kind of country where a Croat like Frank Mahovlich, a Czech like Stan Mi-kita, a Frenchman like Jean Beliveau, an Indian like George Armstrong, a Ukranian like Terry Sawchuk or an Irishman like Don McKenney from my own riding of Leeds, or our own Red Kelly in the House of Commons all feel absolutely equal. My good friend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has pointed out to me that the first verse of the last chapter of the Bible contains these words:
And he shewed me a pure river of water clear as crystal... and on either side of the river was there the tree of life... and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Canadian Flag
I should like to think that may refer to the maple leaf.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question? What was the significance of the words he used when he said "The pit from which we were digged?"


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He meant "dug".


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps I was somewhat confused in my scripture. It is: "The rock from which we were hewn or the pit from which we were digged."
On St. Andrew's day some of us are trembling with Scottish zeal. I see many Scots sitting in the house today with tartan ties. Pride in being Canadian does not mean we cannot continue to take pride in our racial origins, be they British, French, or otherwise.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy tonight to follow the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), mostly because I always feel that if you follow a strong speaker nobody will pay any attention; and certainly I believe that the best chance I may have of getting some attention from the house or indeed from the country is the fact that we have just listened to a speech which contains all the pious platitudes and all those symptoms of that lack of sincerity which have characterized the Liberal party since the question of the changing of our national flag has come into prominence.
Certainly I listened with rapt attention, as so many did, when the hon. member said, "I love this flag". It seems to me there is a line somewhere, "How constant is thy love?" Some of us heard the hon. member on another occasion and have reason to suspect that there was a first love of his when it came to the flag design, which was the three maple leaves. In fact I do not know whether he now claims that he was dishonestly given the credit or discredit for its sponsorship; but he has been blamed by most of us for being very prominent in trying to foist that design on the nation. Certainly he gave every indication that he loves that flag. It is not just those few words of his that characterize his attitude, and indeed the attitude of his colleagues on the Liberal benches, to this question of changing our national flag. In this at least he has been constant in that he is most inconstant, and so is the Liberal party.
I had hoped tonight, Mr. Speaker, to start out by expressing a little admiration at least for the many hours of hard work that the

Canadian Flag
members of the flag committee of this house have put in. Certainly I am sure that no matter how much members of this house have been maligned by the press from time to time because they fail to understand that committee work keeps people out of the chamber, or that other duties keep people out of the chamber, those of us in the house have some appreciation of the amount of effort that has been expended by this committee and how much extra work was undertaken by those members who sat morning, noon and night some days in order to carry out this task. I feel I would not be completely honest if I did not add that I think their burden was unnecessarily onerous because of the insistence on a time limit. Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), in his few remarks this afternoon on the point of order as to the amendment proposed, put everything in its proper perspective and revealed to us all exactly why the time limit was so important. I think the Prime Minister has revealed to this house and to the country that as far as he was concerned the work of that committee was little more than a sham. He had introduced this most controversial subject in the worst and most political way possible and he expected the committee would bring in something that would allow the government to get rid of its embarrassment as quickly as possible, and therefore the time element was the only point that mattered at all.
I suggest that all of us who are genuinely interested in the question of a flag, those of us who have some understanding of the number of people in this country who recognize the importance of tampering with our symbols in this political, halfhearted or lighthearted way, are bound to take cognizance of that fact. Therefore I have to say that, while I believe the members of that committee have certainly deserved the thanks of this house for the number of hours expended and the way in which they applied themselves to their task, it has been obvious from the outset and it is even most obvious today that the government of this country has done everything it can to make their work meaningless. I suggest that from the outset, from the way in which the Prime Minister set the stage, it was a little unreasonable and really we were asking a little too much to think that the members of that committee would have attacked their task in other than a lighthearted manner.
Consider for a moment how this flag debate started, with the Prime Minister proclaiming

to the country loud and long and in the most partisan way that he was going to shove his design down the throat of parliament and give the people of Canada his design for a flag, in place of the red ensign which has been Canada's flag for the last 100 years. I suggest that the tremendous struggle that was necessary to get him to concede this much at least, namely that it should go to a committee, had become so partisan, so violent and stretched out so long that no member of that committee could have undertaken the task without a feeling of frustration; and if not frustration, at least considerable cynicism. I suggest that this degree of cynicism made itself evident as the work of the committee progressed and we saw leaks to the press from time to time; reporters reporting what was going on in a committee which was sitting in camera. I do not care how vehement members may get about a flag or how many may feel it could not matter less, but surely members of this house should feel that no member should sit in this house who cannot be called an honourable lady or gentleman. Certainly the word of a committee that it is in camera is a binding oath that should be as sacred to the members of that committee as any oath could be.
I suggest that only the worst possible foundation for starting a committee, the worst possible approach and the most cynical attitude toward it on the part of some members can account for the most shameful course of conduct on the part of those who wanted to enhance their own reputations by ruining their own good name. Any member of that committee who is accused of deviating in the slightest manner from his duty to keep those proceedings secret should, I think, be most indignant if he is accused unjustly, and most guilty if there is any falling away from his duty at all. I think there should be on the part of those who have been mentioned a very spirited effort in their own defence. Here I must pay special attention to the hon. member for Leeds who has just finished speaking.
I did not try to be complimentary to him when I started, and I repeat my original assertion that I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life as his statement that he loves this flag. His whole speech as far as I am concerned consisted of platitudes, trite sayings and red herrings.
I was in this house this afternoon when the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) listed what I thought was a most damning indictment against the hon. member for Leeds. He gave chapter and verse the statements which

that member had given to the press, and I heard hardly a word from the hon. member for Leeds in his own defence. Certainly I want to say on my own behalf as far as I am concerned my view of the meaning of an in camera meeting, and the duty it lays on each and every member of a committee which holds a meeting in camera to keep silent their proceedings, is a much higher duty than apparently the hon. member understands.
1 am not going to be any more charitable to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). I know that members on both sides of the house-although those on the Liberal side who were disgusted by him are likely to be quiet and not say anything in this chamber-were disgusted, indeed shocked, by the performance of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra in his attempt to gain for himself all the publicity and glory he could from anything which came out of that committee meeting. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), who is now known as "Mr. Leakman", certainly received his share of publicity, but I suggest that a member of this house who should have some regard for the duty he owes that committee and the equality that the members of the committee were supposed to share one with another, should at least have the decency to wait till the committee's report was made public to the house before making press statements.
I do not mind revealing, Mr. Speaker, that some time after this occurred I had a conversation with one member of the committee who was very incensed, not only at the fact that this had occurred, but because he felt that what had been said was so wide of the truth in so many respects that he wondered whether we had been released from our obligation to keep silent, and he wondered whether we could not get up and publicly set the record straight. I advised him that I thought that just because there might be sinners on the other side of the house was no reason to emulate them on our side. I am afraid that is a little different from the attitude taken by the Liberals, who whenever they are found at fault ask: And what did you do? This might be a good time to remind government supporters that if some of the sins they commit bear any resemblance to the sins of their previous government, the people of Canada will chastise them as they did the previous government during the last two election campaigns; and I hope hon. members opposite will be prepared to pay the price of
Canadian Flag
their sins instead of sitting in this house and talking to us as though this would absolve them from guilt.
I cannot to this day understand why a time limit should have been set on the proceedings of the committee. The only conclusion I can come to-and I have given it lots of thought- is that the political gain which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) hopes to achieve by presenting a flag to the country within the time he dictated was most important to him. Members of the house might have gained a ray of hope at the start when the Prime Minister, who had introduced the flag in a most political manner, announced there would be a free vote. We thought for a while that perhaps he was going to give us some inkling of the importance of a flag; that perhaps it was a little more important than just another political issue and a political gain of the moment. Then he explained what he meant by a free vote, and indeed we found he had become a real Liberal propagandist.
Then when the committee was appointed we thought that perhaps one thing had impressed him, and that was that we on this side were sincere in this flag debate on the question how this should be handled. We had thought that even if the government were successful in ramming down the throat of parliament a flag which most of us did not like, passing an act of parliament is not the same thing as a new flag which the people would welcome and accept, and we had thought that at last our long battle to persuade him to send the question to a committee might have left some impression on him. We hoped he would think there was much good in a committee discussing the question and that the people of Canada might have some feeling of satisfaction from the fact that this flag issue had at last been handled in a way which would satisfy the dissident groups in as much as there had been a fair hearing in an unpolitical manner and in a way which reflected the concern for Canada over this issue. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the attitude displayed by some of the members of that committee regarding their duty to be silent certainly shook the confidence of most of us in our sincerity adequately to consider the feelings of the various segments of the population and the various opinions they held.
I must say that no more concrete proof of the sincerity of the government backbenchers on that committee is necessary than that contained in the report presented to us for concurrence today. Those of us who were in the house earlier heard the Minister of Transport

Canadian Flag
(Mr. Pickersgill) ask one question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to this effect: How about the question of reviving an issue which has already been decided in this session?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Reversing.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yes, that is it, reversing. The Minister of Transport, in his argument about the question whether the amendment was in order, said that if we were now to send it back to a committee before the house had decided there should be a time limit, we in this house would be reversing a question which had already been decided. My argument to that was that I thought the house can send back to a committee something the committee has already decided, and 1 said that had been established many times.
If you look at the committee report in which we are asked to concur, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the first question settled by that committee is whether there should be one flag or two. With regard to that, Mr. Speaker, you find unanimous agreement. This committee which we fought so hard to get established, and which we hoped might do so much to at least give the appearance to the people of Canada that the question was going to be handled in a responsible manner by members of parliament, who would be guided by their conscience as Canadians with a true understanding of the meaning of symbols, instead of simply acting as politicians following the party line, voted unanimously that there should be only one flag. I would have thought-I still hope there may be a chance of this-that the Minister of Transport, since he is so familiar with the rules, would side with me when I say that for the committee to bring up the same point later on which it had earlier unanimously disposed of and finished with is clearly contrary to the rules. For them later on to attempt to revive it by bringing in a partisan vote with a different decision than originally arrived at is also clearly contrary to the rules. It is not only contrary to the rules but is an affront to the integrity of the members of that committee. To suggest that all the members of that committee were free to vote independently from any political control by the Liberal party is an insult to the intelligence of hon. members. I suggest that such a thing could not have taken place, as it did, without some direction from the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I observe that I am touching upon the sensibilities of the Liberal backbenchers, and I suppose I have been a little

naive in complaining about the lack of integrity on the part of the Liberal members of this special committee on the flag. Perhaps I am being naive in suggesting that this subject is of such importance to the people of Canada, and so sacred to all those who believe as I do in this country, that it should have been treated as something other than a political football. I am not unhappy in many ways about the amount of adverse publicity the press has given members on this side of the house because of the weeks and weeks of fighting we have done to get the flag resolution sent to a committee, but I cannot understand the political legerdemain by which the Liberals have convinced most of the people in this country that it is the Conservative members who are wasting the time of the country by debating the flag issue, when all the time these things are controlled by an absent Liberal party. I do think it is rubbing salt into a raw wound for that same Liberal party now to expect the people of this country to be gullible enough to stand for this sort of contempt of the rules of this house.
We have witnessed in this house day in and day out Liberal contempt for parliament, and this has been apparent ever since the Liberal government was elected, as evidenced by the government's refusal to answer questions, and in their attitude when they have been caught in errors. Certainly what took place last week was a striking example of this attitude. We witnessed the actions of a minister of justice who obviously did not have any idea or concept of his duties.
When the Prime Minister of this country spends his time out west, as he did last week, instead of being here to answer to parliament for the actions of this wayward ministers, surely that is a manifestation of this contemptible attitude. The Prime Minister decided to go on a campaign junket out in the west, which is an effrontery to this country. He talked about now being the time when we need unity in Canada. Surely that is too much for the long suffering people of this country to put up with. How phony can one get in talking about unity? The Prime Minister speaks about unifying the nation and starts out by introducing this flag issue in a political way, making sure that the country is divided. He has taken every step possible to make sure that whatever else happens the reputation of parliament is ruined, and then has the temerity to suggest that the criticism of this house shall be lessened.

He established a committee composed of a bunch of members who find little difficulty in acting with this obvious contempt for the rules of parliament. This is an indication to this nation that their obedience to the whim of the Liberal party is more important than their duty as members of a committee. How then can the Prime Minister have the effrontery to talk about unity in this country, in view of the manner in which he has handled this debate, which has done more to cause disunity than the actions of all people in the last quarter of a century?
I am glad to see the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Forgie) sitting in his place this evening. He is an old friend of mine and I say to him, as an old friend, that there is one thing I have always known about him. That is, he is a good Liberal, and a good Liberal is one who never allows logic or common sense to bother him.


Mr. Forgie:: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to point out to the hon. member that he is a far better curler than he is a speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: You are not in your seat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has the floor.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, in the event that the hon. gentleman's remark was not picked up by Hansard, the hon. member said that I am a far better curler than I am a speaker. I do not want to leave the hon. member for Renfrew North alone in this category. I categorized him as a good Liberal, and most of the backbenchers over on that side are good Liberals simply because they managed to get elected. What the Prime Minister would call a good Liberal is an elected Liberal, who always says yes when there is a suggestion that he should do so, and says nothing when there is any question whatsoever about the course to follow because someone has failed to give a signal. I will never forget the situation surrounding the Great Slave lake railway, when someone on that side voted against the bill and all the rest followed suit. Shortly thereafter many Liberal backbenchers were heard to say: I did not mean to vote against that, but Chevrier got up and we had to follow. This is typical of Liberal policy.
I happen to know a few of the members on the Liberal side of this house quite well, and I am happy to say that there are some members over there for whom I have a great deal of respect. I have managed to
Canadian Flag
keep that respect for some of them on most occasions, but I do think now that some of them would get up on their hind legs, accept their duties seriously and say to their leader: Give us something honest to stand for, for a change; act fairly with the House of Commons for a change; quit trying to evade questions; quit trying to be so sneaky; quit being so hypocritical, and make life a little easier for us. I sometimes wonder whether the Liberal backbenchers feel that their Prime Minister has a vendetta against them. It has been a long time since any Liberal backbencher has had self respect enough to get up and say: I am behind the government and I think it is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened to the hon. member for quite a few minutes, and it seems to me that very few of his remarks during that time have related in any way to the subject now before us for consideration. They have been directed away from the resolution before the house. I would appreciate the hon. member's relating, if possible, the remarks he has made to that matter which we are supposed to be studying.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I wandered astray, it was because I was considering the report of the committee and the fact that at least at first appearance that committee has blatantly violated the fundamental rules of this house.
I pointed out that the house could refer this subject back to the committee for reconsideration, but certainly it is obvious even to those on the Liberal back benches, who find it painful even to consider the obvious, that for a committee to make one decision and then a completely different decision in the next moment is a very shameful course of conduct, and they cannot even plead ignorance. We all realize that that is the kind of excuse they have been making for so much of the time on that side of the house. I suggest to them if they cannot understand these few remarks, they should remember, with some chagrin, the amendment to the labour code which included November 11 as a holiday, at which time the government was defeated in the committee of the whole, and then consider that all that party had to do on that occasion was bring the subject up again the next day when they had a majority and reverse the decision.
That is what the flag committee did. I suggest that the Liberal members of that committee had to report to the Prime Minister

Canadian Flag
on progress every day. All members of the committee, not just the Liberals or the Conservatives but every member of the flag committee, were unanimous that there should only be one flag. That matter was settled and disposed of, and there is only one explanation for its coming up again. The Liberal members of the committee got their orders from the Prime Minister that this would not do. Joey would have somebody's neck; and so the matter had to be opened up again. That is why the question was brought up again.
I would be happy to hear any logical explanation from any Liberal member of that committee. I must say that they were pretty prompt in speaking to the press while the committee was sitting. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was a little too quick in getting his story before the public before the house received the report of the committee. What is stopping these hon. members now from getting up and giving us a logical explanation of why they should trample on so obvious a rule of the house?
I hope to say a few words about the design of a flag generally. I want to come back to the remarks of the hon. member for Leeds. He spent a great deal of time telling us what this flag meant in heraldry, the importance of the three maple leaves, and so on. His arguments can be disposed of very simply. As far as I and my constituents are concerned heraldry does not mean one tenth as much as pleasing design. It does not mean one hundredth as much as whether or not the flag stands for something.
The flag that has been presented by the committee, thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister and the government and those willing co-assassins of Canadian democracy who have supported them, stands for pure political propaganda. It stands for the ability of the Liberal party to prove once again that they can sell a lie to the public faster than the public can catch up to them.
The hon. member referred to a dozen African countries. He did not mention countries like Australia and New Zealand which like Canada have a long, proud history and tradition of established democracy, countries which have a flag that means something to their people because they have a history of which they are not ashamed. I must say I cannot understand Liberal members not having the intestinal fortitude to stand up and tell the house what is meant by a compromise by the Liberal party on a flag. While most of

us in the opposition felt that the red ensign was good enough we were ready to compromise. I think the general feeling on this side of the house was that we wanted a flag which would retain some symbol of our history and heritage to show that we are not ashamed of a flag that has flown over this country for 100 years and to show that Canada has 100 years of history of which we are proud.
The difficulty was that on the Liberal side compromise meant only one thing. No flag should fly over Canada which has on it any symbol denoting anything of our history and heritage. That is all. Anything else would pass. Then member after member would get up, like the hon. member for Leeds, and say, "I truly love this flag". I bet you that if it had been a plain, dirty handkerchief he would have been able to say the same thing, so long as it did not have any suggestion of anything indicating our history, our heritage and our traditions. All I can say is that the new flag brought in by the committee stands for the Liberal party.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) when he says it is being brought in by parliament and not by any one person. That is nonsense. I think he is being very naive when he does not concede that it is being brought in by the political power of the Liberal party exercised on the members of that committee. Oh, I admit they were given a little discretion: As long as you have a maple leaf on it, it does not matter. That is what I like, a party that really stands for something. Political opportunism is what the Liberal party stands for and that is what this flag stands for.
I hope that those on the other side who feel I am wasting my time and that the voters of the country are going to say I am wasting the time of the house, because we all know that public opinion says this matter should be wrapped up quickly, are feeling really happy and secure now. I have never seen more typical examples of leadership than those Liberals show who watch to see which way the flock is running, and then run a little faster in order to catch up. As far as I am concerned the duty of members of this house is to try to deal with the business of the house as their consciences dictate, and we can see from the erratic behaviour of those on the other side of the house that they have been trying to do this. But having no consciences they have been wandering willy-nilly wherever political opportunism leads, and I hope they are happy.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, the time has come to give Canada a distinctive flag, symbol of unity and pride, and I would even say of paternity and sovereignty for Canadians.
This motion concerns the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag proclaiming the sovereignty of our country.
Canada, through its history, has experienced a constant constitutional evolution. It has now become a sovereign state within the commonwealth and the nations. A state is sovereign when it holds supreme soreveign authority at home and when it is submitted to no other country at the international level. Sovereign does not mean independent or absolute, because all nations must submit to public international law.
We can assert with pride that our country enjoys today the eight main characteristics of a sovereign state: the right to legislate, the right to give our legislation extraterritoriality, the right to diplomatic representation abroad, the right to have Canadian courts of last instance, the right to declare peace, war or neutrality, the right to amend our constitution according to our desire and our own decisions, the right to negotiate and to sign ourselves our own treaties, and finally, the recognition of our sovereignty by the other nations of the world.
Several factors and developments have made possible the achievement of such a maturity, but the most outstanding was the Statute of Westminister passed on December 11, 1931, which gave our country its sovereignty and independence within the commonwealth.
There is more than the possession of Canadian sovereignty which is talked about so much in this house, within the United Nations, within NATO and almost everywhere in the world; this real sovereignty must express itself through outward signs which proclaim our distinctive Canadian personality.
Our national impulse for a distinctive character does not in any way hurt our relations with the other members of the commonwealth, with which we are united through a common allegiance to the British crown.
That is the spirit behind a project which promotes the existence of a Canadian sovereignty which can express itself through external signs: a distinctive national flag, a distinctive national anthem and a national day celebrating Canadian sovereignty.
Therefore, the thing is to adopt a distinctive flag, one which would be characteristic of
Canadian Flag
our country, both a flag and an anthem completely different from those of other countries and which would bear our colours and show our national aspirations as truly Canadian and distinctive.
We, Creditistes, had adopted a distinctive flag, we had advocated a diagonal one. We felt that because of its simplicity, it should have been accepted, but such was not the case. The members of this house decided otherwise.
We spent almost three weeks dealing with the flag and then a committee was set up which discussed the matter for six weeks. That committee has brought us its report. Now, since we did not come here merely to indulge in petty politics, but to do things, and because the time has come to give Canada a distinctive flag, we accept the report of the committee. We are pleased to approve it, because the old parties have been calling for the adoption of a flag for such a long time. In fact, they have been doing so for 25 years, but the Canadians have never had a distinctive flag. They are still waiting for it and since we are here to take a stand and act, we are ready to vote in favour of a distinctive flag which will do credit to all Canadians and the entire community.
It is not the first time that such a matter is raised in Canadian politics; in the past, some governments, some associations, certain members of parliament and a great number of Canadians have raised that important issue without avail.
When we consider the origin and background of flags, we note that the union jack has become the national emblem of Great Britain under a royal proclamation of January 1, 1801. We note that the red ensign, authorized in England by Queen Anne in 1707 and by Queen Victoria in 1864, is, under section 72 of the merchant and shipping act of 1894 the proper flag of all ships belonging to British citizens.
If Canadians are really to express their new Canadian citizenship, which they have possessed since January 1, 1947, and a really distinctive patriotism, those two flags no longer suit their legitimate aspirations.
Besides, the order in council of September 5, 1945 clearly indicates that the red ensign will be flown until parliament decides otherwise. The order in council thus recognizes a temporary situation which we must now rectify and define by a specific action, namely by finally adopting a distinctive national flag for this Canada of ours.

Canadian Flag
Since the last war, public opinion in Canada has constantly evolved in this field and has reached an unequivocal degree of maturity.
Why has the time come to make this decision? It is because our country, Canada, a sovereign state, needs external signs to demonstrate this legal and progressive sovereignty.
If our country has developed to the extent that everyone acknowledges its obvious maturity, we must show this emancipation by means of a truly national and essentially distinctive flag. The pride and the future of our country, and the acknowledgment of our final liberation are at stake.
Most Canadians in this North American country ardently wish to live, not for the mother countries of their remote ancestors, but for the land that feeds them and will feed their sons and daughters, for the land where they will draw their last breath.
Only a really distinctive Canadian national flag will strengthen convictions which presided over confederation in 1867, only a really distinctive Canadian national flag will give concrete form to our common aspirations, our parliamentary and individual liberties, our mutual understanding and our Canadian patriotism.
Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian people as a whole need such a flag, if the Canadian people as a whole insist on it with the support of the political parties, if the whole world recognizes that Canada has reached its maturity and has a distinctive personality, what are we, members of the House of Commons, waiting for to take the necessary step?
I hope this motion will be enthusiastically received and that the house will soon give it by a positive vote.
If we adopt a distinctive Canadian flag, we should also proclaim a distinctive national anthem, for we could not very well look at our distinctive Canadian flag and, at the same time, sing the national anthem of another country. Let us not make such a blunder, which would be absolutely intolerable and ridiculous.
Since a parliamentary committee selected a flag, the government should see to it that a national anthem is adopted at the same time as a national flag. The vote should be taken at the same time on the flag and on the anthem, and one should be just as national and distinctive as the other.
Both our Conservative and Liberal governments have long postponed the granting of a [Mr. Latullppe.l
distinctive national flag to Canada. It is their business. We are anxious to have a distinctive national flag but we can wait. For us in Quebec, there are more urgent things to settle in our relations between the provinces and the federal government. But in all these other fields, we do not wish that cultural and intellectual matters be always settled by dint of numbers, nine against one. This is too unfair, too unequal, too despotic. We ask all nationalities making up Canada to try to understand us on a human basis, on an essential basis instead of considering us always by different standards.
We are then ripe for a truly national flag. The failures and the errors of the past are over. Let us face the future and let us consider ourselves as one people made up of human beings having the same essential needs; indeed, there are now 19,300,000 Canadian citizens and in 1967, when we celebrate the centennial of the confederation there will be 20,000,000.
These 19,300,000 human beings have rights recognized in our Canadian statutes. For instance, there is the famous Canadian Bill of Rights passed on August 10, 1960, which states that:
The parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God., the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions.
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion, or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person... freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of the press:
Mr. Speaker, that proves that we can do something which is national in scope, something which is truly Canadian, in the realm of the intellect, of the mind, of intelligence. I understand that it is harder and it takes longer to achieve unity when you have ten provinces instead of one and 28 nationalities instead of one, but why do we not follow that example in essential and humanitarian fields.
The drafting of the Canadian Bill of Rights required several weeks, several months and, indeed, several years of parliamentary work; it cost a great deal of money, of effort, of energy and of enthusiasm, but in the end every member of parliament voted for this humanitarian legislation, and the whole Canadian people rejoiced on August 10, 1960, when the bill was given royal assent.

And that was a document strictly Canadian in scope, in dimension, which contained not a single word likely to show our subservience to any other people in the whole world.
Did you give any thought to this initial action finally taken by the Canadian parliament, without feeling obliged to ask permission from any other country, without feeling obliged to repatriate or amend the constitution?
This is proof, Mr. Speaker, proof that we can do the same thing here through our own powers, in this house of representatives of the people, the whole Canadian people, all the people from one coast to the other, and from the North pole to the U.S. border.
But, once more, by a national initiative, like choosing a distinctive flag, each section must recognize the fact that while claiming rights for itself, at the same time it assumes the duty to respect those same rights towards other sections.
Do you admit that? This is what we have to consider before going any further in the life of the whole people whom we want to be Canadian, just plain Canadian and not French Canadian, English Canadian, Scottish Canadian, Irish Canadian, Italian Canadian or German Canadian, no more than American Canadian.
Just Canadian, Mr. Speaker; Canadian on Canadian soil, with a Canadian flag, that is what I am, that is what I want, that is what I hope to see in the near future, for me, my children, my friends, for you, for all of us here in this house, in this parliament, in this government, in this- whole country, this Canada, this Canada of ours.
Canada's history is but beginning. The history of confederation is but 100 years old. The past is gone. The past saw joy, it saw grief, it was borne with its faults, its glories; now we see where we stand and look towards the future.
Let us cease to dwell on the differences, and learn to love one another better by looking at such things as we have in common, common essence, Canadian essence, human essence, both human and divine, the ultimate principle of our unity, of our vitality, of our universality.
Because if we are proud enough some day to fly a truly Canadian flag within the limits of our territory, let it be known that we shall also have to be proud enough to fly it throughout the whole world as a really distinctive Canadian flag.
Such a flag will date, we hope, from 1964 or 1967 but let it be, if possible, really Ca-
Canadian Flag
nadian, a true sign and symbol that will rally the minds and actions of the various nationalities making up the Canadian people on Canadian soil.
We will thus be able to sing before that Canadian flag the Canadian national anthem; "O Canada".


Mr. Leo Cadieux (Terrebonne):: To use an
expression employed by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), I was one of that bunch of cynical members who participated in the work of the flag committee. So were five Conservative members whom I did not know very well before we began our discussions and whom I have come to respect very much for the way in which they did their work, and also for the sincerity they showed throughout the sittings of that committee.
I wish to take this opportunity tonight to report to you, sir, that this committee was one of the best of any I have known. Every member participating in its discussions was in earnest, trying very hard and very honestly to find and reach a reasonable compromise on this difficult question of a national flag for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that at the beginning of the discussions, I was faced, like most members of this committee, with an issue that seemed terribly difficult. We had the opportunity during our meetings to listen to experts in the fields of heraldry, history, protocol, and so on, who briefed us, as fully as possible, on the purely technical aspects of this matter.
I think I should say the committee's members reached a decision through a logical process which could not lead them to any other choice than the one which they eventually reached by a majority vote.
First of all, we recognized there are traditions in Canada even if, among the public and the members of the House of Commons they appeared to be ignored. There exists a tradition in Canada, as far as our country's symbol is concerned.
Here, may I underline this-I said it often during the meetings of the committee as the hon. members who sat on that committee may recall-that when we are faced with the question of adopting a national flag, we cannot think of incorporating in such an emblem every glorious event in our history. We must reach as technical and as simple a definition as possible of what a flag should be.

Canadian Flag
A flag is a signal, a message aimed at identifying the bearer, and there is no question of recalling the historical background or trying to encumber such a flag with all kinds of signs recalling the history of the country it seeks to identify.
Such a flag must be readily identified. Consequently, it should be simple. Moreover, it should bear a familiar symbol. During these numerous meetings, several precedents in the history of Lower Canada as well as of Upper Canada were recalled indicating that, spontaneously, in both Canadas, the Canadian people when they wished to identify themselves always showed a maple leaf.
It is the reason why the first inevitable conclusion reached by the members of the committee-and I might even say by the hon. Conservative members who were on the committee-was that the emblem of Canada was the maple leaf.
Somewhat later, we tackled the problem from a rather more legal point of view, shall we say. Then, I remember, I very candidly remarked to my Tory friends that they had themselves made to the solution of this problem an exceptional contribution and that, for one, I was shocked to find that now that we must reach a decision ratifying what tradition had already decreed, they repudiated it.
As a matter of fact, a cursory look at history, as regards this question of a Canadian flag, will show, following consideration of this matter by the committee, that the army has more than 400 military badges bearing the maple leaf and that a Conservative government asked His Majesty the King, in 1921, to proclaim what was to be the emblem of Canada. At that time in the coat of arms of Canada, that emblem was selected, and it was three maple leaves on a single stem.
At first discussion arose as to the colour of those maple leaves. Then, in 1957, again under a government headed by a Conservative prime minister, the colour of those leaves was changed from green to red. And more recently, in 1962, the government under the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), once again suggested that the Queen herself incorporate in her personal flag, as the Queen of Canada, the three red maple leaves on a single stem.
Therefore, I repeat this question to my Conservative friends. Why do you disavow that important contribution you made in our efforts to choose a distinctive emblem for Canada?

We therefore established in the first place that Canada's emblem should be the maple leaf. We established that because it is an emblem that Canadians chose spontaneously, as I said, and also because it is an emblem known everywhere.
I recall that during our discussions, when we heard, as we heard them so often in the house, that easy oratory recalling that Canadian soldiers had died fighting for the red ensign, we asked one of our own people who was on the battle front during the last war whether that was the actual truth. He admitted not only the fact that, in contemporary times, armies do not fly any flag in battle but also that even the officers take their badges off, so that nothing may identify the brigade or division in the line. And we also heard the testimony of a person who recently visited the cemeteries of Canadian soldiers abroad. This person told us that on every white cross which marked the tomb of a dead soldier, there was a maple leaf showing that this soldier was a Canadian.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that through logic we had arrived at the choice we are submitting tonight. The same applied as concerns the colours of the flag. Once more, we inspired ourselves from the proclamation which, in 1921, established the colours of Canada.
I know that this afternoon a member who supported this motion of the flag committee was asked what part of the proclamation stated that white and red were the Canadian colours. It is to be found not in the proclamation itself but in the interpretation of Canada's coat of arms.
That is why we asked experts in heraldry to tell us, laymen, what interpretation should be given to the coat of arms. It is also through logic that we have been able to determine the importance of this historical souvenir, the genealogy mentioned by our friends opposite. It is in the Canadian coat of arms that we have found the answer.
If you examine them closely, you will see that they include the lion of the Plantagenets, the lion of Scotland, the harp of Ireland and the fleur-de-lis of France when it was ruled by the monarchy. That is Canada's ancestry. The Canadian emblem, the three maple leaves on a single stem, hold the position of honour, under the shield. As far as the national colours are concerned, they are represented by the red and white mantle at the top of the coat of arms.

Technically we must therefore observe the implicit instructions given to Canadians by the royal College of Arms which had been asked to decide what should be our national colours, and our distinctive emblem.
Mr. Speaker, as far as compromise is concerned, the hon. members on the other side must accept the idea that the representatives of the Liberal party have compromised as much as possible. Indeed, we arrived at the flag committee with an emblem which we felt was already accepted by the population, three red maple leaves and two blue stripes. We came out of the committee with a flag bearing a single maple leaf and two red bands instead of blue. It seems to me it is difficult to ask for more from the representatives of a political party.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) asked the following question:

What is wrong with the union jack and the fleur-de-lis? There is nothing wrong with the union jack and the fleur-de-lis except that neither is the Canadian flag. The union jack is a foreign flag: it is the flag of England. The fleur-de-lis represents royal France. These flags do not and cannot represent Canada. This was our argument all along, Mr. Speaker.
I hope that hon. members on the other side of the house are not going to pursue this line of trying to discredit the committee. Some of their own members were members of the committee and they were eager to succeed, as was every one of us. I hope they will not try to infer that there was as much cynicism as we are told there was, its having been said that we were a bunch of cynical members. We were no bunch of anything. We were very eager to find common ground for understanding, and I believe we found it. At one time, irrespective of anything which can be said on the other side, there was actually unanimity that there be one national flag only for Canada.
I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that all of the members of that committee who will participate in this debate will be accurate and honest. When we refer to one of the motions voted on in the committee, the motion for only one flag, we omit a very important word. We voted first for one national flag; and then we voted separately for a flag which would indicate our participation in the commonwealth. These are two different questions. We accepted the fact that the flag we were going to choose was going to be submitted as the Canadian
Canadian Flag
emblem, and for that purpose only and exclusively. Therefore I think that in all these discussions we must be strictly honest, as were all the members of the committee when we were discussing this matter.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to have to differ from my friend the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), who sat next to me during all the meetings of the committee. I found him a very nice gentleman, but I am surprised and shocked to a certain extent to hear him suggest that there were instructions to the Liberal members given by the government. I can say most emphatically that I talked not once during all those sittings with any member of the cabinet, especially with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson): I did meet the Prime Minister many times in the elevator but I did not talk to him except to say good morning, especially in view of the situation I understood we were in. Some members in our party know that even the most innocuous question was left unanswered by members of the committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope-I do not want to delay the house-that this committee's recommendation will be carried and considered in the light in which it is offered. I believe the committee did its duty, and I do not think it becoming of any hon. member of this house, especially those who were not members of the committee and who therefore must not of necessity be informed about what went on, to discredit the committee and the members of it who participated so honestly. It is very unbecoming to be submitted to the kind of speech that one hon. member made tonight.
I have nothing more to add, Mr. Speaker. From the way things look I am confident that the committee's recommendation will receive from the house, if a vote is permitted as quickly as possible, an astounding majority; I venture to predict that, Mr. Speaker. If hon. members on the other side are so eager to have the question settled let the matter come to a vote. That is the easy solution. At the suggestion of hon. members opposite we consented to form a committee. This committee held extended sittings; everyone admits that. We have studied the question as objectively as possible. We could not come to complete agreement, and that is unfortunate. We tried very hard to reach full agreement; but we did present a majority report, supported by an important majority.
When hon. members talk of a plebiscite, if they do not accept a majority of ten to four what kind of majority would they ask from

Canadian Flag
a plebiscite? If hon. gentlemen opposite are not satisfied with 72 per cent, what are they going to request from a plebiscite? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this question has been aired long enough and that we should now proceed with the practical side of the question, which is to vote on this matter.


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Speaker, I am taking this first opportunity of speaking on the flag issue, as I did not avail myself of an opportunity to do so when it was before the house earlier. There will be some who will say I have already spoken during this debate, and in one sense that is true, as on February 18 I placed a resolution on the order paper asking the government to consider immediately the introduction of legislation which would acknowledge the Canadian red ensign as Canada's distinctive national flag, as endorsed by the Canadian Legion and the I.O.D.E. I had an opportunity to debate this resolution on June 1, but of course you realize that a member is limited to 20 minutes on the debate of a private member's resolution. Therefore at this time I wish to put forward some other thoughts I have had about this subject. These are thoughts I have collected during many interviews in past weeks with my own constituents, as well as ideas resulting from correspondence I have received, not only from the people in my riding of Elgin but from all across Canada.
During two week ends I had the opportunity of being present at quite large nonpolitical gatherings, and I was amazed by the number of individuals who voluntarily expressed their opinions to me about the flag issue. As a result of these conversations I can only come to the following conclusions. The majority of the people in my area prefer the retention of the red ensign as Canada's distinctive flag. Those individuals who feel that now is the time for a new design were not happy with the three red maple leaf design. They are still not happy with the committee's proposed flag with the one maple leaf and the red borders. The third conclusion I came to was that they were discouraged and disgusted with the present parliament, and that the government should get off its high horse and finish the legislative program now on the order paper before bringing the flag issue back into the House of Commons. I might point out that a great portion of the legislative program on the order paper has been on the order paper for several months without members of parliament having the opportunity of discussing it.

The first group of individuals with whom I had the opportunity of discussing this issue was made up of 300 people representing municipal and county councils who had gathered together to pay honour to a retiring clerk-treasurer who had served in that capacity for 25 years. These people are retired or serving representatives of municipalities, and have done so faithfully for many years. On two week ends I had an opportunity of visiting different rural fairs, where one has wonderful opportunities of meeting a crosssection of the public and obtaining knowledge as to the feeling of those people about an issue such as the flag issue. I also attended a Labour day celebration last September which brought together people from all walks of life, and again I was afforded the opportunity of taking part in discussions on the flag situation.
At this stage of the debate we are supposed to be discussing an amendment to the committee report, and this ties in with the unity of Canada through a plebiscite, asking that a ballot be taken at the next general election. I hope that this ballot will be taken but that the results will not be related to any specific region. I think that is how it should be carried out, because we know, as a result of various polls that have been conducted, that certain sections of Canada are strongly in favour of the retention of the red ensign, while other areas are predominantly in favour of a new design.
There was a time when I thought the Ottawa area was predominantly in favour of the three maple leaf flag. Last summer we observed a great deal of ballyhoo about the three maple leaf pennant which was being flown on car radio aerials throughout the city. Some people are still flying these pennants from their aerials. I am pleased that the new proposal has changed that design, because I am sure we can all recall having seen some of these pennants that were flown for two or three months and remember that they turned a dirty grey, with the blue colour having faded, and with frayed edges. In fact, I saw one one morning not long ago that was so anaemic in appearance I stopped and asked myself: Is this the design if passed by parliament to which we would pledge our allegiance and the allegiance of future generations? I think we must still ask ourselves this question in relation to the new proposed design.
I recall the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), in speaking to this house, drawing to our attention the fact that

the three maple leaf design had been devaluated in one joke shop in the city from 98 cents, which was the retail cost when it first became available, to 19 cents. I am pleased that we are not now witnessing the same type of pennant, with the single maple leaf design, being flown in the same manner, but I do wonder why the Prime Minister has not proposed that a flag with the one maple leaf design, having red bars, be flown on a mast on parliament hill so that members could view it, as he did in respect of his own design.
One morning last week I was listening to a local radio station which each morning conducts a survey about various topics. The listening audience is invited to call the radio station and discuss the topic of the day. The morning I was listening the topic was the design of the flag expected to be presented to the House of Commons on the following day. I was surprised to learn that of ten or 12 telephone calls, only one approved the suggested design.
The same individual wondered why the present leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, when he was the prime minister, did not bring in a measure to make the Canadian red ensign, with or without changes, Canada's flag by act of parliament. One could also go back in history and ask why Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, when he was prime minister, did not make the ensign official by an act of parliament, or bring forth a new design. We know that he took the initial step, by order in council, to make the ensign the official flag to be flown on all government buildings at home and abroad. We could also ask why Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, when he was prime minister, did not make the ensign the official flag by an act of parliament, or bring forward a new design.
I believe the three prime ministers I have referred to were aware of the danger of creating more disunity across this country by presenting a flag that would not be acceptable to a large majority of Canadians.
We of the Conservative party have endeavoured to place before parliament the reasons the present design is not acceptable to a large percentage of Canadians. We will continue to place these reasons before parliament. We have offered time and time again suggestions as to how the government should proceed to regain that lost unity which is evident across Canada, and which has resulted over the flag design proposal.
Canadian Flag
I wish to give two examples, Mr. Speaker, of how the flag question has created disunity and has divided our populace into two camps. A few weeks ago I had lunch with a resident of Ottawa who related to me an incident that happened to him last summer. During the hot days of July he had left his car parked with the windows open and some person had placed on the inside of his windshield a small Canadian ensign sticker reading "This is Canada's flag, let's keep it flying". As he related the story to me, this could have been on his windshield several days before it was brought to his attention by his young son. He did not tell me whether or not he was an ensign supporter but did say as far as he was concerned the sticker was doing no harm to him or anyone else until several days later when he went to unlock his car to drive home and noticed a young man standing by the car with an object in his hand. This man swore at him and told him to remove the ensign or he would smash his windshield to pieces. Naturally his reply was, "In the first place I didn't put it there and, in the second place, if you attempt to remove it by force there will be more than a broken windshield. It will be your head."
Several months ago, after I had placed my own flag resolution on the order paper, I recall receiving a picture postcard from the city of Toronto which was unsigned, the picture being of the Prince of Wales gates at the eastern entrance to the Canadian national exhibition grounds. The picture showed some 21 red ensigns flying over the top of the entrance and through each ensign there was a big black cross. On the back of the card were the words: "You Englishmen, there will be blood spilled over your ensign if you don't get rid of it".
We saw blood spilled several weeks ago during the flag debate, and spilled right here on the green carpet of this very chamber.


An hon. Member:: That was not during the flag debate.


James Alexander McBain: It was during the flag debate. Fortunately it was only cow's blood and the incident was not directly connected with the flag debate.


An hon. Member:: Why bring it up then?


Hugh John Flemming: He is
speaking in parliament and he has a right to bring anything up.


James Alexander McBain: I also wish to say-

Canadian Flag


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has been interrupting from behind the curtain. It is bad enough to have interruptions by members from their seats but when they start to interrupt when standing behind the curtain I think it is time the Chair did something about it.


James Alexander McBain: I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not of English ancestry but rather my grandfather on my father's side came from the highlands of northern Scotland, and on my mother's side my great grandfather was Pennsylvania Dutch of loyal united empire loyalist stock. I was very proud today when the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) directed our attention to the fact that this is St. Andrew's day.
As I say, great disunity has been created in this country since the flag debate was first introduced in the House of Commons. We have had riots in various parts of Canada. We have seen flags burned. We have had an increase in the separatist movement in the province of Quebec. We have seen our armouries raided and robbed. Yes, Mr. Speaker, murders were even committed while this was being done.
When I spoke on my own flag resolution I stated that I was expressing my own personal opinions as well as the opinions expressed in approximately 90 per cent of the letters and telegrams I had received up until that time. That was last June 1, Mr. Speaker, and previous to that date I had received nearly 150 signed letters and telegrams all asking me to support the retention of the Canadian ensign as Canada's national flag. This figure has now mounted to 611. Since June 1 I have received many letters supporting my stand on the ensign but since that date I have received only three letters supporting some other design than the ensign.
In all fairness to those who are writing me in support of the ensign and to those supporting some other design I propose to put on the record some comments from each side. Before doing so I may say that some time ago I received a clipping from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal, being an article written by Jean Sweet. The article is entitled "In My Opinion", and in my opinion it exemplifies the feelings, I am sure, of many millions of Canadians. I am going to quote from the article. This lady says:
Normally, like most peaceful citizens, I'm a coward about public issues. But I think the time
has come to stand up and be counted on this flag matter.
Most people who ever saw a tree know that big trees rise from big firm roots. If you trim away the roots you weaken the tree. If too much root is removed you have nothing. The tree-that grew slowly over many decades-weakens, falls and decays.
Loyalties grow the same way, putting down roots in friendly soil. Without loyalities, even misplaced loyalities, man is nothing but a drifting derelict.
Millions of Canadians grew up as I did in the friendly soil of a Canada we learned from earliest years to respect and view with immense pride. We were taught not to brag loudly and constantly about our land, but instead to know what we had and to feel secure in its tenets.
Above all our flag has symbolized this land. It has grown with us. From pre-school age we loved the simple but intricately planned design of the union jack, so carefully integrating the major elements of Great Britain. We were proud when we saw the Canadian coat of arms in the fly of the beautiful flag. We sang songs to it. It meant our land.
Through school days I have no recollection of any "Quebec question". I remember Montreal as a fascinating place I longed to see where, right in our Canada, two languages were spoken and peoples from many other lands settled and lived.
Above all, as a child I watched the proud Van Doos march through the streets of our town, where they trained, headed by the tall lean figure of Colonel Vanier (I didn't know his name then, not until I met him as our Governor General). From that time I "saw" those proud French speaking troops "fighting for our flag" as news of their exploits trickled home. When we sang "We'll never let the old flag fall'' the Van Doos were in the picture, dying in France for that flag.
Well, as far as I am concerned no one man, no one group of troublemakers, can tell me "here is your new flag". This is a matter of roots, Canadian roots. If my flag can be readily discarded, so can my country and any other belief I ever held in it. It is disturbing and makes me wonder: what next?
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow we will continue with the same business as today, and when that is finished we will call item No. 7 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill C-131, an act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act; then item No. 51 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. 137, an act to authorize certain capital expenditures of the C.N.R.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask when Bill No. C-126 will be brought forward again?


George James McIlraith: I just announced the business for tomorrow. I do not know when we will be ready to take Bill No. C-126.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 1, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I would like to make a very short statement on the possible order of our proceedings.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a question of privilege, which takes precedence over any statement, and I ask to be heard on a question of privilege before any statement is made. I thought the Prime Minister was rising on a question of privilege.
My point of privilege has to do with a statement made by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson). The statement is to be found at page 10702 of yesterday's Hansard, where the hon. member for Leeds refers to a television interview with Mr. Geoffrey Scott on October 28. Then he says:
Later on in the program he added: "Not this Christmas or any other Christmas".
That is in quotation marks. I do not object to a person being the chief propagandist of new models and designs for a flag, but that statement was never made by me at any time, under any circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we were not able yesterday to dispose of the flag committee report, and under our rules, of course, a motion for adoption of a committee report has precedence over other business. I was going to suggest that perhaps we could get unanimous consent of the house to alter our rules to the extent that, if we are not able to deal with this report today, beginning tomorrow we should set aside half an hour each day for
questions, notwithstanding the rules; but in order that the discussion on the flag committee report be given all the time to which under the rules it is entitled, I suggest that we alter our hours of sitting so that the half hour would begin at two o'clock, or on Friday at 10.30. Therefore we could spend each day from 2 to 2.30, or on Friday from 10.30 to 11 on questions, and then proceed with the business as laid down by the rules until this committee report is dealt with.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the words of the Prime Minister, but I think there are large gaps in what has been proposed. For instance, this proposition does not deal with statements made on motions by ministers. It does not mention other matters. For example, it does not deal with written or oral questions, on Mondays and Wednesdays, together with notices of motions for production of papers. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the whole of our routine business prior to the calling of orders of the day has to be considered.
This question was raised yesterday as a matter of interest to all hon. members of the house, because it is not only the members on this side of the house who are interested in these proceedings but also hon. members on the other side of the house. For instance, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) obviously would have some questions to ask at this time, as would the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan); and there are also other points.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that he reconsider his position and make a definitive statement, after negotiation dealing with routine proceedings. The urgent business of the house as detailed by the Prime Minister a month ago has been dealt with, with the exception of the present matter and another matter under the Minister of Labour, which it has been the government's choice to defer. I suggest that the advancing of the hours of sitting is quite extraneous to our routine procedure. What is the pressure? I see a shrug of the shoulders and a snicker on the part of the Prime Minister, but what is the pressure in the government's eyes on the basis of the government's announced business?
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister reconsider his position and that he deal with motions; that he deal with notices of motions for the production of papers; that
10718	HOUSE OF
Flag Debate-Suggested Procedure Change he deal with other routine matters. The government may wish to bring forward some bills; I am sure some of the Prime Minister's colleagues have some interesting matters to disclose to the house. There are a number of matters. I may point out to him that we have only to go back to the earlier editions of Bourinot to discover that on motions the only matters which could be discussed were motions dealing with the business of the house, certainly not motions in the nature of substantive motions such as we are now discussing.
Therefore I suggest that for the period of this debate, and for the period of our consideration of the seventh report of the committee should it be advanced by the government, this item of motions be considered as the first item of government business.
This is a government proposal which has arisen out of a direction of this house which was consequent upon a resolution of the government appointing a committee. We are not dealing with house business in the normal course on motions, and for that reason I suggest to the Prime Minister that he reassess the position and, as suggested yesterday, the government house leader consult with the other party leaders. I think some reasonable accord could be reached in that way, rather than having these proposals laid before the house at this time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the suggestion by the Prime Minister that we meet half an hour earlier to facilitate the question period, I should like to state that I believe we can reach the normal question period, deal with the questions hon. members wish to ask, and reach the point of allowing ministers to make statements on motions, as well as deal with all the other regular business before this house by simply allowing the motion now before us to come to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If there had not been ample opportunity to discuss the whole matter of a flag for Canada I could envisage that there might be some reason for carrying on that debate at this time. We have already spent 22 days on this motion, which was moved by the government and which is embodied in order 44 (A). The matter was referred to a committee which has come back with a report, and as far as we are concerned we do not accept the contention that a 10 to 4 vote is not a sufficient majority on which to bring this matter again before the house. We be-


lieve there has already been far more debate on this subject than necessary. We believe the people of Canada are fed up with this debate, and we think there is a very simple way of allowing the majority of this house to express its opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he confine his remarks to the suggestion presented to this house this afternoon by the right hon. Prime Minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, speaking strictly to the suggestion which has been made, we think there is a far more effective way of proceeding in an orderly fashion in this house, and that is by allowing members of this house to vote on the motion before us, following which all the other things will fall into place. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the right hon. Prime Minister is very generous, because it will allow us, if we so desire, to ask questions of ministers from 2 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and from 10.30 a.m. until 11 a.m. on Friday.
When the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) tells us that we should follow the orders of the day and then revert to the debate on the flag, this is another way the Conservatives are using-and note what I am saying-to delay the business of the house and endeavour to delay as much as possible the adoption of a distinctive national flag.
The Conservatives will carry this stigma before the eyes of the Canadian people, of that I am sure.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This should not bother you; you are not here.


David Réal Caouette: When I hear the hon. member for Edmonton West side with his group, naturally, and suggest that orders of the day be called, after which we could resume the debate on the distinctive flag at leisure, I wonder if that was not settled in caucus, at that little meeting they held this morning.
If this house is not unanimous, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that we stick to the standing orders. The Conservatives can always ask their questions once we have adopted a distinctive national flag.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Why should this bother you, when you are not here?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since there does not



DECEMBER 1. 1964

[Stage Direction]
seem to be unanimous consent may I repeat the suggestion I made yesterday, namely that the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as house leader might call a meeting of the various house leaders to see if we can find any resolution of this problem.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the last suggestion perhaps I might be permitted to say that I made what I thought was a helpful suggestion, that we extend our hours of sitting so we would have half an hour each day for questions during the period when the rules do not provide for questions because we are discussing a committee report. That suggestion, Mr. Speaker, has not met with unanimous consent; therefore, of course, the house leaders of the various parties could get together to see if they can work out any other arrangement.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, November 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this decision will have a slight dampening effect on some of the high spirits which marked the start of our sitting this afternoon.
The house will recall that yesterday the hon. member for Humber-St. George's, in his capacity as chairman of the special committee on the flag question, moved concurrence in the sixth report of that committee. The hon. member for Perth, who was also a member of the committee, proposed an amendment to the motion for concurrence that seeks to refer the report back to the committee with instructions to strike out paragraph 7 and substitute something else in its place. On the proposed amendment a point of order was raised by the President of the Privy Council.
It is for the Chair to determine whether the point of order raised by the government house leader is well taken or whether the amendment of the hon. member for Perth should be admitted for debate and decision.
I have had the advantage of hearing the views of several hon. members, which have been most helpful to me in reaching a decision. In addition to the house leader I have heard arguments by the two senior officers of the house themselves, the right hon. Prime
Canadian Flag
Minister and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I have also had the benefit of the views expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who is the house leader of the official opposition and who seconded the motion setting up the flag committee. It has been helpful as well to have had expressions of opinion from the former Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West, and from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who is an acknowledged authority on the rules. There were also brief but valuable contributions to the discussion by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona.
I have considered the point of order with care in an effort to reach a decision that takes account of the various arguments that have been advanced, and a decision that is in accordance with the practice and precedents in this country and in the British house whose practice, under our standing order No. 1, must be followed in cases not provided for in our own rules. In reaching my decision I have tried to take into account a number of factors which I will enumerate as briefly as possible.
1.	We are here dealing with an unusua. matter, namely the establishment of a national flag.
2.	It is a matter with a very considerable emotional impact for every one of us.
3.	The motion to commit the flag question to the special committee was moved by a member of the government, seconded by the house leader of the official opposition and passed unanimously.
4.	As the Prime Minister has said, there has already been a very extended debate on the flag question in the house itself, with 165 speeches over a 23 day period.
5.	In that debate the Chair has shown considerable leniency and has not enforced the rules of relevancy and repetition with rigidity.
6.	The committee has also considered the question fully and has held no less than 45 meetings.
7.	It is the duty of the Chair to see that the rights of members on all sides are fully protected so there will be freedom of discussion and the right of expression will not in any way, be stifled. Parliament is not a court but a forum.
8.	The right of freedom of expression, however, should not imperil the right of decision.

Canadian Flag
I have also tried to take account of some of the unusual features of this particular committee, as follows:
1.	It was a special committee.
2.	It was charged with the task of considering a specific but most encompassing question.
3.	It was asked to make a final report.
4.	It was given a particular time limit in which to complete its work.
5.	Its appointment, its power to report and the capacity of the house to act on the report are not restricted by any motion on the order paper on September 10, 1964.
I have also been conscious of certain factors relating to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Perth which I shall enumerate:
1.	It relates to the question of a national plebiscite.
2.	The question of a national plebiscite has already been discussed and voted on in the committee; in fact the first vote taken in the committee was on the question of a national plebiscite, and it was rejected 9 to 5.
3.	As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has pointed out, however, Bourinot's fourth edition, at page 479, makes it clear that a committee may reconsider and even reverse a previous decision.
4.	A vote was taken in the house itself on the question of a plebiscite on the 1st September 1964, as recorded on page 660 of Votes and Proceedings for that date.
5.	That vote, however, was on a subamendment which dealt with details as to what questions should be included in a plebiscite but not with the basic question of whether or not a plebiscite should be held.
6.	The basic question of whether or not a national plebiscite should be held, which is the subject of the amendment of the hon. member for Perth, has not as yet been decided by the house.
It will be apparent to all that these various factors which I have just listed, some of which are in direct contradiction with others, make the matter a difficult one for the Chair. We have heard it suggested that the flag committee no longer exists because it was a special committee set up for a fixed period of six weeks and a final report has been made. We have also heard that the matter before the house, however, does not relate to the final report of that committee but to its sixth report. We have been reminded, as well, that committees receive their authority from the house itself and that the authority of the house overrides that of any committee.

In order to reach some kind of reasoned judgment I have looked at all the factors in the situation. First let us look at our general practice with regard to the recommittal of a report.
1.	In General, Recommittal of a Report
It seems that it has been our constant practice that when the motion to concur is proposed, the report of a select committee may be referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instructions to amend it in any respect.
(a)	Bourinot's fourth edition, at page 479, states in part as follows:
A report may be referred back to a committee for further consideration, or with instructions giving them power to amend the same in any respect. In this way a committee may regularly reconsider and even reverse a decision it has previously arrived at.
(b)	Citation 322 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads in part as follows:
When the motion to concur is proposed the report may be referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instruction to amend it in any respect.
(c)	Paragraph (4) of citation 325 of the same edition of Beauchesne states:
When a motion is made for concurrence in a select committee report, it is competent for the house to adopt it, reject it, refer it back to the committee or decide that consideration of the report will take place "this day six months".
(d)	Moreover, the precedents recorded in our Journals establish that when it is intended to refer back the report to a select committee on the motion for concurrence, the procedure has been to do so by amendment to such motion, and therefore without notice. With the time at my disposal I have failed to find during the last 45 years any instance in contradiction of that contention.
Now let us consider the recommittal of the final report of a special committee.
2.	Recommittal of the Final Report of a Special Committee
It has been suggested that a special committee ceases to exist when its final report is presented to the house and that such a report cannot be referred back to the committee unless the committee is revived.
(a)	In support of that view, citation 286 of Beauchesne's fourth edition states as follows:
It Is important that the motion for the appointment of the committee should state whether the committee shall report from time to time, for if it should report once without having been given such power, it will be defunct but may be revived. Special authorization should also be given to sending for persons, papers and records.



DECEMBER 1. 1964

[Stage Direction]
A select special committee ceases to exist on the moment its final report is presented to the house. The report cannot afterwards be sent back to the committee with instruction to amend it in any particular. If further proceedings are desired it is necessary to revive the committee.
(b)	W. F. Dawson, in his book "Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons", expresses a view similar to that set forth in the second paragraph of citation 286, when he states at page 206:
It is possible for the house, on the rare occasions when it does debate a committee report, to move to accept it, reject it, hoist it, or refer it back to the committee with the power to amend, except of course in the case of special committees, which have to be reconstituted by the house before their reports can be referred back.
Mr. Dawson refers to no authority to substantiate his statement. It is likely that since he was the assistant chief of our English Journals branch from 1955 to 1958, and published his book in 1962, he made such a statement having in mind citation 286 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which also appears verbatim in citation 555 of the third edition by the said author.
(c)	In support of paragraph (2) of citation 286 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, the author gives as his authority May's thirteenth edition, page 486, and he refers to a procedure in the British house that is indicated as 105 C.J. 201.
Upon examination, the supporting refer-rences invoked by Beauchesne to substantiate the second paragraph of citation 286 are not very convincing and do not seem to corroborate the broad statement made by the author. The pertinent reference at page 486 of May's thirteenth edition is as follows:
If a committee, at the conclusion of their inquiry, make a final report to the house, the sittings of the committee are assumed to have been closed; and if further proceedings were desired it would be necessary to revive the committee.
However, in reading the footnotes below this statement, which are purported to be the supporting authority therefor, it would appear that these references are not related to the question of referring back a report but deal rather with cases where it was intended to commit a new matter to select committees which had concluded their work.
One of these footnotes also makes mention of a ruling of the Speaker in the British house in 1893 to the effect that a motion to commit a bill to a select committee on another bill was out of order as the committee, having reported the bill committed to it, had ceased to exist.
Canadian Flag
The other footnote on page 486 of May's thirteenth edition is the very same reference as the one given as additional supporting authority in citation 286 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, and deals with a procedure in the British house in 1850 which seems on all fours with that of 1893 referred to earlier.
There can be no quarrel with citation 286 in this regard and, in similar circumstances, those precedents probably would be valid in our house. However, other circumstances now prevail.
3.	Our Practice
If citation 286 is to be interpreted as meaning that, with the presentation of its final report, a special committee ceases to exist to the extent that it has to be reconstituted, or that it has to be revived by a special motion before that report can be referred back to it, with instructions to amend, it is my view that such interpretation does not seem consistent with our practice.
A review of the comparatively few precedents which we have in this regard would indicate that in no case was a special procedure involved which would provide for the revival of the committee when referring a report back for consideration or with instructions.
What are the precedents?
(a)	On April 14, 1919 (cf. Journals, p. 171) a special committee concerning the abolition of titles was appointed without any mention that the committee would report from time to time, and that committee was not so empowered at a later date. On the motion for concurrence in the committee's report, as will be seen at pages 293-4 of the Journals for May 22, 1919, an amendment was moved purporting to amend the report itself. Mr. Speaker Rhodes then stated in part:
When a motion is made for the adoption of the report of a committee, it is competent for the house to adopt it, to reject it, or to refer it back to the committee with or without instructions. Or, a motion may be made for the six months' hoist. I do not think it competent to move to amend the report of a committee.
The amendment was thereupon withdrawn and another amendment was moved to the effect of referring back the report to the committee with instructions to amend it in certain particulars.
(b)	In 1926, when an amendment was proposed to the motion to concur in the final report of a special committee on the administration of the department of customs and excise, a sentence to the following effect was
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
appended to the amendment, and to the subamendment, namely:
"and that the committee for such purpose be revived".
I would direct attention to the Journals for June 22 and 23, 1926, at pages 461-2 and 464-5.
Since this is the only occasion on which such a phrase was employed, and as the authority for its use is itself in question, it is suggested that the omission of that or a similar phrase would provide meagre ground for ruling a proposed amendment out of order. In any case, the amendment of the hon. member for Perth does contain the phrase "and that the committee for such purpose be revived".
(c)	On May 30, 1928, as recorded at page 476 of the Journals, a motion was made to refer back the third and final report of the standing committee on industrial and international relations with instructions to amend it in certain particulars. A point of order was then raised to the effect that the committee, having made its final report, had ceased to exist so far as the reference was concerned, and therefore no other reference with respect to the subject matter first referred could be made.
Although in this instance the house was dealing with the report of a standing and not a special committee, it is relevant to mention here the following statement which is part of the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lemieux at that time, as recorded at page 3563 of Hansard for May 30, 1928:
So that the practice in the Canadian parliament does not prevent a report, even if it is a final report, of either a special or, better still, a standing committee, being referred back to be amended.
(d)	There are other instances to be found in our records to the effect that although the word "final" did not appear in a special committee report, we may assume that it was the final report, and where amendments to refer the report back to the committee with instructions were moved on the motion for concurrence. In that regard I refer to pages 754-5 of the Journals for June 26, 1948, where two amendments were proposed to motions to concur in a report of the special committee on prices. While both these amendments were ruled out of order for various reasons, no question was raised with respect to the validity of referring the said report back to the committee.

4.	Conflict between Citation 286 and the Formula in Beauchesne's 4th Edition
Much has been said about Beauchesne's citation 286, which states in effect that a special committee ceases to exist once its final report has been presented to the house. However, there is a fundamental contradiction between the terms of this citation and formula No. 95, which is to be found at page 397 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. That formula reads as follows:
The question being proposed "That the final report of the select standing (or special) committee on	 be now concurred in,"
Mr	moves in amendment
thereto, seconded by Mr	 "That the said
report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the select standing (or special)
committee on	 with instruction that they
have power to amend the same so as to recommend that	".
It will be seen that in this formula provision is made for recommitting a final report of a special committee with instructions by way of an amendment, and no reference is made to the revival of the committee.
5.	Unprovided Cases
Let us now consider unprovided cases. It must be borne in mind that if the procedure now under review is at all to be considered as an unprovided case, under the terms of our standing order 1 recourse must be made to May's sixteenth edition wherein it is stated at page 642 that when a report is recommitted the select committee with all its powers is thereby revived.
6.	The Present Instance
What of the present instance? It has been suggested that the case of the special committee on the flag question is different from others, more particularly in that:
1. The resolution appointing such committee has fixed a limitation on the life of the committee in establishing that its final report was to be submitted to the house not later than six weeks from the date of its first sitting and that the referral back of either the sixth or the seventh report to such committee, after the time limitation provided in the resolution for its existence, goes beyond the decision taken by the house. It may also be said that the committee should again be empowered or reconstituted by a substantive motion after notice. Obviously at this stage of the session, when members' notices of motions have disappeared from the order paper, private members would be precluded from moving such a motion.
[Stage Direction]
2. On the other hand, argument was made that what was before the house was not a final report of the flag committee but only an interim or sixth report.
It is my view that if paragraph 2 of Beau-chesne's citation 286 were to be interpreted as meaning that with the presentation of its final report a special committee ceases to exist to the extent that it has to be reconstituted, or that it has to be revived by a special motion after notice before that report can be referred back to it, with instructions to amend, it is reasonable to say that the committee having ceased to exist on the presentation of the seventh and final report, which was tabled at the same time as the sixth, paragraph 2 of the citation should apply to the sixth report as well. But as I have already indicated this is not, in my view, a valid interpretation of the citation.
I am also of the opinion that the resolution appointing the committee should be considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances at the time it was adopted. If we do so, we see that at that time there was before the house the motion appearing under government orders, No. 44(A), an amendment moved thereto and a subamendment. There was also government order No. 44(B). Both these were suspended by agreement. It has been argued that it is unlikely that these two orders will again come before the house. In that case it would be reasonable to assume that the practical effect of refusing amendments to refer back either of these reports to the committee, with or without instructions, would be tantamount to preventing any decision of the house on the particulars mentioned in such amendments or on any other particulars connected with the subject matter of the question. In other words, to all intents and purposes it would have the effect of limiting the house to accepting or refusing the decision of the committee, and nothing more.
I have examined Hansard and have been unable to come to the conclusion-unless a very narrow interpretation, which would seem to me arbitrary, is given to what was said in the house with regard to this committee-that there was any intention unanimously expressed or any final agreement that the normal procedure should not be followed when the house would be acting upon the reports of the committee.
7.	Conclusion
In conclusion I may say that if we look at all the special circumstances surrounding the complex and what seems to be unique problem confronting us, I think, rightly or
Canadian Flag
wrongly, that to a great extent the problem goes beyond the mere strict and rigid technical and procedural sphere and that, for a large part, the answer is to be found in asking ourselves what is fair and equitable, having regard among other things to the surrounding circumstances, the commitments or agreements made, and also having regard to the desirability of not depriving members of certain basic rights through technicalities, real, doubtful or fictitious.
After careful consideration of all the factors involved I can come to no other conclusion but that in the present circumstances the point of order cannot be entertained. It is my intention to put the amendment before the house.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we on this side accept without question your ruling and learned decision. The amendment presumably is in order, and if it were carried the committee would be revived, presumably without any time limit at all. However, the amendment deals with a plebiscite. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has more than once, and as recently as yesterday, declared his desire to have the question of a plebiscite dealt with at once without further debate. I propose therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we take the vote on the amendment at once.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to put the amendment. It has been moved by Mr. Monteith, seconded by Mr. Rapp:
That the sixth report of the special committee be not now adopted but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out paragraph seven of the said report and substitute therefor the following:
"However, as the final vote of the committee did not reveal a sufficient degree of unanimity for the proposed design for a national flag for Canada, your committee therefore recommends that the government be authorized"-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask, for guidance, whether Your Honour proposes to limit the debate on this amendment to the question of a plebiscite?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I implied that in my statement, in saying that during the previous days on which this question had been discussed the Chair had been extremely lenient in order

Canadian Flag
to give ample opportunity to any hon. member who wanted to say anything on the flag question, but that in future I thought that the rules of relevancy should be strictly applied.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take it that you are not making a blanket ruling in advance, but that as arguments are put forward the determination will then be made by Your Honour.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Elgin.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order as to whether the speakers yesterday spoke on the main motion or on the amendment.


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Speaker, I can probably answer the point raised by the Prime Minister. I mentioned at the outset of my remarks last evening that I was speaking on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Perth, and that I propose to endeavour to do in concluding my remarks today. When speaking on this amendment last evening I also mentioned that in all fairness to those people who had been in contact-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Alexander McBain: I was saying, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Elgin.


Hugh John Flemming: Give
them some more peanuts down there.


James Alexander McBain: As I was saying, last evening I mentioned that I wished to put forward for consideration some passages from correspondence I have received from those who support the new design and those who favour the retention of the red ensign. I was just reaching those comments last night when we arrived at the hour of ten o'clock. As I made that reference, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to refer to some of the correspondence I have received on this matter. The first letter from which I wish to quote today was received from the chairman of the flag committee of the Royal Canadian Legion. This letter is under date June 10, and he says:
Many, many thanks for your kind letter of June 5 with which you enclosed copy of Hansard for June 1 which I eagerly perused. I am sure I speak for

all members of the Royal Canadian Legion and other loyal Canadians when I say our most grateful and sincere thanks to you and your fellow members of the House of Commons for the tremendous effort you are making in an eifort to keep our flag -the Canadian red ensign-flying. I assure you we will do our bit. We had a wonderful convention and I feel sure millions of Canadians now realize that we do have a truly distinctive Canadian flag and whoever heard of the red ensign causing disunity?
I was on T.V. C.B.C. and this was one of the points I stressed.
I should like to put on record some feelings of another of my correspondents, who says:
Regarding the flag issue, my husband and I hold this opinion.
A spokesman for the French Canadians who are a minority group, says that any flag incorporating the union jack is totally unacceptable to them. What about the majority group of Canadians in every other province who would consider any flag not incorporating the union jack entirely unacceptable to them? Must we accept a minority rule?
Again I wish to quote from other correspondence.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: On a point of order, I should like to know how relevant these letters are to the amendment put forward.


James Alexander McBain: I believe the amendment refers to a plebiscite, and I am endeavouring to present this correspondence to show why the people desire a plebiscite. I will not read all this correspondence, but another letter I have received says this:
We have been and are permitted to fly in this fair country at the present time a flag known far and wide as the red ensign. It contains the union jack, which is truly a known and honoured emblem all over the world. Also on the same flag is the Canadian coat of arms, which is truly Canadian, and while the union jack makes the flag part of the British commonwealth of nations, the Canadian coat of arms identifies this as a Canadian flag.
The right and justice this flag symbolizes has been fought for by men of our country. This flag was here before a lot of people who are now citizens came here or were born here. If they do not like it they are free to go somewhere else, where there is one they do like. So let's keep what we have, while we have something to be proud of, instead of a few dried up maple leaves, or something else to satisfy Quebec and a few others.


An hon. Member:: What has that to do with the plebiscite?


James Alexander McBain: I am endeavouring to point out that the flag question is creating disunity. It is pitting one part of Canada against another part. I am showing the feelings of the people in other parts of the country who live outside the province of Quebec. This correspondent continues:
When the time comes to vote on this flag issue how many members will be coerced into voting for a new flag fearing that if this issue is defeated the Pearson government will call an election. I hope that you will use your vote and influence to retain our present flag, the red ensign.

Then I received a photograph from Winnipeg showing the citizenship court in session in that city. It depicts a swearing in ceremony for new Canadians which was held on March 4, 1964. In the background on the wall are two red ensigns in the form of a V. At the top of the V is the Canadian coat of arms. Below that picture is Her Majesty the Queen. This is a matter which is again creating disunity in Canada.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Why do you not speak on the amendment?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Go to Hull.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Stand up when you want to speak.


James Alexander McBain: Now I should like to refer to a telegram which has been drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister. This telegram was sent by the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers, and is embodied in a letter which reads:
Dear Sir:
I am respectfully drawing to your attention the following resolution:
Whereas local 97, Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers, St. Thomas, Ontario, do hereby support with strong intent the Canadian red ensign as the national flag of the Dominion of Canada and that no other design or proposed design will be acceptable as a national flag by this local.
This resolution was passed unanimously at a meeting of this local this 13th day of May, 1964.
This letter was signed by the president and secretary.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, when the representatives of the commonwealth countries were meeting in the west block, we had an opportunity to view the flags of each one of those nations. I viewed them on many occasions and was quite interested to note, as I am sure other hon. members of the House of Commons noted, that six of the commonwealth countries have incorporated in their flag the union jack. I refer to the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. One day when I was standing outside the west block a tourist came along, and I asked this party to pick out the flag he liked best. I do not know where he came from and I did not ask him. I do not know whether he was from the United States or Canada, but he picked out our present ensign.
Having put forward these views, to satisfy my hon. friends across the other side I will quote from a few letters written by some who desire a flag other than the red ensign. I am sure members will not call me to order 20220-678i
Canadian Flag
when I mention these letters. Here is one which says, in part:
Our country is today facing trying times due to fanatic separatists in Quebec who are the first to benefit by the stubborn insistence of these England-lovers to keep the union jack on our flag. A truly Canadian emblem such as the maple leaf should be the only emblem on our banner and should create greater unity throughout Canada and would serve to abolish the hyphenated Canadian-ism we now have. We should all be proud to consider ourselves as Canadians first and if we must still fly the union jack we could do so as a commonwealth banner. I cannot understand how anyone who claims to be a Canadian could be satisfied with anything less than a truly distinctive Canadian flag without any foreign symbol whether it be British or French or that of any other country. ...
We have a wonderful country here so let us all unite behind a symbol of which we can all be proud and love no matter what our racial origin was. Let us all be Canadians first and put Canada ahead of Britain, France, or any other country in the world.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The amendment before the house is to refer the report back to the committee for the discussion of a very definite question, the holding of a plebiscite.
The hon. member who has the floor at present is discussing just about anything except the amendment. In view of the very wise remarks you made a moment ago to point out that the debate is restricted to the amendment, I suggest that the hon. member should come back to the amendment or, still better, since the amendment was moved by his own party, that we should take the vote immediately.
At any rate, I feel that the hon. member's remarks are not relevant to the matter under consideration, since he is now reading letters he received. We all got letters about the flag but if we all started reading them, there would be no end to this discussion.
Consequently, I would ask you to call the hon. member to order so that the debate may be concluded as soon as possible.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it seems rather strange that the hon. member for Lapointe should claim that the remarks of the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McBain) are not relevant, while almost everytime he speaks during a discussion, the hon. member for Lapointe is the first to make statements which are out of order as regards the rule of relevancy.
There seems to be a rule for the hon. member and another rule for the rest of the house. This is not the first time that he rises on a point of order; whether it comes from the

Canadian Flag
opposition side or from the government benches, if something does not please him the hon. member always takes exception, but when he is called to order, he claims that he is being throttled. Let him bridle his tongue instead of rising on points of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think I need any more instruction on this point, but I should like to refer hon. members to Beau-chesne's fourth edition, citation 119 (3), which reads as follows:
Relevancy Is not easy to define. A wrong comprehension of it may have a serious effect on the freedom of speech. Members are often deprived of their right to speak on the pretext that their remarks are irrelevant when as a matter of fact they refer to matters perhaps remote but yet related, even indirectly, to the question under debate. In borderline cases the member should be given the benefit of the doubt. A great deal of latitude must be allowed in the House of Commons which is a forum where every phase of public affairs can be discussed and every member has the right to be heard, even if in doing so he sometimes disregards the rigidity of procedure.
I hope the hon. member for Elgin, having heard the discussion, will do his best to speak to the amendment.


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Speaker, in pointing out the attitudes taken in correspondence I have received I was endeavouring to put before this house the divergence of public opinion, in a fair manner to each side of the question about the flag and a plebiscite. I read some comments from correspondence from individuals who prefer retention of the red ensign, and some from correspondence from individuals who prefer the other design.


Gilles Grégoire: Oh, oh.


James Alexander McBain: If the hon. member for Lapointe does not wish to hear these expressions of opinion it must be because they irritate him. I suggest that otherwise he would not rise on points of order.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to be fair to both expressions of opinion in the correspondence I have received. I do not want to draw attention to one other telegram I have received in favour of the retention of the red ensign, but I should like to draw attention to a telegram I received which endorses a new flag. This telegram is from the international association of machinists, local 1975, St. Thomas, Ontario, which reads:
Members of international association of machinists local 1975 St. Thomas Ontario endorse the idea of a new distinctive flag for Canada.
Yesterday we were informed by the chairman and other members of the flag committee

about the diligence of hon. members in attending committee meetings, which sometimes occurred as often as three times in one day. It is gratifying to know that this committee on most occasions had 100 per cent attendance. I might say that I wish other committees of this house had as good attendance at their meetings and did not have to wait for such long periods of time before getting a quorum. I will not refer to the specific committee, as I think hon. members know which one it is. I do wish to congratulate the flag committee for its long hours of devoted work in an endeavour to bring back a report which would be acceptable to parliament.
The flag question has been before parliament for many months, probably for so many that at this time I should review the whole situation so hon. members will appreciate how it developed.
The first indication we had of the new flag was on May 14, when the Prime Minister invited reporters to his home-I assume that was at 24 Sussex street-and informed them that the government intended to proceed with new flag legislation. On that occasion he displayed several designs that were being considered, and mentioned that the government would stand or fall on the issue.
Three days later the Prime Minister went to Winnipeg to address the Royal Canadian Legion, dominion command, at which time he said he believed most seriously at this time that we should have a distinctive Canadian flag incorporating the maple leaf design. The next day he showed a few designs to a press conference. The next day, on May 19, it was reported that the government was considering designs, and on May 21 that the government had reached a decision, but that decision was not revealed. On May 27 the design with the three red maple leaves on a white background with blue bars at each end was made public.
I wonder why the Prime Minister brought in that type of design; because on looking through the parliamentary guide I noticed the Prime Minister was born on April 23, which is St. George's day. I would have expected the Prime Minister, in recognition of his birthday, to suggest a design that at least had some religious crosses on it.
It is the opinion of the majority of the general public on the question of the flag that it has been badly mismanaged by the Prime Minister and the government from the start. First we were asked to accept one design

or there would be a general election. The Prime Minister had his sights set on the unfurling of a flag of this design by July 1 of this year. When that situation did not materialize his sights were set on a second goal, which was to have Her Majesty unfurl the flag while visiting Canada, and I expect she would have unfurled it while in Quebec city. The second goal being unattainable, the Prime Minister has moved on to his third goal, which is to have a flag by Christmas.
I say this whole situation has been badly mismanaged, because parliament was asked to make a decision on only one design, a design personally selected by the Prime Minister. At least three designs should have been submitted to parliament for a decision by parliament. Parliament was asked to make a hurried decision, not as to the choice of a design, but to accept one which was the personal choice of one man.
We hope that on July 1, 1967, Canada will celebrate its 100th anniversary as a united nation. Would it not be fitting and proper to have as one of our major centennial objectives a flag design accepted by parliament or by the majority of Canadians, through a plebiscite later approved by parliament, to be unfurled on July 1, 1967?
Again I must commend the committee for their long hours of objective work carried out in their effort to honestly narrow the field of designs from thousands down to two or three. That committee has reported, but we are still faced with the dilemma of accepting or rejecting one design and one design only. The committee's report would be more acceptable to me if it had given parliament the opportunity through a free and unbiased vote to choose between the one maple leaf design, or a design with the union jack in the upper left hand corner and a fleur-de-lis in the right hand corner of equal proportions. If parliament is not to be given the opportunity of deciding between those two designs there is no other alternative but to let the people of Canada decide between these designs through a plebiscite.


Mr. Rock:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: You may with his permission.


James Alexander McBain: Go ahead.


Raymond Rock: Thank you. Would the hon. member tell me whether the Canadian Legion at their convention in Winnipeg unfurled or displayed the red ensign for the first time, and
Canadian Flag
whether previous to that time the Legion at all their conventions flew or displayed only the union jack?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You are nuts.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is wrong.


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer that question because I have not attended their conventions.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That shows where the Grits stand so far as the Legion in concerned.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, by Your Honour's ruling it may be that this question will be referred back to the committee, possibly on the ground, sir, that the people of Canada have a firmer grasp of reality than the members of this house, which may be so and may not; but it did seem to me that some comments on the questions of reality and symbols might perhaps be in order this afternoon.
When I was a very small boy, Mr. Speaker, if you can cast your mind back to that very remote period of history, someone put in my hands a little book of tales of an instructive, elevating and edifying nature. I presume the idea was to improve my moral character. There may be some question whether or not the effort was successful, but I will not press that point. However, some of what I read has remained with me.
There is one particular story which has remained in my mind and even to this day I can see the illustration that accompanied the story. It was a story which illustrated the stupidity of a dog. The dog was depicted as standing on a low footbridge over a stream. It had just dropped a bone from its jaws in an ill advised attempt to snatch at the more enticing looking bone which was reflected in the water below. Of course the idea of this cautionary tale was to impress on the infant mind the folly of throwing away the substance for the shadow. I would not go so far as to say that the effect of this cautionary tale was very great on my subsequent behaviour; nevertheless this story has come back into my mind as I have listened to the flag debate in the house.
I have noted that we have here the question of symbols and reality. Symbols, of course, are very important to us. We could not live without them. We could not live without the symbols we see on every printed page. We could not live without the symbols we make in sounds with our mouths. But because symbols are so important to us there is a very

Canadian Flag
common human tendency to confuse the symbol with the reality. In fact I think one could go further and say that periodically this tendency to confuse symbol with reality has created many, if not most, of the woes that mankind has brought on itself.
We have only to recall the quite violent and bloody schismatic troubles that arose in the early Christian church over the question of whether the divine blessing should be invoked by the priest raising in benediction two fingers or three fingers. In this case, of course, symbol had not only been mistaken for reality but actually had replaced reality in the minds of those pious people, and with great piety and vigour they proceeded to express their own choice among symbols, leaving reality to fend for itself.
This would lead me to suppose, Mr. Speaker, that as a general rule those with the slenderest grasp on reality are those who are most likely to be concerned with symbols. I have had this confirmed by the correspondence I have had on the flag. I have noted that my correspondents can roughly be divided into two categories, those who take a fervid and emotional approach and those who take a cool and objective approach, and I hasten to add that representatives of each variety can be found supporting each contention on the two sides of this quarrel.
But this leads me to suggest that here we are confusing symbol with reality in a very dangerous way. In my correspondence the cool and objective ones appear to take the position that the symbol itself is of no consequence. They are much more concerned with the reality that lies behind it, and they have become quite impatient with their representatives because they are so concerned with the symbol that they have had no time to get to work building the reality.
There is, of course, one all-important fact about symbols, and this is what concerns those who take the cool and objective approach; namely, that the symbol should be accepted by everyone to represent the same thing. We have achieved that in our language. We do not quite agree over the shape of the letters that are printed on paper, but we have all agreed that these letters, whether we like the shape of them or not, whether we think they are aesthetic or not, represent particular sounds and that a combination of those letters represents a more complicated sound which in turn represents an idea.
I am coming to the conclusion that the Prime Minister may have fallen into this

pit of confusion and may have imagined that by creating a symbol he would thereby create reality, seeking, I assume, the very worthy reality of national unity. It would appear to me that the Prime Minister has deluded himself into thinking that if he creates a symbol which he will label national unity he will have thereby created national unity.
On the other hand the Leader of the Opposition seems to labour under the delusion that a symbol can destroy reality. Neither of these right hon. gentlemen seems to be seized of the all important fact that first of all there has to be a reality which can be represented by the symbol; that if there were in Canada a reality which could be known as national unity no symbol could destroy it, no symbol could disturb it. But we should bear in mind that no symbol can of itself create reality. Symbols have no intrinsic value of themselves. They have value only as representing something that is of value.
It may be that there has been a poll which suggests that 60 per cent of the Canadian people wish to have a plebiscite on this issue. I must confess I would have some sympathy for them, because I presume this is an expression of their feeling that they have a better grasp of reality than we have here. But I would also suggest that this is a very unsatisfactory way of reaching these conclusions. I would go further, Mr. Speaker, and warn those who are so fervid and so emotional over something that has of itself no intrinsic value whatsoever that they are risking the reputation of the most important democratic institution in our country.
I have observed on several recent trips to the western part of Canada a singular lack of interest in symbols, a complete lack oi interest in the particular design upon which this parliament may finally decide, and a growing impatience with this concentration on symbols to the exclusion of concentration on reality. We were not sent here to play with symbols. We were sent here to create some realities, and I suggest that the Canadian people are seeking from this parliament the creation of the reality of a united, prosperous Canada with a national purpose and a national identity, and we are not going to achieve that by any short-cut of producing a symbol.
I suggest to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that they should bear this in mind; that we should leave symbols for the communication of ideas, where they are important and necessary; that the Prime Minister should not delude himself into

thinking he is taking any step toward reality by the creation of a symbol and, equally, the Leader of the Opposition should not delude himself into thinking that because the Prime Minister seeks to substitute one symbol for another this will have the slightest effect on reality.
Furthermore, and I shall turn in a moment to this point, sir, the important point is that it should be accepted by everyone as representing something. I will suggest to you that whatever flag we choose, it will represent reality. It is up to us, as members of parliament, to make sure what the nature of that reality is going to be. It will represent equally well a disunited Canada falling to pieces; it will also represent equally well a united, prosperous Canada with a national purpose.
This flag, whatever it is, will be accepted by the bulk of the Canadian people in a remarkably short space of time as representing Canada. I think it is the duty of members of parliament, it is the duty of the government, to make sure that this symbol, which of itself is not of the slightest importance, has something worthwhile to represent. Let us get on with this and stop making ourselves the laughingstock of the country and the laughingstock in those parts of the world that pay any attention to Canada.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, if I take the floor today it is for the very good reason that I promised my constituents to express, in due course, their point of view on this famous issue of the flag.
Now that there is hope that this matter will soon be settled I wish to make a few remarks.
Were it only a matter of stating my attitude and that of my constituents, my speech would be rather brief. I would only have to say that it is my duty, as member for Labelle, to vote for the distinctive flag chosen by the committee, and against the union jack as a second flag suggested by the government.
I am very much afraid, however, that it is not that easy; moreover I would not be satisfied if I did not take this opportunity to explain the reasons for my choice.
It seems to me that the flag debate will have been a test for confederation. We will have seen and heard people express freely their ideas, their feelings, their love and sometimes their hate toward the proposed symbols and the ideas which those symbols represent. We will have feared, for a while, that this ideological conflict would deteriorate into a racial or cultural one. But since any test is a source of reward, we will have also seen that,
Canadian Flag
through the worse sentimental crises, it is possible to live side by side in Canada and that, all things being considered, the fathers of confederation were wiser than we thought.
For the first time in this house, the French element has seen the English element get panicky, haggle and recriminate; please note, Mr. Speaker, that I believe my colleagues had not only the right but the duty to act as they did. I know that they will now be in a better position to understand why we, from Quebec, are clinging to certain rights which we believe to be fundamental rights and which we want to uphold at all cost.
I have no doubt the house will also have realized that when I spoke of people expressing themselves freely I had in mind the members of the opposition parties and not the government members, for in the Liberal party there is unanimity. Indeed, the Liberal party has always been a party enjoying unanimity; for better or for worse, Liberals vote as one man. And why blame them if it agrees with them?
Even at the time of conscription, when the province of Quebec strongly opposed such a measure, Quebec Liberals all voted solidly; they were returned. Quebec, like the Prime Minister, was opposed to the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and Quebec Liberals voted solidly for nuclear weapons. Quebec was against the interference of the federal government in the field of education, but the Liberals voted solidly for loans to students. Quebec was against the interference of the federal government in the provincial and municipal fields, but the Liberals gave a solid vote for assistance to municipalities.


George Albert Proud: And where does the referendum fit into all this?


Gérard Girouard: That will come.
Quebec strongly opposes the union jack as second flag for Canada, but the Liberals voted for such a recommendation in the flag committee, and I am sure they will vote solidly for the union jack when that proposal comes before the house.
Therefore, to grasp what occurred concerning the flag I must note the behaviour of free members, that is the members of the various opposition parties.
It is astonishing to see how public men, with the same degree of sincerity, can take such different stands on fundamental issues. Such attitudes cannot be explained otherwise than through a study of the Anglo-Saxon and Latin-French temperaments, which are altogether different.

Canadian Flag
This brief sociological study will not settle anything, I am sure, but if I could convince the house and the Canadian people that the phenomena which are taking place at the confederation level are not monstrosities, but normal reactions for the two racial groups which founded this country, I would have made quite a step toward the dialogue.
The Latin temperament that French Canada inherited is not a conservative one, in the psychological sense of the word. One has but to study the history of France to find how different it is, say, from that of Britain. Latins have violent, if not revolutionary, reactions. In France, an emperor dethroned a king, a king dethroned an emperor, a revolution dethroned a king, republican regimes came and fell one after another. France today has achieved a certain stability through a president who, with the sovereign consent of the French people, acts much more like a dictator.
In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, when constitutional conflicts did occur, it was always to protect the established principles and traditions-


Vincent Drouin: I am greatly interested by the wanton spirit shown by the hon. member for Labelle, but I have yet to see what his comments have to do with the amendment now before us and the referendum it proposes.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, as soon-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle and I have the impression that what he has said up to now is just an introduction to his subject.


George Albert Proud: A lengthy introduction.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, in this house, as soon as we try to forget politics a little to underline the reality at the bottom of the whole matter, as soon as we try to study the reactions of hon. members, in other words, as soon as we leave small politics, people claim we are wandering from the subject. I say that on a matter like the flag, if the members of the House of Commons had searched their souls before taking a stupid stand, confederation would not have been endangered.
Mr. Speaker, I shall proceed with my study. I was saying that in Great Britain, for instance, the kingdom has broken up, the empire has distintegrated, the commonwealth is in a bad way but has managed to survive; however, the monarchy still remains as a symbol of stability within order.
What I mean by all this is merely that, for the Latin people, vested interests are only

worth their usefulness, whereas for Anglo-Saxons, traditions are law.
It must be admitted, in all fairness, that for my English speaking colleagues, who displayed on their ships, on their battlefields, and cherished a flag symbolizing affection for proud Albion through many centuries, it was quite disappointing to witness the removal at one sweep of any symbol on the flag they considered as their own, as their Canadian flag, which, besides, had been acknowledged as such by Mackenzie King in 1945 when he decreed-and this is the irony of fate-that the red ensign would be flown whenever it would be desirable to "erect a distinctive flag"-


Vincent Drouin: Hoist.


Gérard Girouard: Hoist. I am glad the hon. member corrected me, because it is the only sensible thing he has said about the flag.
Besides, those inclined to question the honesty of some of my colleagues need only recall the rousing plea of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) in order to admit that, rightly or wrongly, he was then speaking from the heart.
I feel, however, that some of my colleagues have been more Roman Catholic than the Pope, more English than the British people, more crown conscious than the Queen.
They must keep in mind that the 20th century also has its rights. They must remember that conservative England has, most shockingly, just elected a socialist government, and with the kindly tolerance of Her Majesty herself.
A lot of things were said in the course of this debate and many of them were regrettable.
However, I should like to say that the flag recommended by the committee is not a Quebec flag. If my province greets it so enthusiastically, it is not because it is antimonarchist; it is not. Nor is it because it is anti-British; it is neither anti-British nor anti-colonial. Quebec supports that flag because it is wholly Canadian.
I should like to pause here a moment to point out the paradoxical situation in which we find ourselves following this epic and emotional debate. I have just stated that French Canada is proud of having a wholly Canadian flag. That is true but I can understand why such an attitude on our part may surprise our fellow citizens.
I refer to the fact that as an ethical group we refuse to have Canada become a melting pot in the American fashion where all citi-

zens would be "Canadians". We want both nations, the French speaking and the English speaking to retain their own identity within one Canada.
We Quebeckers, refuse to surrender our rights to the French language and we struggle, in order that, in Canada, the two languages be official.
We Quebeckers, want to keep jealously our traditions and our civil law.
And yet on the flag issue when the Conservative party, from our leader down, want to give us a flag establishing exactly this ethnic, historic and cultural duality, we say: No. We want one flag for one Canada.
Just as astonishing is the reaction of our English speaking colleagues who always showed a preference for Canadian standardization and who, all of a sudden, offer us half of the flag to put the French fact on it.
Mr. Speaker, if public men have let their feelings run away with them, like children, it is no doubt because public opinion in Canada was diversified and changing, but also because once again the political situation refused to budge to make way for downright honesty-


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Gérard Girouard: While commending-


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member tell us whether he is supporting the amendment moved by his party?


Gérard Girouard: I quite understand why the hon. member is anxious to know my stand in that regard, but if he had the kindness, the tact or at least the politeness to wait for me to conclude my speech, I would be very happy to let him know what my stand is in this regard.


Vincent Drouin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has used up enough time for his opening remarks, and I quite understand why it took him so long to get here for we have not seen him for several months. However, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should abide by the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Labelle has the floor.


Gérard Girouard: Referring to the fact that the hon. member has not seen me in the house for many months, I leave the matter to the discretion of my colleagues in the house, visitors in the gallery and reporters, who 20220-679
Canadian Flag
know what to think in this regard. If the hon. member feels so much at ease and if he believes that I am intimidated by his insults, he is wrong, because it is more difficult to say the truth than to insult others, and if he believes that he can thus intimidate me, he is mistaken.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I am only asking the hon. member to abide by the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is familiar with the standing orders of the house and especially the ruling made this afternoon by the Speaker when he invited the hon. members to abide more strictly by the standing orders which compel hon. members to stick closely to the matter under consideration, in this case an amendment to the main motion.


Gérard Girouard: I take the liberty, Mr. Speaker, to remind you most humbly that the previous speaker referred to the Bible for 15 minutes before saying a word about the referendum; yet, he had the indulgence of hon. members.
At this time I venture to point out, before saying whether or not I am in favour of a referendum, that as far as I am concerned my vote is dictated by my conscience and not by the leader of my party.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while congratulating the Prime Minister for being successful in his proposal for a distinctive flag, I must blame him severely for having dragged the Canadian people into an imbroglio which has proven disastrous.
During his election campaign the Prime Minister merely said that Canada would have a distinctive flag.
For the province of Quebec there can be in the flag no sign whatsoever of links with the past. But, for the other provinces, a distinctive flag is a flag representing no other country-


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, again I rise on a point of order. You made a ruling a moment ago, but it is obvious that the hon. member for Labelle is not complying with it.
In the circumstances I ask that he be called to order without delay.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) should have the courtesy-I know that he is usually very courteous-to let the hon. member who now has the floor go on with his speech and not

Canadian Flag
tell him what arguments he should put forward.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will be able to have him comply with the standing orders of the house.


Edward Nasserden: On a point of order. We have had these repeated interruptions by the hon. member opposite-not points of order, in fact, but simply interruptions in the course of a good speech being made in the house today. If the hon. member has anything to say, his opportunity will come and he should get up on his own two feet and say what he wants to say when his turn comes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid the Chair cannot agree with the hon. member for Ros-them (Mr. Nasserden). The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) rose on a point of order. The point was well taken and the hon. member who has the floor should limit his remarks to the subject matter before us. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Gi-rouard) did say in explanation he was going back in history to indicate why he would vote for or against the amendment and I assume that in due course we will get the final word on the subject.


Gérard Girouard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before finding out whether we were going to have a referendum on the distinctive flag issue I was trying to define what it is and, in my opinion, it is precisely the difficulty of arriving at such a definition that has caused so much misunderstanding and discussion in this house.
I was saying therefore that according to the Prime Minister's promise, as far as Quebec is concerned a distinctive national flag should not bear any sign of a tie with the past, while for the other provinces a distinctive flag would be one the like of which no other country would possess, and that does not exclude a modified version of the red ensign. The fact that the American flag has 50 stars does not make those of Burma, Australia, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria or Yugoslavia, which also have stars, any less distinctive.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is obvious that the hon. member for Labelle is now provoking the Chair by not bowing to the ruling you gave a moment ago.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, I understand the difficulty of the

hon. member to bow to your ruling, since he is reading a speech written by whom I do not know, but he is thus violating two standing orders at the same time: he is reading a speech and he does not keep to the matter under consideration. I therefore ask you to give a strict ruling. If he cannot deliver his own speech, at least let him comply with the rules in a normal way.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on two questions of privilege. My first question of privilege is to ask you to compel the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) to withdraw his charge against me to the effect that my speech has been written by someone else. I will give afterwards the necessary explanations.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I find that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) is quite bold, because he is asking the protection of the Chair to make another member withdraw his words, when his remarks are inconsistent with the matter under consideration and he flatly and systematically refuses to abide by the Chair's ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I did not hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere mention that the speech of the hon. member for Labelle had been written by someone else. He said: "A speech that could have been written by somebody else." I must point out to the hon. member that this problem often arises because some hon. members read their speeches, a practice to which the Chair has not objected consistently so as to make the debate easier for members of the house.
I do not believe that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Labelle is well taken. In addition, I remind him once again that his remarks are outside the matter under consideration and that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) is well taken, in that the hon. member for Labelle should restrict his remarks as far as possible to the matter now before the house, that is, an amendment to the main motion.


Gérard Girouard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Now, on my question of privilege, I would ask the hon. member who said that my speech had been prepared by someone else, to withdraw his words, and since he wishes to have some explanations, I would say to him, first of all, that I am capable of delivering a speech without reading it, and if I read



[Stage Direction]
it today, it is on account of the situation. That also, I think the house-
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has ruled on the hon. member's question of privilege and I do not think there is any reason to continue the discussion on this point. I invite, therefore, the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and return to his speech.


Gérard Girouard: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has left a doubt in the minds of the people of this country on what constitutes a distinctive national flag. However, the Prime Minister did not cope with this doubt, but he took pleasure in amplifying it.
First, he defies the Canadian Legion at Winnipeg and talks only about his three maple leaf flag.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Labelle is absolutely indecent. He even begins his words in these terms: "As I said."- He is thus directly provoking the Chair, and I think you should use your authority to call him back to order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I believe that the hon. member will admit that the word "indecent" used with regard to another member is not good parliamentary language. I am certain that you will not allow your serenity to be provoked, and that you will apply the rules impartially as you have always done.
I feel that the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle, up to now, are strictly in order, because he explains the subject matter of the question, which is directly connected with the plebiscite question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, I ask the hon. members to allow the hon. member for Labelle to go on with his remarks at least a little longer so that the Chair may form an opinion as to whether his remarks are related to the subject now before us, and to what extent.
As for the point raised in connection with the use of the word "indecent", it seems to me that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes did not use it in the same meaning as the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is there another meaning?


Gérard Girouard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Allow me to add that if some hon. members do not want to listen to me, they can always go behind the curtains, as they do when there is a vote which does not interest them.
20220-679i
Canadian Flag


Vincent Drouin: Is that what you did last
Friday?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask hon. members to let the hon. member for Labelle continue his remarks.


Gérard Girouard: Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I was at a political meeting explaining the events which had taken place in the house during the week.
As I was saying, the Prime Minister went to Winnipeg and talked about one flag only. Later, he came to the house and talked about a second flag for Canada, namely the union jack. Then the Prime Minister came before the house saying that he would leave his members absolutely free to vote on this matter. Some time later he came back to the house and stated that his members would be bound, in view of the fact that the government would consider a defeat on the flag measure as a non-confidence vote. And later on, the Prime Minister told us that his members would be free and that he would not consider the defeat on a motion regarding the flag as a government defeat, and he kept that confusion alive until the day when he stated: We shall go on to the end.
When it was necessary to refer the flag issue to a committee although the government had already spent two months fighting for the three maple leaf flag, its own members in committee voted against it and suggested a single leaf flag.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the members for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) and Danforth (Mr. Scott) praise the serious, honest and nonpartisan work accomplished by the members of the flag committee.
While I was listening to them I thought I was sitting in the first row at an election meeting; I entertain no doubts about the seriousness and honesty of the members of that committee, but allow me to smile at their non-partisanship in this matter.
A mere glance at the report of the committee shows that, from beginning to end, everything was but a booby trap where one political group was endeavouring to catch the other. The results are quite obvious. Fifteen men who sat for six weeks, scrutinized thousands of proposals and heard a great number of experts, simply realized that the New Democratic party was right in asking for one maple leaf instead of three and that the Prime Minister had made a brilliant discovery when he advocated the two vertical bands which symbolize both

Canadian Flag
oceans. Only, the members of the committee painted the two oceans red.
But, there again, it may be that the members of the committee did their utmost. Caught between the courage, the boldness and the stubbornness of the Leader of the Opposition and the diplomacy, the weakness, not to say the cowardice of the Prime Minister, they proposed a compromise-


Vincent Drouin: I can understand that the hon. member for Labelle wants to lend a hand to his colleagues of the Conservative party in a filibuster designed to delay as long as possible the adoption of a distinctive flag. However, I feel that it is time for you to make a ruling, Mr. Speaker, and to call the hon. member to order. He has not spoken at all on the motion before us.
The hon. member for Labelle imagines that his remarks are in order when he speaks on the proceedings of the committee or on the flag proposed by the committee. That is not the matter before us. In fact, it is an amendment to the main resolution and the hon. member should stick to the amendment itself and not refer to the main motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Labelle to bear in mind the suggestions repeatedly made by the Chair since the hon. member started his speech. The point of order raised by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes was surely well taken and standing orders state that a member must confine his remarks to the matter under consideration. The hon. member for Labelle will surely admit that the Chair was most lenient in his case. I therefore suggest that for the remaining part of his remarks the hon. member should confine himself to the subject matter now before the house.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I now come to the referendum, but I have much displeasure to note once again that French Canadians are preventing other French Canadians from speaking when all they are asking is the respect of their colleagues; unfortunately, those who are asked to respect their colleagues have no respect for one another.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The fact that I am a French Canadian and that the hon. member for Labelle is also a French Canadian has no bearing on the point of order I raised. I only did so because I think he should adhere to the rules of the house, and also for the sake of other hon. members sitting in this chamber. It is not as a French Canadian that I have

requested the Chair to call the hon. member for Labelle to order, for I do respect the hon. member for Labelle. However, I do not believe-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The question raised by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes and that of the hon. member for Labelle may be interesting, but I repeat that the hon. member who now has the floor seems to be straying away from the rules of the house, in that he is not confining his remarks to the matter under consideration, that is the amendment to the motion made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten).


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. May I be permitted to call your attention and that of the house on paragraph (2) of standing order 34, which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker or the chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition may direct him to discontinue his speech.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask you to enforce this rule and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This rule refers to a member who wanders away from the matter under consideration, whereas the hon. member for Labelle seems about to come to it.


Gérard Girouard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is fortunate that the house made a wise choice when electing you to preside over our discussions, a fact which allows the members to enjoy freedom of speech, even if they sit in the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, we shall probably vote this week on the referendum issue, and in order to be agreeable to my hon. friends opposite, I may tell them that I shall vote against the holding of a referendum.
They should be happy now, and I should be able to even better explain the decision I have made, because, as I said in my opening remarks, I shall vote in favour of the single maple leaf flag.
First of all, because such is the wish of my electors, and, then, because I consider it is important for Canada to be identified as much as possible as a sovereign country.
And since I favour the maple leaf flag, I fail to see why I should support the request that this matter be dealt with through a referendum.
However, I take this opportunity to ask the government to please show some logic. Either

Canada is prepared to give expression to its independence, or it is not.
If Canada has attained that degree of maturity, well, long live the maple leaf, and let us do away with the union jack.
If, on the other hand, our nation is to retain the marks of her glorious past, let us adopt the flag put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, that is equal representation of the French and English history on the same flag.
Actually, I wonder what the government will gain by sitting on the fence.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I know that my suggestion will not be acted upon. The great and unanimous Liberal party will do as it pleases, in the best political interest of its members.
As for my colleagues who are listening to me and who understand me, I am telling them very humbly that the time of the vote is near, because whatever the position of each one of our constituents, they are unanimous on one point, and it is that they want us to vote on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Girouard: Judging from such approval, Mr. Speaker, you can see that the member for Labelle is not out of order.
An hon. member has the responsibility to vote according to his conscience and according to the conscience of his electors. The majority must prevail. That is the basic rule of democracy. The people will have their say about this decision in the next election.
After all, Mr. Speaker, if a flag is the symbol of a nation many other conditions are required to ensure the success of a country such as ours and those qualities that no country can do without, namely, understanding and love of one's fellow men, should be and are deeply felt, I hope, by every one of us, even though I have strong doubts about this today. Those are the qualities which have up to now and will continue in the future, I hope, to promote Canadian unity.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, at this stage perhaps it might be useful to refer to the original motion before the house. I fully realize there has been a bit of dissatisfaction over some of the remarks made by the previous speaker inasmuch as it was alleged that they were slightly out of order, so I propose to confine my remarks to the amendment as closely as possible. I would suggest that the paragraph of the
Canadian Flag
report having to do with the plebiscite is the one to which I would ask you to direct a good deal of your attention.
We have before us a motion presented to the house by the chairman of the flag committee, who served as chairman with great distinction, and I should like to associate myself with the remarks made in this chamber by every hon. member of the committee who has spoken so far. He conducted the affairs of the committee with great impartiality and with a great degree of fairness. He has conducted himself in his public statements since the committee reported in a manner which would lead one to the conclusion that his statements would not lend themselves to any interpretation other than as being a correct interpretation of what took place. Therefore at this stage I want to say that the chairman of the committee acquitted himself in a manner which reflected credit both on him and on the government which appointed him.
Now, since the original motion, which has now been amended by an amendment which was accepted by the Speaker this afternoon, is relatively short I should like to read it. May I say that while I do not pretend to be an expert on the rules I do claim to have a degree of common sense. In my opinion, if in the judgment of the Speaker of the house the right to refer back to the committee something which the house itself felt should be referred back were denied, then it seems to me that we are placing the committee, which is the servant of the house, in a position of superiority to the house itself. Personally I was very pleased with the decision of the Speaker from that common sense point of view.
The original motion, Mr. Speaker, is in these terms:
That the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday. October 29, 1964, be now concurred in.
I have taken the trouble to look up the meaning of the word "concur". I realize it is not a long word or a difficult word. Nevertheless the meaning of the word is of most importance to this house and the members of the house in our anxiety to arrive at a proper conclusion. I find the meaning of the word both in the Oxford dictionary and in Webster's is "to agree with". So we have a motion before us at this stage, a motion which has been amended, which moves that the report of the committee be now agreed with by this house.

Canadian Flag
I suggest that when we say that the report shall be agreed with we are also agreeing with the general proposition that everything that went on in the committee and which is embodied in the report is to be agreed with, which is a proposition I cannot accept. I was a member of the committee and I consider it a great honour to have been chosen.
In view of the fact I have said I was unable to agree with the motion, or the report of that committee, I should like to state that I take that position partly because of its decision not to hold a plebiscite. Having said that I propose to substantiate, if I am able, the reasons I took that attitude.
I should like to make two comments about the attitude taken by the members of the committee. I believe the majority of members came to the committee meetings with a desire to arrive at some decision which would be of benefit to Canada, but the majority also brought with them to the meetings of that committee certain opinions, as reflected by the committee report, that could not help but lead to the conclusion that their maximum compromise involved a substitution of a one maple leaf design for the government sponsored three maple leaf design. That was the compromise in the minds of the majority of the members of that committee. The compromise of simply switching the one maple leaf design for the three maple leaf design did not and does not satisfy me.
The most important feature about a flag is that which it stands for and symbolizes. If you discard these features, or if the country discards them, everything must be discarded and the consideration recommenced. It is my belief that this committee will be remembered much more for the things it eliminated for consideration for inclusion in the design than for the things it incorporated in the recommended design.
Mr. Speaker, before commenting in detail on the committee report I should like to examine the terms of reference. They are most important, and in view of their shortness I should like to read them. They are to be found at page 682 of Votes and Proceedings of September 10, 1964 and read as follows:
On motion of Mr. Favreau, seconded by Mr. Churchill, it was resolved that a special committee of this house-


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I draw your attention to page 451 of May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, and quote to you from the first paragraph as follows:
[Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) .1
A member, while speaking to a question, may not introduce matter which is irrelevant to that question; allude to debates of the same session upon any question or bill not then under discussion-
I should like to quote now from the first paragraph under the heading "relevancy in debate", commencing about half way down, also to be found in that same edition of May's on the same page:
Debate must not stray from the question before the house to matters which have been decided during the current session-
This is the important part:
-or anticipate a matter appointed for the consideration of the house, or of which notice has been given.
I submit that what we would like to hear from those members who favour a plebiscite, and I think they should speak to that point, should be related to the question which should be asked of the public in the form of the plebiscite, and the reasons such a plebiscite is necessary. If we do not follow that course, Mr. Speaker, much of the debate now taking place will be repeated during our consideration of the main motion. There will indeed be a great deal of repetition, and it seems to me that you, sir, must take cognizance of these factors if we are going to maintain any kind of rule of relevancy in this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member participate?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: The people from Halifax would appreciate hearing some contribution from you on the red ensign.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to address Your Honour and that is why I spoke on this question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Halifax has risen on a point of order which is obviously well taken. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is aware that in the course of the debate earlier this afternoon the Chair referred hon. members to a suggestion made by Mr. Speaker today that the rule of relevancy should be respected perhaps a little more strictly than it has been previously in this debate. I would ask the hon. member to keep that in mind.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I said I was going to build my argument on the basis of the motion and then connect it to the question of a plebiscite. I am sure you would not wish to deny me the privilege of doing so. I do not expect any consideration from the hon. member for Halifax, therefore

I am not disappointed. I should like to ask how any person could properly discuss an amendment to a motion without making some reference to the motion itself. It just seems to make ordinary common sense that one must at least make some reference to the main motion.
I had begun to read the terms of reference to the committee on the flag, and should like now to continue to do so. The terms of reference are:
On motion of Mr. Favreau, seconded by Mr. Churchill, it was resolved, that a special committee of this house, consisting of 15 members, to be designated later by the house-
This is the point I want to bring to the attention of the house, and may I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, in not looking at the clock, as the hon. member for Halifax took up ten or 15 minutes of my time with his long dissertation. I do not know who looked up the citation for him.
To continue with the terms of reference they state:
-be appointed to consider and report upon the flag question-
I draw the attention of the members of this house to the words "the flag question", because they are found in the broad terms of reference, and were not confined to the selection of a design. The committee was asked to study and report upon the whole flag question.
I submit that the flag question is an important question to this country. I have never acknowledged its urgency by any remarks I have made in this chamber concerning it, but I have acknowledged the importance of this question. When listening to members opposite who call out "question" on every occasion when someone on this side attempts to discuss this matter concerning the report of the committee, I have the impression that they feel it is a crime for any member to discuss this matter. I cannot understand that attitude. Perhaps they do not realize or recognize those things which are important to Canada. Perhaps that is the trouble with a good many of them.
In the process of coming to the question of a plebiscite, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the terms of reference say that this committee is empowered to report, and that the capacity of this house is to act upon the report without restriction by any motion now on the order paper. In other words, it simply means that this takes precedence. If one were inclined to do so, I submit that he could interpret that part of the terms of
Canadian Flag
reference to mean that anything covered by orders Nos. 44 (A) and 44 (B) could be discussed on this motion in connection with the committee report. Those terms of reference set out specifically that they supersede and override anything else on the order paper which has nothing to do with them.
I find no fault with the committee because the majority of its members felt it was their duty to recommend a design. I have never felt that that was a duty of the committee. I feel that the committee should have chosen to recommend to this house that a plebiscite be held, and that would be perfectly logical and the proper thing to do in keeping with those terms of reference. The whole flag question has agitated various parliaments in differing degrees, and this is what was to be considered and reported upon by the committee.
So at this moment, leading up to the matter of a plebiscite, I think it is very proper for us to examine what took place in the committee, because as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks we are being asked as a house, as 265 members, to concur in a report which was not a unanimous report.


George James McIlraith: Yes, it was.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Did you say it was not a majority report?


Hugh John Flemming: I said it was not a unanimous report. I will not quarrel with the distinguished government house leader. The point is that we asked a question about making a minority report and were told that the report had to be the report of the committee, but that when the motion for concurrence came before the house any member of the committee would be at perfect liberty to get up and express his opinions with regard to the report. That is the reason why I say it was a minority report. All you have to do is to look at the report itself. The report was carried by a vote of 10 to 4. So the house is asked at this stage to accept the opinion of 10 members designated as members of a committee on something that affects almost 20 million Canadians to a very great degree. That is what we are asked to do.
Let us examine the report. We find that in the report the names of the members of the committee are set forth, as well as the names of the members of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. The fact that the committee held 45 sittings in camera is stated and also that the committee heard 12 witnesses in the fields of history, heraldry, pro-

Canadian Flag
tocol, art and design. The report goes on to say:
The members of the committee express their gratitude to these witnesses for their efforts in providing detailed information and also to the nearly 2,000 Canadians who submitted flag designs and suggestions.
Then I come to paragraph 5.


An hon. Member:: You have read it.


Hugh John Flemming: I have not read it. Paragraph 5 is subdivided into (a), (b) and (c). Subparagraph (a) recounts that a motion was made for a national plebiscite. That is what I am talking about, a national plebiscite. That motion was defeated by a vote of 9 to 5.


An hon. Member:: What about 14 to zero?


Hugh John Flemming: The way
things are going this afternoon it is no wonder we get our papers a little mixed up. The motion for a national plebiscite was defeated by a vote of 9 to 5. In the course of some remarks I made in the house on August 13 last I took strong exception to a majority of the members of the house, 133 in fact, having the responsibility of approving a design for a flag which discarded our heritage of the past and substituted a new flag for Canada. I still object to it. I objected to it in the case of 133 people. But now we are asked to agree to the majority decision of 15 people, so everything I said in connection with the matter at that time is enhanced about nine times.
Let the people decide. It was appropriate then and it is appropriate now. That is what was proposed in the committee, but the motion was defeated by a vote of 9 to 5. By the motion now before us we are asked to agree with that decision and I cannot do so.
Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 deals with the motion for the adoption of only one national flag, which was carried by a vote of 14 to nothing. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that this motion received unanimous support. Yet before the committee's work was completed it was conveniently discarded and completely ignored. The explanation given is that the second flag is to symbolize our membership in the commonwealth and our allegiance to the crown. This has been unnecessary in the past. Why should it be necessary in the future? Are we to consider that the national flag recommended by the committee leads to the conclusion that we will do away with our allegiance to the crown by adopting it? If so, I submit this is another good reason for voting against the

motion now before us and in favour of the amendment seeking a plebiscite.
I also have some comments relative to the vote in committee on the motion that the Canadian red ensign be the national flag of Canada. This was defeated by a vote of 10 to 4. By the motion now before the house we are asked to agree that 10 people can decide to discard the flag which has been used, respected, revered, beloved and admired by the Canadian people generally for a period of nearly 100 years. To me any government which suggests that we should approve the taking of the opinion of 10 people in a matter as important as this are themselves not deserving of public approval and should not be in office in this country.
The Prime Minister and his supporters should welcome a plebiscite as a means of solving this difficult problem. In the course of my remarks on the previous occasion I contended that there should have been a non-partisan approach to this matter, that it never should have been relegated into the area of political partisanship at any time, because it was too important. The Prime Minister may have felt impelled to bring the matter before the house, but may I point out that Mr. Mackenzie King did not do so in 1946 when there was a vote of 23 to 1 in favour of a new flag. No doubt he felt the problem was too contentious.


An hon. Member:: We are in 1964 now.


Hugh John Flemming: In connection with the whole question of the red ensign I ask the government and their supporters these questions. Do they completely ignore the fact that the Canadian Legion wishes to retain the Canadian red ensign as the flag of Canada? Is it a matter of complete indifference to them that the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire are on record in every part of Canada as favouring the red ensign? Is it a matter of complete indifference to them that some 200,000 people signed a petition to retain our present flag? Is it a matter of complete indifference to the government and the members of the government that they must have received thousands of communications from Canadians imploring them not to discard or destroy the flag which we have been using for nearly 100 years?
These are some of the things which we felt should be pointed out. This one was defeated. According to the report, we are asked to express our agreement just because ten people voted against four. I, for one, cannot possibly subscribe to such an idea. The way this mat-



[Stage Direction]
ter has been handled is another great blunder by this government, already noted for its performance in the field of blundering. I cannot support a motion in this parliament that would discard the Canadian ensign from consideration as the national flag of Canada. Remember, the motion is to discard it from consideration as the national flag of Canada. In 1946, as I understand it, a committee reported 23 to 1 to this parliament, to a Liberal government, on a new Canadian flag. Concurrence in that report was never moved by the government of Right Hon. Mackenzie King. He would not accept the responsibility for accepting the committee report at that time. No doubt he had what seemed to him to be good reasons. Right hon. Mr. St. Laurent did not bring the matter before parliament during his term of office as prime minister.
The present Prime Minister decided to have a new flag by act of parliament, giving as his reason that he had promised it during the heat of an election campaign. I contend that is not a good enough reason. It would be much more in the national interest to disregard such a commitment, because the carrying out of a commitment of that nature is much worse than being accused of a broken promise. I declare here and now that I have not and do not prefer any design for the flag of Canada to a greater extent than I do the Canadian red ensign. However, I will say this: I do not rule out the possibility that in the interests of unity in Canada, for the encouragement of a proper attitude by all Canadians from all parts of Canada, an effort should be made to find a somewhat different design more capable of general acceptance. This is the reason I favoured in the committee a design which had incorporated in it the symbols of the founding races of this country, and incorporating also a maple leaf which might be considered as having symbolism with regard to the progress of our country during our growing up period. There it is, Mr. Speaker. There is the design for which I voted. I make no apologies for it. I think it is a very fine compromise.
Now, if it were necessary in the interest of national unity and for the good of the nation that there should be some variation in where these symbols stand, I would be the last one to stand in the way. Some people say we have grown up, and since we have grown up we should run our own show. We should be masters in our own house. I subscribe to that idea. However, it is not necessary to throw out the pictures of our
Canadian Flag
father, mother, grandfather and grandmother in the process. We do not need to do that.
Now, I want to have something to say about this particular feature before dealing with its significance. However before leaving the subject of the Canadian red ensign containing the union jack, I do want to say a word with regard to British justice and its importance to all of us. Many times we hear remarks related to the Canadian Bill of Rights for which my right hon. leader was responsible.
I say that the Canadian Bill of Rights was based on British justice; that was the foundation of the bill of rights. By accepting this motion before the house, and I am now speaking in favour of the amendment, we are asked to do away with every symbol indicating we have British justice in this country. This is a far cry from the type of thing to which we have listened in this house during the last couple of weeks. Many people sleep better at night because they are citizens of a country in which British justice prevails. I cannot bring myself to support a motion which discards the symbolism indicating that situation, so I shall vote for the amendment.
On Monday of this week the Prime Minister stated that the people on this side of the house had been doing their best to prevent a vote on the flag issue. I want to say to him, I want to say to any member of the government or any member of this house, that I reject and resent that assertion. I spoke twice in the previous flag debate. I spoke because I believed what I said, and because a very high percentage of the people of Canada believe as I do. It is my opinion that they still do. In spite of this, the government brings forward a motion which asks us to agree that ten people should rule out of consideration the symbol of those things to which I have just now referred.
Now we come to the report of the committee and we find that the flag designs submitted were divided into three categories. Toward the conclusion of paragraph 6 of that report we find these words:
Elimination by an agreed procedure left only one design in each category.
I want to speak about the word "elimination" and the words "agreed procedure". The procedure was agreed, without a doubt, but the elimination took on the character of a decision based on a previous vote. As a consequence, I want to say that the elimination is something which should be stressed in this house for the benefit of hon. members who may not have given the question of elimina-
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
tion the consideration which it deserves. What did we vote to eliminate? We are voting to eliminate the union jack.
Gilles Grégoire: Hear, hear.


Mr, Flemming (Vicloria-Carlelon):: This is fine, but I may tell hon. gentlemen that-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You have exposed yourself.


Hugh John Flemming: -it
would be the things which they valued most and which are guaranteed to them under the union jack, which would be eliminated if they only knew it. I say they would eliminate the symbols of the Christian heritage of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Hugh John Flemming: This is what is embodied in the union jack. It is the cross of St. George; it is the cross of St. Andrew; it is the cross of St. Patrick, and it goes back to the time of the crusades. This is what those in the far corner, apparently, are favourable to having removed from the national flag of Canada. We are asked to agree to that elimination. I cannot do so.
According to the report, we find that in the process of a vote being taken, the three maple leaf design was retained by a vote of 8 to 6; the single maple leaf design was retained by a vote of 13 to 1; the design containing the union jack and the fleur-de-lis was rejected by a vote of 9 to 5. Yesterday the hon. gentleman who was a member of the committee, and represents Terrebonne, said in this house that there was one time when there was complete unanimity on the design, and it was the present suggestion. Now I know, at least I feel, that he would not deliberately mislead the house.
I refer the house to this particular paragraph because this is the paragraph which applies. It reads as follows:
A vote was then taken to determine the committee's preference between the design containing three maple leaves and the design containing one maple leaf.
All they were doing was voting as between those two designs, and it specifically says so in the report.
The single maple leaf design was retained by a vote of 14 to 0.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Vincent Drouin: Fourteen to zero.


Hugh John Flemming: Now, if the hon. member can understand, I should like to suggest something to him-that seven Liberals, members of that committee, voted
(Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton).]
against the design which had been submitted to this parliament by the Prime Minister himself. Why did they change their minds. Two or three months ago it had to be three leaves. They were married to the three leaves. But they got divorced awfully quickly; they did not stay together long.


Mr. Roxburgh:: I should like to make a statement on a question of personal privilege. The hon. gentleman has just said that members on this side of the house, all of us-


An hon. Member:: He said those on the committee.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: -were committed to the three maple leaves. I should like him to know that right from the beginning-and I made my views known within the party-I have supported the one maple leaf.


Hugh John Flemming: I would accept at its full value any assertion made by the hon. member who has just spoken. If he dissociated himself from the position taken by his party I admire him for publicly saying so. I am speaking in general terms. A few months ago it had to be the three maple leaves, and it could be nothing else.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hugh John Flemming: But in
the committee they changed their minds and voted for one maple leaf-voted against the design submitted by their own Prime Minister.


Auguste Choquette: A question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member raising a question of privilege?


Hugh John Flemming: It is a
spurious question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. gentleman would wish to allow the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) to state his question of privilege.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Sing "God Save the
Queen" and sit down.


Auguste Choquette: Don't make any jokes about "God Save the Queen".

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who now has the floor has no right to say that we were determined never to consider any other design apart from the three leaf flag.
In so doing, he is not speaking the truth. The government introduced in this house a



[Stage Direction]
proposal for debate and the Prime Minister always said that he was ready to consider all suggestions.
The statement made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is false.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is obvious that the question of privilege of the hon. member for Lotbiniere is ill founded; in fact, it is an argument and not a question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: He tells falsehoods.


Hugh John Flemming: Just
what I expected. Since we are on a question of privilege I hope you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, if I explain my conception of what a question of privilege is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out that the question of privilege has been ruled out. I might mention, too, that according to the clock the hon. gentleman's time has expired. However, there were some points raised, taking three minutes or so of the time allotted, and they will be allowed.


Hugh John Flemming: I am only anxious to conclude my remarks and I thank you for your consideration, which is exactly what I expect from you.
I believe this whole matter, the committee's report and all the rest, has been mishandled; it is one more blunder in the series of blunders for which the government is famous. I make no apology for saying this. But there is no reason why even at this stage the government could not redeem itself. It could do so by having this amendment carry, by giving its members the right to have a free vote, and letting the report go back to the committee so that the people could decide. Surely this is the right way to settle the matter. It has been stated on many occasions that this is not an urgent question. It does not need to be. I am sure everyone who feels there is a degree of urgency attached to it would be satisfied if it were dealt with at the next general election in the course of a referendum held during that election. My feeling is that the government should seriously consider this course. If they do lose face to a certain extent it will not be nearly as bad as the disruption which I am convinced will follow if this matter is not handled in something like the way I suggest.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Canadian Flag


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, if everybody had been unanimous that the motion should come to a vote immediately, I would have resumed my seat. But I saw another Conservative member who was getting to his feet to discuss the matter. Therefore, I should like to take the opportunity to give some of my impressions.
Today, you made a ruling on the amendment now before us. I shall not discuss that ruling, of course. I only regret one thing and it is that I did not ask for a vote on your ruling, because I think it is parliament as a whole that has authority on the management of the business of the house.
But all that is now over and we are discussing the amendment of the Conservatives which reads as follows:
That the words "be now adopted", be struck out and replaced by the following:
That it be referred back to the committee with instructions to strike out paragraph 7 of the said report and substitute therefor the following:
However, as the final vote of the committee did not reveal a sufficient degree of unanimity for the proposed design of a national flag for Canada-
The quality of the French version is to be noted. I think that the Conservative party could not find one French Canadian among its members who accepted to write this amendment. That is why the French version is full of awful errors.
-votre comite recommande alors que le gou-vernement soit autorisc a prendre les mesures ne-cessaires afin de conduire un plebiscite...
Imagine "conduire un plebiscite" instead of an automobile.
... lors de la prochaine Election generate afin que le peuple canadien soit foumi l'occasion...
You may well smile, Mr. Speaker, because it is really funny to hear such jargon.
... qui en est son droit, de declarer son choix pour un drapeau national.


Gilles Grégoire: That was concocted by the member for Edmonton West.


David Réal Caouette: Once more, I say that no French Canadian member of the Conservative group agreed to translate the original amendment which was drafted in English.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Lambert is not a French Canadian.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this is the paradox with which we are faced-and it really is a paradox: That parliamentary committee was created at the special request of the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) after a meeting of the five

Canadian Flag
leaders of the political parties in the House of Commons. This parliamentary committee composed of 15 members had not been mentioned previously. But the Leader of the Opposition told us that, without the establishment of a committee which would study the question of a distinctive national flag, he would not consent to put an end to the debate on the flag issue. At that time, some 65 Conservative members had already spoken in the house.
We asked the leader of the official opposition what kind of a majority he was considering should the Prime Minister and the leader of the other parties agree to the formation of such a committee which would present a majority report. He replied: On 15, 13 to 2. That is not a large majority; it is almost total unanimity.
The leader of the official opposition knew in advance that five of his followers would be sitting on the committee. There were seven Liberals, one N.D.P., one Social Crediter and one member of the Ralliement Creditistes, for a total of 15. The Liberal who acted as chairman, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) did not vote but the others did. After six weeks of sittings, the committee concluded its proceedings by a final vote of ten to four. In other words, one Conservative member voted in favour of the recommendation made by the committee. That was not sufficient.
Now that we have the report, we are getting into a marathon similar to the one we had during the debate on the resolution. It is a Conservative "talkathon".
Mr. Speaker, the amendment deals with the very same issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised during the discussion on the resolution. What the Conservatives want seems obvious: waste the time of the house to prevent the government from taking action and to prevent the passage of legislation. Their game is surely to throw the country into another general election which they themselves would have trouble facing, especially today-I know what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, because even if the Conservatives maintain that the province of Quebec is the only one ready to vote on this issue, I must say that I have been to western Canada to speak to English Canadians, I went to Parry Sound, in Ontario, not long ago, I am going to Toronto next Thursday, to Trinity College, at the Kiwanis club, and in the afternoon, I shall be interviewed on television. Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can

say what they like, and resort to all the tricks laid down in advance by the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: -English speaking Canadians have had enough of this Canadian talk-fest, they are fed up with this waste of time.
An hon. member is interrupting me. Right now I am ready to talk before any association in his riding. I will prove to him that his riding is ready to adopt a flag immediately and without a plebiscite.
One hoax after another has been played on us in the last few days, just as we have been misled since last June with those words: "The public wants a plebiscite."
In 1963, the Conservative members of the province of Quebec said: "We are in favour of adopting immediately a distinctive national emblem." The Liberal members said the same thing throughout Canada and that was part of their election platform, as it was part Of ours. Personally, I was elected with a 12,000-vote majority, and a distinctive national flag figured in my program. The Liberals got the greatest number of seats in Canada. The Conservatives followed suit.
The members of the New Democratic party, at election time declared themselves in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. But this means nothing to the Leader of the Opposition who is certainly touchy, for instance, when it comes to the matter of unanimous consent with regard to a time limit for debates on an issue such as this, one which has been going on for months and months.
Mr. Speaker, we have been elected and the people who elected us trusted that we would adopt a distinctive national flag, here in the House of Commons.
Today, the Conservatives, to play petty politics, strongly call for a national plebiscite. They want to ask the people who trusted us to select the flag they wanted, to vote on this matter.
I have said, on several occasions, that the design of the flag is of little concern to me. My personal preference is clear: I prefer the flag launched across Canada by the native sons of Canada on the one hand, and by some French Canadians from the province of Quebec, namely the diagonal flag, half red and half white, with a green maple leaf.
However, I do not oppose the adoption of another design, provided it is Canadian, provided it bears a Canadian symbol.
A while ago we heard the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton say that he represents

a population which respects British justice. We have had French justice also. I am the first to recognize that we did have justice under the British empire.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us look what is happening around the world today, let us look at the countries that have always belonged to the British empire, such as Jamaica, Canada and others. Recently, when the members of the commonwealth parliamentary association met in Jamaica, a little country of about 1,800,000 inhabitants, that just won its independence two years ago, the flag flown on the occasion of that meeting was the distinctive national flag of Jamaica. There is a country that is still a member of the commonwealth but it has its own symbol.
People even went further than that. When the Conservative member attended this meeting, and I think perhaps they were two, the national anthem that was sung in Jamaica, during all their stay there, on the occasion of public demonstrations, was not even the national anthem of the British empire or the Queen. It was the national anthem of Jamaica. In fact, it was sung three times, without any attempt being made to sing or to intone the national anthem of England.
I hear those members telling us that the union jack represents British justice. Very well. However, are we not able, after 100 years, to have our own individual symbols as Canadians while continuing to be part of the British commonwealth of nations?
When I go to any social club, I do not wear my neighbour's suit but my own. Why don't we, as Canadians, have our own symbols and why don't we refrain from hanging on to something that we still respect when it is time, not to part with it, but to express our own feelings with our own symbols as a sovereign and independent nation which can take its own decisions.
We have nothing against England nor against the British empire as such. But we object to those backward persons who would like us to go back 150 or 200 years and seek to have the fleur-de-lis on a distinctive Canadian flag.


An hon. Member:: No.


David Réal Caouette: Do we ask that French symbols be included because we are of French descent.


An hon. Member:: No.


David Réal Caouette: We ask for nothing like that. We say more: if the Canadian symbol, now represented by the maple leaf on the flag
Canadian Flag
proposed by the committee which considered this question, is not satisfactory, then let us remove the maple leaf and put a beaver, or a sheaf of wheat, or indeed anything else, as long as it is Canadian. But to tell us: pass a red ensign with a union jack in the upper corner and a fleur-de-lis at the bottom to remind us of our forefathers, to remind us of what happened in Canada in 1534, 1608 or 1790, etc., we are fed up with those things.
As I was saying a while ago, not only we French speaking Canadians, but also English speaking Canadians-I noticed it wherever I went-are fed up with it, and I shall prove it Thursday when I visit Toronto.
In my opinion, this amendment tends merely to make us waste our time, to carry on our debate until Christmas and after Christmas till Easter. However, I would like to say another thing to the Conservatives, who every day request a question period in order to speak on the flag. We are now discussing the flag issue-I see that the Conservative house leader is in his seat-I formally warn him that there will be no answers to questions on the order paper, that there will be no question period on orders of the day until the vote has been taken on the report of the committee on the flag. We shall comply with the rules. The unanimous consent of the house will not be granted. We want to know if Conservatives are Canadians, true Canadians, or if they just pretend to be Canadians, from whatever part of Canada they come.
I hear whispers coming from the Conservative opposition. They say that I am in collusion with the Liberals. No, I am not. Moreover, I have not been elected-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Is this man going to be allowed to refer to the opposition as a semblance of Canadians?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I was going to raise the same point, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman who has raised this question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the remarks of the hon. member; however, he can interpret my words any way he wants and it will not bother me in the least. If the hat fits, wear it. It is as simple as that. If it does not fit, do not wear it.
The plebiscite requested by the Conservatives is but a roundabout means to waste the time of the house. This matter was considered by the house before it was referred

Canadian Flag
to the committee. Now that the committee presented its 10 to 4 majority report to the house, this question of a plebiscite is revived.
I say a plebiscite would only delay the adoption of a flag. We are the elected representatives of the people and we should assume our responsibilities as such.
If there is a majority in the house, the Leader of the Opposition can definitely not make me believe that it does not represent the majority of the Canadian voters. That is what they would want us to believe. They say: "You want to impose closure", and the Leader of the Opposition often says this, as well as some other Conservative members. Some closure, when they have been talking as they have from the very start of the flag debate. It is a Conservative political play. If they think of winning back public favour by so doing they are mistaken, for they are tying around their own necks the rope with which they will hang themselves for sure at the next general election.
Instead of only seeking purely political advantages, let us think and act as Canadians.
I said earlier that during the last election campaign we supported the adoption of a distinctive national flag. We were elected on that plank. Now, we would be asking for a plebiscite on this question? They are not saying that the plebiscite would be held immediately, no, but at the forthcoming general election. Should the next election take place two years hence, we would be dealing with the plebiscite two years from now and then, before ordering the plebiscite, we could still discuss the flag question and, once the plebiscite was over and a government elected, from one of the political parties, there would still be members questioning and discussing the plebiscite, because some will not be satisfied.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of a plebiscite being held in the countries I mentioned a moment ago, which surely belong to the British commonwealth and have won their independence, such as Jamaica, Ghana, India, etc., and England herself? Did some people ask for a plebiscite in those countries, to choose a national flag and a national anthem? Have the duly elected representatives of the people no responsibility in such matters?
Think of those smaller countries I just referred to, Jamaica, Ghana, the African countries, that have won their freedom and independence and are still members of the British commonwealth, with symbols of their
[Mr. Caouette.l
own on their flags, not a union jack or a fleur-de-lis, but, for instance, a true Jamaican symbol. They did not put a banana on the distinctive national flag of Jamaica. It is only with strictly Canadian symbols such as those that we shall enjoy national unity.
Let no one try to make me believe that if I wear my neighbour's hat, I am wearing my own clothes. There is no doubt about it.
The Conservatives will keep on talking endlessly, but they will be held responsible by the Canadian voters. Let me tell you this. Those to whom I appeal in their group are those who have already taken a stand and come from other provinces than Quebec, because I have met several who admitted to me they were anxious to dispose of this matter and to take action, since their electors were after them as they are after us.
Mr. Speaker, that is the wish I make for all of us, that we act in the interests of Canada. It is true that Canada is a member of the British empire but, as Canadians, we should act in the interests of Canada by incorporating our own symbols in our flag, so that we can be identified as Canadians in every part of the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask him whether the translation was accurate, in that I understood that member to say that he does not care what is on the flag at all, but mentioned a beaver or a sheaf of wheat as being acceptable, provided the red ensign is destroyed?


David Réal Caouette: I did not say that. I said I wanted a national distinctive flag which could have on it anything which is Canadian, whether it be a beaver, a maple leaf or anything distinctively national.


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit another question, Mr. Speaker? I wish to ask him whether he would agree with the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), that this flag will not bring about the unity of Canada?


David Réal Caouette: Which flag?


Michael Starr: I refer to this proposed flag.


David Réal Caouette: To which proposed flag do you refer? The hon. member for Lapointe has never said anything like that.


Gilles Grégoire: I never said that.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You sure did.


Gilles Grégoire: I never did.



DECEMBER 1, 19G4

Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If the former minister of labour wishes to lay such accusations, he just has to submit the text.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I wish to say that the hon. member for Lapointe on a previous occasion said that a new distinctive flag for Canada would not bring about the unity of this country.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to point out that I have not yet said a single word about the flag, and that I have been absent for 22 days, the time taken by the Conservatives to discuss this question. And it is a good thing I was away, because that debate depressed all the other members in this house.
I wish to state once more that I have never spoken on that subject and, consequently, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) is mistaken.


Michael Starr: You made your speech outside the house.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed an example of the reason the people of this country are completely sick and fed up with the party of which the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is a member. We have listened to him point the finger of scorn at the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and at the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming). Let me suggest to him that if he used those members, of which he is scornful, as examples to follow rather than Hitler, Mussolini, and people of that category, this country would be better off.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You would sooner follow Hitler. You said you admired him.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has no right to lend any motive whatever, and I want to tell him that I shall certainly not follow in the footsteps of his leader, any more than I would have followed those of Hitler or Mussolini whom he just mentioned. It would be better for him if he were minding his own business instead of that of others.
Canadian Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, we heard the hon. member talk about a Canadian flag and suggest that we could have a beaver or a sheaf of wheat on it. Is that not exactly what Adolf Hitler said to the German people when he took their flag away and provided them with the swastika? That represents the same philosophy-destroy your history and tradition, and replace it with something new.


David Réal Caouette: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Go back to England.


Robert Carman Coates: My friend, I am a Canadian.


Gilles Grégoire: I do not think you are.


Robert Carman Coates: I do not think I am any less a Canadian than you or any other member of this house, and I will stand on that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members that very little will be accomplished by a shouting contest between members. I invite the hon. member for Cumberland to confine his remarks to the speech which I assume he proposed to make to this house.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit a question before he proceeds with his speech? Does the hon. member for Cumberland interpret the presence of only one minister of the crown in the house as a desertion of the Prime Minister's stand on the flag?


Robert Carman Coates: In view of the fact the Prime Minister's members of the committee deserted his flag completely, I would not be surprised if what the hon. member has suggested is an example of the importance they place on the present flag design. If it should be suggested tomorrow that some other design would be more acceptable and receive a larger degree of support from the country, I am certain the Prime Minister would pass that word along and such a flag would be supported this week. In that event I am sure we would hear all the trained seals say "me too", as usual, and they would stamp their approval on it. At that time we would hear the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) get up and say: I really love this flag. He would say so, no matter what it looked like, provided the Prime Minister approved it.
The speech by the member for Leeds last evening in this house exemplifies the degree

Canadian Flag
of hypocrisy inherent in this whole flag question as far as the government is concerned. Never in the history of this nation have we seen a government as contemptuous of the rights of the people they allegedly represent. It is a government that has displayed on this issue deceit, defiance, delusion, demagoguery, dereliction and a despicable attempt to destroy a dignified symbol that has meant so very much to so very many Canadians of all races, colours and creeds.
What we have witnessed, Mr. Speaker, is this. On May 17 of this year the Prime Minister travelled to the Canadian Legion convention and told the people there that the government was going to have a three maple leaf flag, and that the red ensign was going to be scrapped in favour of this new design which he considered to be more representative and symbolic of this nation's history and tradition.


Gilles Grégoire: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member says this is wonderful. I hope those members of the opposition will stay and listen to this debate. The Prime Minister stated "I have spoken with a select group of members from the press gallery and told them what I wanted. I told them also how I was going to get what I wanted, by making certain that the members of parliament would not be able to vote on this motion as their consciences indicated, because I was going to make this a government vote involving confidence in the government." We heard the trained seals get up one after the other and say how they supported this flag, how, like the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), they loved it, and then on September 10 the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) finally agreed to set up a committee to determine what the flag design should be.
The committee reports, and what do we learn from the report. We learn that every Liberal member on the committee voted against the design which on May 17 and for every day thereafter until September 10 the Liberal party told the Canadian people was the flag that should be accepted by them without question. We have the committee report before us, Mr. Speaker, and we see that the committee arrived at three designs upon which it voted, the Pearson pennant, the one they now wish us to accept and the one proposed which incorporated our past history and traditions.
I want to say first of all that when the members were appointed to the committee there were those who said that the Conservative members of the committee would go in

there as red ensign men and come out as red ensign men, and that it was useless to set up the committee because there would be no spirit of compromise among the Conservative members appointed to that committee. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. I was truly amazed when I saw the flag design that had associated with it our past history and traditions because in effect it was a maple leaf flag, about which these people on the other side of the house have talked so much, with a very small emblem in each corner which associated today with the past. For anyone to say that the Conservative members appointed to that committee were not willing to compromise would be absolutely and completely ridiculous. As a matter of fact, if I had been a member of the committee I am very doubtful that I would have been willing to compromise to the degree that was indicated in the design that was accepted as the flag incorporating an association with our past. It departs a long way from the Canadian red ensign.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as dedicated as the members of the committee were, as willing as they were to attend meetings day in and day out and work, I have no doubt, long and diligently in order to come up with a solution, I say that to my mind the flag committee failed. They failed parliament, they failed the Canadian nation. They had available to them a means of solving this problem but because, no doubt, of word passed down to the Liberal members of the committee it was impossible to produce a flag that would have received the unanimous approval of all members of the committee, and thereby have eliminated any debate in the house.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) said that if unanimous or nearly unanimous approval could be obtained for a flag design there would be no further debate on the matter. Certainly I as a strong advocate of the retention of the Canadian red ensign would not have been happy with such a flag design. Certainly those who wish to remove the union jack from the flag would not have been happy either, but the flag committee would have produced a compromise against which it would have been impossible for any member to argue. But where are we? We are back in the House of Commons because of the regimentation of the Liberal party and the willingness of the members of that party on the flag committee to put their party before the Canadian nation.
I have said on more than one occasion, Mr. Speaker, that the whole point involved in this flag debate is whether or not Canadians are



DECEMBER 1. 1964

[Stage Direction]
willing to allow the union jack to be removed from the flag. The hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) certainly fortified the statements I have made in the past, that they are willing to accept any flag with any kind of design, whether it be the swastika or the black hand of the Mafia or a pumpkin, as long as the union jack is removed.
What could be more ridiculous, idiotic and completely stupid than to consider removing from a flag the nation's history, its traditions and the sacrifices made by generation after generation of Canadians who helped to build this nation and bring it to the point where it is today? I say that such an attitude can only assist in destroying what we have created and that the present government, so willing to do whatever is indicated as desirable by Gallup polls, is not one that is going to strengthen trust in the minds of the people who have some consideration for those who have made a contribution to the building of this nation.
The Prime Minister has put the house in the position where it must do as he asks or he will choke it off and allow no business to be done except to deal with what is apparently his childish pet, a new Canadian flag. The Canadian people must wait for the Canada pension plan, they must wait for the labour code, they must wait for anything else that is of real value and importance to the future of the nation and the way it progresses, because the Prime Minister of the country has the childish attitude that he wants his flag and he wants it now. He is not going to allow parliament to stop him from having it, whether or not he stops the business of this nation. We cannot even ask questions about anything the government is doing now because the Prime Minister wants his flag. What a childish attitude for a man who is supposed to be as big as he is. What a stupid attitude for a man who is responsible for running the affairs of this nation. What a ridiculous attitude for a man who is concerned about unity and about the effectiveness of parliament. The Prime Minister, more than any other man, is destroying the effectiveness of this parliament with this flag issue. Nothing appears to be more important to him than getting a flag so he can say to the people of Canada, "See, I told you that you would have it by Christmas, and here it is." How childish. How ridiculous.
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Take another drink; it is a rather dry speech.
Canadian Flag


Robert Carman Coates: There is one thing about the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). He does a tremendous job of interjecting but he finds it most difficult to stand on his own two feet and make a speech. This has been the case ever since I have been in the house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I would not want to make a terrible speech like you are making.


Robert Carman Coates: My friend, you could not make any kind of a speech, and you know it; that is the only good thing I can say about you. You have the common sense-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is a rotten speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Carman Coates: I will say this: I would rather have others judge it than you. I would not really depend on your judgment.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I cannot hear you; you are just mumbling.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Reference was made by the hon. member-if I may be permitted to be so loose with the word-to the effect the hon. member was making a rotten speech.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No question about it.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is this a parliamentary phrase that is going to be permitted?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, the word may be a little strong, but the word "rotten" was applied to the speech. I suppose if it had been applied to an hon. member it would probably be unparliamentary. However, since the expression was applied to the speech, it is not unparliamentary, although it is a rather strong word to use. In any event, I suggest the hon. member for Cumberland be allowed to continue.


Robert Carman Coates: I cannot say I am really concerned about what the hon. member for Kootenay East thinks of my speech. I was referring to the fact that we are unable to secure any information from the government because of the method adopted by the Prime Minister in allowing this debate to go forward. One matter I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, which is germane to this debate is a question I have on the order paper. It is question No. 1,889 and it has been there since September 9 unanswered. This is a period of three months. The question requests information related to the cost the Canadian taxpayers will have to bear if a new flag design is adopted by this house.

Canadian Flag
Now, there have been a lot of people who have said-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How much would a plebiscite cost?


Mr. Pascoe:: It would cost you your seat.


Robert Carman Coates: There have been a lot of people who have said they could not care less whether we have a maple leaf or the Canadian red ensign.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It will not cost as much as P.F.A.A. under you.


The Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Carman Coates: The gentleman just has bad manners, Mr. Speaker, and we should excuse him. Ignorance should be excused at all times, whether it is the hon. member for Kootenay East or anyone else.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You are so gracious; I accept.


Robert Carman Coates: As I say, there are statements to the effect that people care little about what the flag might be. There are some, but I do not agree that there are a lot. There are certainly some people in this nation who have no great concern about whether or not we have a flag. They might care, sir, if they were to Tealize that this action by this government in producing a new flag is going to cost the Canadian taxpayers a good many millions of dollars, to say nothing of individuals who have a flag now and might desire to have one that does represent this nation.
Here this question lies, unanswered, on the order paper. It will not be answered because of the gag the Prime Minister has applied to this parliament until he gets his childish way and we relent and provide him with a flag.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question?


Robert Carman Coates: Yes.


George James McIlraith: Does he not agree that it would be more honest to tell the truth and say it is the rules which permit questions only before routine proceedings, and that the Prime Minister did offer an opportunity to the official opposition today to have a question period, and they turned it down.


Robert Carman Coates: So far as I am concerned, there are no degrees of honesty. You are either honest or dishonest. If the hon. member is calling me a liar, then let him look at Hansard of yesterday where the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) explained to the Prime Minister what v/as going to happen if he did not come forward with a motion that could

receive unanimous approval and thereby allow the ordinary business of this house to be conducted while this debate takes place. The Prime Minister refused. He refused him like the spoiled child he is.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Carman Coates: The amendment now before us, Mr. Speaker, is to send the report of the flag committee back to that committee in order that its members might consider the merits of having a national plebiscite carried out to determine through the Canadian people what variety of flag design they consider to be most appropriate as a national flag.
There are many reasons why this seems to be the most logical method of determining a flag for Canada. Certainly we as members of this house have indicated beyond doubt that we are not capable of arriving at a conclusion which would be acceptable to the Canadian people at large while at the same time preventing a deterioration in national unity. Polls have been taken by numerous organizations across this nation.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Including one in Waterloo.


Robert Carman Coates: The poll in Waterloo South indicated that the Liberals lost their deposit for the first time probably in the history of this nation.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Tories did not do too well.


Robert Carman Coates: They may not have done too well but they were certainly an improvement over the Liberals.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How did they do in Cumberland?


Robert Carman Coates: They did very well in Cumberland.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Westmorland.


An hon. Member:: Let him make his speech.


Robert Carman Coates: As I was saying, polls have been taken at various times across this nation by various organizations and on each occasion the majority of those questioned indicated the belief that a plebiscite is the best answer, the best way of determining the kind of flag which would be accepted by all Canadians.

I have before me the result of one of these polls recently carried out by Telepoll, a CTV program. It was forwarded to me by the dominion president of the Canadian corps association who also urged the government to carry out a national plebiscite. The poll in question states that of the 1,134 persons polled across Canada 51.7 per cent favoured a plebiscite, 33.9 per cent wanted parliament to decide and the remainder had no opinion. In the Toronto area, of 150 persons questioned 53 per cent favoured a plebiscite. Many other polls have been taken and most of them show a higher percentage in favour of a plebiscite than the Telepoll to which I have just referred. However, that is the latest poll because it was taken on November 28, and it is an indication of the continued belief in the minds of the people that they should have an opportunity to decide what the design of our flag should be.
There are many reasons why the people should be asked to express their views with regard to a flag design, but the most compelling reason in my mind is the way in which the situation has been handled by the government to date. I refer not only to designs, though in this respect members opposite have shown a readiness to change their views from week to week as necessary, but because the government has unfairly taken so many actions which have proven to be a source of great irritation to many Canadians. I have a telegram here from a Mr. J. A. Pope of Montreal dated November 27. Mr. Pope, in his telegram, has this to say:
The flag on the main administrative building at the Royal Military College used to be the union jack. Subsequently I believe the Canadian red ensign flew proudly over that building. Now it has been replaced by a red and blue flag which is supposed to be the college flag. Since the post offices in Canada and the R.C.M.P. fly the Canadian red ensign I am amazed that someone has authorized the removal of the last vestige of the union jack from the Royal Military College at Kingston, Ontario. As you probably know, an independent country, South Africa, incorporates the union jack in its national flag. Bud Drury must be proud of this action.
That is just one of numerous examples of this type of thing happening across this nation at government instigation or, if not at government instigation, known by the individuals who take the action that the government will applaud them for it. The example of H.M.C.S. Yukon flying the Pearson pennant out at sea is just as glaring an example as the one described in the telegram I have just read. The bumper stickers that were to be distributed by the sticker-licker,
Canadian Flag
the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis), is another example.


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Robert Carman Coates: I do not know where he is these days. He is probably trying to recoup-his losses from bumper stickers that reproduced the wrong flag. I guess the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) sort of pulled the rug out from under him when he instructed his Liberal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not see that it is at all relevant to speak about other hon. members, who we must assume are doing their duty.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is, nor do I care; but I do know that he endeavoured to publicize in what was certainly a most unsatisfactory manner the former flag design proposed by the government. He used government offices and his position for this endeavour. I certainly see nothing wrong in talking about this as an example of the type of action that has been taken by the government to try and convince Canadians that some sort of a maple leaf flag would be more acceptable to the Canadian nation than the present Canadian red ensign, or even the flag design proposed by the committee which involved an association with our past history and tradition. I believe that all these incidents when added up indicate that this house is no longer capable of producing a flag design that is acceptable to the majority of Canadians, even though it may be acceptable to the majority of the members in this house.
Certainly if it is necessary for the official opposition to stand up for the rights of a majority of the Canadian people, then I say it is their duty to do so. There are some people who suggest that we should now desist from talking about the flag or the flag design that the Canadian people desire. They say, "Don't talk about it any more. While the majority of Canadians still desire the same flag they have had for the last 97 years, the public are getting sick of it and you are going to lose popular support if you keep talking about it and holding up the business of parliament". Mr. Speaker, the first thing the people who put forward this argument should consider is that the government decides the order of business in this house; it is not the official opposition

and if the government desires to hold up the business of the country in order to discuss the flag issue, that is up to them and they must take the responsibility for it.

Canadian Flag
Second, I consider it a matter of principle that we must insist on a flag design which has an association with our past history and heritage. If we believe in this principle, we believe in it today and we will believe in it six months from today; we do not stop believing in it because some people feel that the business of the country is being held up, especially when you know that the government determines the order of business of the house.
I consider it is as important today to insist that the flag of our nation has incorporated in it an association with the past as I did when this issue first came before the house; and I consider that we are as responsible today in insisting that the flag that is adopted by this house must recognize that association with the past as we were when we insisted upon it when the debate began. I certainly hope to see this matter debated until such time as the government is willing to remove the committee report from the business of the house, until such time as it can more constructively be considered, in the light of the more important business that is on the order paper, or until such time as they consider that it is indeed wise to consult the Canadian people and let them determine what we in this house do not seem to be able to determine.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate you on the wise decision you made this afternoon which makes it possible to hold the door open for a compromise on this controversial subject which has been before the House of Commons and the people of Canada for such a long period of time.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You can say that again.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think it is the desire of the house-and this has just been indicated by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne)-that we should as quickly as possible settle in one manner or another this subject of a distinctive national flag. Not only is there a desire in this house for the debate to be completed as early as possible so that we might get on with the more important economic measures that are necessary to deal with the problems that face Canada at this time, but there is also the widespread feeling across this nation. Your wise decision has made it possible for the house to avoid the mistake that was made when this matter was last before us, namely in refusing to resolve it in the only conceivable manner, to my

mind, in which it is possible to achieve resolution at this time; that is to say, by means of referring the matter to the people of Canada in a plebiscite.
When I first entered this debate on August 23, I believe it was, this was the viewpoint I put before the House of Commons. I did so because I was then under the impression that the government, as has been the case in so many other major items of business since it assumed office, had stumbled into this unhappy situation. Nothing that has occurred since that time has changed my viewpoint in this respect. I am still of the opinion that the government has unwittingly blundered into this position and has created the impasse that we now find facing the parliament of Canada and in the first instance, the House of Commons. I am sure that the events of last week, for example, have revealed once again that on basic matters of policy, rather than planning and organizing the business of the country in an orderly fashion the government stumbles and bumbles, to use the classic phrase the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) loved to use when he was a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It seems to me that here again is a colossal example of the lack of constructive leadership that has marked the record of the administration ever since it assumed office just over a year and a half ago. So I repeat at the outset of my remarks that I hope that we will be able to vote on this matter of a plebiscite and that hon. members will see fit to get this controversial subject out of the House of Commons and into the hands of the people where it obviously belongs.
When the subject was referred to the committee some two months ago it was hoped at that time that an all party committee would be able to come to a compromise solution which would make it possible for all parties and individuals concerned to reach unanimity. It is now obvious that the committee has not been able to achieve this greatly hoped for objective. I was not a member of the committee and therefore I was not privy to all the deliberations which took place. We have had reports from several of the committee members, which I suppose will be supplemented by the statements of other members. We have also had reported leaks in the newspapers of Canada, which unfortunately did nothing to assist the committee in its very difficult deliberations. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), who has played such a crucial and vital role in this question, was one of those who spoke



[Stage Direction]
to the press prior to the tabling of the report which we now have placed before the house.
I am convinced, as I was convinced when I spoke on this subject before that, as many hon. members have outlined, the only possible way we are ever going to achieve a distinctive national flag acceptable to all the diverse parts and elements of Canada is in the typical spirit of Canadian compromise. Because of the circumstances which have already been referred to-the leaks which tended to introduce partisan considerations into the discussions of the committee-it is unfortunate that we have not been able to reach such a compromise.
I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in the comments of the hon. member for Humboldt-Mel-fort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). Because of his own personal feelings and his own background, he was one of those who was most enthusiastically dedicated to the retention of the red ensign. It was encouraging to hear him state to the house yesterday that for the sake of national unity he and those from this party who had been associated with him on the committee had been willing to compromise and had voted for one of the three designs which were placed before the committee-the distinctive national flag with the red maple leaf plus the symbols of our basic dual ethnic origins. I think this is a major step forward because, as I have already intimated, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale was one of those who were passionately dedicated to the red ensign.
It was also encouraging to hear my desk-mate, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), indicate that he was willing, in the interests of resolving this subject and removing it from the House of Commons at this stage by means of deliberation within the committee, to accept the maple leaf flag which bore the symbols of our dual ethnic origins. This, Mr. Speaker, is the spirit that must be brought into the discussion by all hon. members if we are ever going to resolve this contentious issue.
Last evening I listened to the hon. member for Leeds extolling the symbolic significance of the maple leaf as a distinctive Canadian symbol which is accepted in all the parts of Canada, as well as being recognized abroad as something which is strongly reminiscent of Canada. I agree with the hon. member in that respect. I have always agreed during the course of this discussion that the maple leaf is an acceptable Canadian symbol. Veterans wear it on their badges. It appears on innu-
Canadian Flag
merable products made in Canada. When we flew with the air force during the war the R.A.F. roundel was modified by having the red maple leaf within the inner circle. But why is it necessary in adding the maple leaf to repudiate all the symbols of the past? That is the point I want to stress throughout my remarks. This seems to me to represent the spirit of nihilism, which is usually identified with those countries who have a revolutionary rather than an evolutionary tradition.
I am sure that all responsible Canadians would agree that the flag which is one of the three which came before the committee, and which bears the symbols of the past, is a distinctive flag acceptable in all parts of the country. Indeed, I would say it would be more distinctive than the one the committee finally presented to the house, because as has already been intimated this flag strongly resembles the flag of Peru. As a matter of fact at a distance it would be quite impossible to distinguish the Peruvian flag from the one that has been supported by the committee. I know this has been disputed by the hon. member for Leeds, but I have checked into the references in this regard and, except for the red maple leaf in the centre white patch, the recommended flag and the flag of Peru are identical. With this flag we would not be achieving the goal that the government has expressed time after time it wishes to achieve, namely the adoption of a distinctive national flag which could not be mistaken for the flag of any other country. Let us be reasonable in this approach, and let us not assume any position from which we will find it difficult to retreat.
One other matter I had hoped would be dealt with by hon. members on the committee is that we are not dealing with one flag only, but with two flags. The comments of the members of the committee which discussed this matter indicate that this situation was in their minds. Unfortunately we are dealing with a so-called distinctive flag and the union jack.
In dealing with this matter the government has never intimated distinctly what its position is in this regard, and this leaves the government open to a charge of political duplicity. We are going to have a flag which removes the traditions and symbols of our past history, while at the same time adopts another flag which reminds us of a time in our national evolution which we should have forgotten over the years.
It is a major breakthrough in this field, that organizations such as the Canadian Legion
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
have finally accepted the red ensign as Canada's national flag. This matter was referred to by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle (Mr. Rock), who drew attention to the fact that it is only within recent years that the Canadian Legion has flown any flag other than the union jack. I suggest the Canadian Legion has moved forward in its thinking and has now accepted the red ensign. The Orange lodge of Canada, one of the most vehement supporters of the union jack, now accepts the red ensign. The I.O.D.E. has moved forward in its thinking to a position of accepting the red ensign as Canada's distinctive national flag.
We have a government which professes to be moving forward in displaying symbols which represent our progress toward national sovereignty, but which offers on the one hand a national flag devoid of any traditional symbols, while on the other hand attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable, by offering the union jack as a symbol of our allegiance to the commonwealth, in spite of the fact the union jack has been superseded by the red ensign and has been accepted by most of these organizations which were enthusiastically devoted to the union jack.
This whole problem is not new to Canadian national life, and of course it is not going to be resolved in one fell swoop. Nor is this the first parliamentary committee which has presented a recommendation to this house on a Canadian flag. In 1945 a parliamentary committee made certain recommendations, and I think it took a more realistic approach to this problem than the approach taken by the latest parliamentary committee. That committee recommended a modified version of the ensign with a maple leaf on the fly. If the government of that day had had sufficient courage, and had not been so concerned with obtaining votes, this modified version would have been adopted, resolving this whole question once and for all.
One thing that has been said before is of such significance that I think it bears repeating. What is now happening under the present circumstances is that the government is catering to the extremist viewpoint, or at least attempting to do so. The government needs to be reminded that it cannot appease or cater to extremism. A responsible government must provide leadership and take a firm stand. This government has not provided this leadership or taken this firm stand, which is the main reason for our difficulties at this time.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
The Winnipeg Free Press heaved an editorial sigh of relief when the 1945 parliamentary committee report was published, and indicated in an editorial that it felt the problem had been resolved. That editorial states that feeling in these words:
Only two small remnants of extremism survive the earlier controversy. On the one hand, there are still some extreme "loyalists" who want the union jack alone, but to this there are overwhelming practical objections, besides the fact that citizens of the United Kingdom understandably show no enthusiasm for having their flag used by Canadians. On the other hand, there are those who want a flag that does not contain the union jack at all. The Canadian people have continually shown by their actions that the majority feels otherwise.
If I may be allowed to interpolate, this is precisely the feeling of the majority of Canadians today.
The editorial then continues:
Hence the red ensign has been for all practical purposes our national flag since confederation. Notwithstanding the lack of formal authorization, it has ousted all competing flags. It has withstood every effort to discard it. And it surely will withstand any future effort, for this is the standard under which Canadian soldiers were proud to fight and die in both world wars. It is by consent of parliament in 1946 our national flag "until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag." The other day it was consecrated as such on the altar of Westminster Abbey.
In the result it may be said that the Canadian flag question is now settled, finally and irrevocably, except for formal recognition by parliament.
Surely the time has come for this final step. Parliament at the next session should declare the red ensign to be our national emblem.
That is what was said in the Winnipeg Free Press of 1954, and I think it is as pertinent today as it was ten years ago. Let me repeat, the government will not resolve this matter by catering to extremists-those who want nothing but the union jack, and those who want anything else but the union jack. Those are two irreconcilable polarized positions. The government is attempting to bring these two extreme points of view together, and this cannot be done by appeasement.
The proposed flag design now before the house represents the first actual and fundamental departure from tradition that has been put forward at any time during discussions on a national flag. Unfortunately, because of party discipline and solidarity, it seems apparent that regardless of the issue the members of the Liberal party will vote in favour of any government proposal. This fact has been manifested by the actions of the Liberal party throughout the years. To quote the classic phrase, if they do not hang together on controversial issues, they will hang sepa-

[Stage Direction]
rately. This attitude has been demonstrated by the members of that party on many occasions when it seemed almost impossible to believe that solidarity could be maintained.
The Prime Minister has made this issue the subject of a free vote, because the fate of the government is not at stake. I have spoken to many members about this subject, and many from the other side of the house have urged members on this side to continue the fight for a sensible and reasonable solution. I urge those members to vote according to their consciences, in favour of a referral of this matter to the people of Canada, because that is the only possible way we can extricate ourselves from the dilemma into which we have been precipitated by a government motivated by panic reactions.
An hon. Member:: Oh, tut, tut.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think that is the only explanation of the present situation. Mr. Speaker, I heard someone say, "tut, tut". I repeat that I believe that is the only explanation possible, if one is to understand the precipitate action taken by the government in dealing with the great majority of controversial matters. As a result of the discussions of Canadian confederation over the past few months, the activities of the bilingual and bicultural commission, the visit of Her Majesty the Queen and the flag debate I have the feeling that today a more moderate mood is beginning to operate in Canada. As I understand the situation concerning the flag, the issue is not whether we shall have a distinctive national flag but what kind of national flag we shall have. With the voice of moderation now being heard in various parts of Canada I think it would be an excellent idea for the government to withdraw from the dilemma in which it has got itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You are in the dilemma.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is cynical laughter from the other side, but the government has repeatedly withdrawn from impossible postures into which it has got itself, and I am sure that events as recent as last week are an indication of this fact. I am trying to be conciliatory in my remarks tonight. Why not use this method which has ever been the method of resolving hopeless divisions in Canada? The government could safely use it as a face saving device.
From the discussion that has gone on in the press, on television and in the house and
Canadian Flag
from the letters we have received surely we now realize that forcing a flag devoid of traditional symbols through the house is as divisive in certain parts of Canada as a distinctive flag with traditional symbols is in other parts of Canada. This is the problem we face and it cannot be resolved just by cracking the whip on the government side and forcing the issue through the house. In other words, what I am trying to say is that unity will not come out of a flag. Rather the reverse is true: A flag can only come out of unity.
The government has proceeded with precipitate haste in response to the extremism of the separatist sentiment that was rampant just a few short weeks ago in this country. It said that something had to be done to heal the wounds in Canadian confederation. I say, Mr. Speaker, that now that the voice of moderation is being heard, surely the time has arrived for the government to take a reasonable viewpoint on this matter. Just to show how the voice of moderation has been heard in various parts of the country, I point out that not so long ago overtones of republicanism surrounded the flag debate. I am not going to go over old controversial issues but we do know that hon. members of this house have even gone so far as to say that in another ten years the issue facing Canada will be whether we remain as a constitutional monarchy or whether we become a republic. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) has publicly uttered this viewpoint both in and outside of the house and it was obvious that this sentiment was present in the unhappy events which surrounded the visit of Her Majesty. That was a shocking experience for Canadians everywhere.
I feel that one of the high points of the current session was the day when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) rose in this chamber and asked all hon. members to join in an address of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. That was a unanimous expression of the opinion of the house. One of the voices that spoke at greatest length and in loudest tones that day in support was that of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), and I recall a distinguished member of the press gallery, Mr. Charles Lynch, indicating that this seemed to be a turning away from some of the more extreme viewpoints that had been expressed in the chamber and in other parts of Canada. The leader of the Liberal party in Quebec, a former member of this house, Hon. Jean Lesage, has also been emphasizing over and over again the

Canadian Flag
need for a spirit of compromise and reconciliation if we are going to overcome the present difficulties in Canada.
I am going to take the liberty of quoting from someone outside the house who is not necessarily well known in Canada but I think expresses a viewpoint which reflects the voice of moderation of the ordinary Canadian citizen. I refer to Mrs. Henri Vautelet, a distinguished leader of women in the province of Quebec, a past president of the Quebec federation of Liberal women and a woman with many other public services to her credit. She was speaking in Montreal in the middle of November and here is what the article says:
A prominent French Canadian woman says violence in Quebec province is linked to a world wide pattern of violence and that French Canadians have used their emotions rather than reason in putting their complaints about confederation.
Mrs. Henri Vautelet, former president of the Canadian association of consumers, said the recent outbreak of violence in Quebec was "the idiotic muddling of a lucidly defendable case".
"While I cannot escape the evidence of history that today's strains and stresses on the fabric of confederation are 100 per cent English Canada's responsibility, I feel that French Canada must bear the responsibility for our stupid, sometimes ugly, and usually ineffective and mainly emotional handling of the required presentation of our case."
The article goes on to point out that she was guest lecturer at Loyola college and spoke to students in political science. The article continues:
She said that recent violence in Quebec is a backwash from world wide violence and had little to do with Quebec's resentments.
"Throughout the more civilized world a strange disease of violence, a free floating hate searching for an objective, and a deliberate abandonment to massed hysteria has struck the younger generation. Since Quebec is part of the world, I am astonished that the obvious connection between the rantings of our young separatists and this malady of the age seems to have been largely overlooked. ...
Slogans are not facts but they can be dangerous and substitute too easily, In minds aware of a grievance but a little hazy as to what it really is, for the actual reality of facts."
She pointed to the "masters in our own house" slogan, used by the Quebec Liberal party during the 1962 provincial general election, as an example of an unproved assertion implying needs that no one has yet defined clearly.
"For we are masters in our own house here in Quebec in all but crises of war, and we even have the power to protect our minorities in other provinces and to force a revaluation of our Canadian partnership if we used our existing weapons instead of going off half-cocked over minor and all too often unreal grievances."
I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is the voice of moderation coming from a very distinguished French Canadian woman leader.

I think it indicates that there is no longer any need for panic reaction on the part of the government because we are over the crisis.
Now, I have had many letters reach me on this subject. I am not going to read them into the record, but they have repeatedly presented questions that have never been answered in this house and which I find it difficult to answer myself. Perhaps I could pinpoint the problem as my constituents see it if I put some of these questions on the record. First of all, they ask me why the Prime Minister introduced the flag during the opening ceremony of the biennial meeting of the Royal Canadian Legion at Winnipeg. Was the Prime Minister not aware that this is a memorial service dedicated to the memory of some 200,000 Canadians who have paid the supreme sacrifice in defence of freedoms motivated by the values represented in the symbols that he announced would be removed from the Canadian flag? They keep asking me this question. Why was it done in this abrupt and precipitate manner?
Another question is this one. The Prime Minister suggests he is bringing forward the flag question at this time because of an election promise. Does this imply he feels he must discharge all election promises whether they be foolish or wise? My only aside to this question is that if political parties had to discharge all the promises made during an election campaign the country would be in a very sad and unhappy state.
Another question they ask is why the Prime Minister, if he considered this such an important issue, did not introduce the flag question in the speech from the throne, which is the normal method of outlining the business of the house to be brought forward by the government in any particular session? The only answer I have been able to give in this regard is that there was a panic response to the voice of extremism, as I have pointed out in my earlier remarks.
The fourth question they ask is this: If the committee was looking for a distinctive flag which could not be mistaken for the flag of any other country, why did it choose a flag which closely resembles the flag of Peru? I cannot answer that question.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You must have had a letter from John.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, I have a lot of good Johns in my constituency, a lot of good folks, who are seriously concerned about this matter.

Another question I ask is, in a country which has achieved sovereignty by the process of gradual evolution, why has the government suddenly decided to deal with the flag question by the revolutionary process of repudiating the traditional symbols of the past? If I may make an observation on that, I would say we have had several speeches indicating this was the way it was done in the newly emerging nations of Africa. Canada is not a newly emerging nation. We are a nation highly respected in the councils of the world because we have always been a people who demonstrated a spirit of tolerance, good will and mutual understanding.
Another question is, in view of the fact that the restlessness in Canada is a reflection of the fundamental economic changes taking place in Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec where the full impact of the industrial revolution is being felt, why does the government give precedence to issues which divide us rather than concentrate on the basic economic and agricultural problems in Quebec? This question comes from the farm part of my constituency which cannot understand why this issue was hammered by the government all during the month of August. The usual procedure in the house, and I have been here for 13 years, is to tackle a matter for two days and go on to another item of business. Day after day, almost in frantic panic and haste, the government hammered away at this particular issue.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The Tories talked.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Here is one that takes us out into the international field. We hear from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet), who says it was the Tories who hammered away at this. I just say the government determines the business of this house. It was their decision to set aside every other item of business, and for what reason I do not know.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: And the Tories talked.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member is new to the house, and does not really understand that the opposition can only discuss what the government puts before the house. We have repeatedly asked for consideration of railway and transport matters which the minister knows, since he comes from Manitoba, are matters of great concern to that province. During a speech in Winnipeg two weeks ago the minister made a vicious attack on the Leader of the Opposition. This has been the tactic of hon. members opposite.
Canadian Flag


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I did not deliver an attack on the Leader of the Opposition, I answered the false charges he had made the week previously.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You did not.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a clipping here from the Winnipeg Free Press and the headline on it is, "Shrewd, dangerous, Diefenbaker still Canadian Menace,-Teillet." This is exactly what he said. Again, Mr. Speaker, these are the sort of tactics that do not enhance the reputation of public affairs when we deal with personalities rather than policies.
Before the minister interjected, I was dealing with certain questions. We live in a world which has become virtually a whisper gallery or neighbourhood, due to modem means of communication, and yet is tom apart by the poison of narrow nationalism. Under these circumstances, why is the government raising controversial, chauvinistic, nationalistic issues at this time? This is a question I cannot understand. In a day and age when we are moving towards support of NATO, NORAD and the United Nations, when we talk of the necessity of North Atlantic unity and all the rest of it, we suddenly inject the poison of narrow nationalism.
Finally, here is a question that is heard more and more-particularly since the Prime Minister was in the west last week, because he was asked about this question: Will we have a distinctive national flag for Christmas? He said yes. The flag for Christmas promised by the Prime Minister, according to the committee report, is going to be this flag devoid of our traditional symbols. If it is to be regarded as a Christmas present, why does it studiously avoid any of the symbols pertaining to the Person whose advent gave rise to the celebration of Christmas? I think there is a fundamental conflict in this regard. These symbols, as I have already noted, do not denote colonial obsequiousness, but rather they denote that we have slowly evolved out of traditional western Christian civilization. Rather than repudiating these symbols, we should hold them to us as an example of the fact that Canada is still in the vanguard of bringing the benefits of our free institutions to all the people of the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Forgie):: I must say to the hon. member that his time has expired.

Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I am sure many of my constituents will be keenly disappointed, disgusted, even, that the subject of the flag should again be before the house at this time so close to the Christmas season. The large majority of them are very happy with our present flag, the red ensign, and many of them are more concerned about providing for their families. This year a great number of farmers are finding it extremely difficult to do so, owing to unfavourable crop conditions in many districts as a result of the drought; income is lagging far behind the need; many of them were forced to sell their livestock, their basic herds-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: With great respect I would point out that the hon. member is reading a speech which is obviously-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Forgie):: This is not the first time that criticism has been levelled against an hon. member for reading his speech and I think the criticism is extraneous.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I wrote these words myself and I will deliver them myself. These people are very much concerned about their situation-more concerned than is the man who claimed on television the other night to be a great Canadian. I refer to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), whom we see very rarely in this house. I am sure not many farmers in the districts which have suffered from the drought would refer to him as a great Canadian, especially those who were forced to sell their livestock at such low price levels, the lowest in many years. If the Minister of Agriculture was such a true Canadian he would be in the house today, because surely it is an important occasion when we are discussing such a question as the flag of our nation. This absentee member referred to himself as a great Canadian. I think he is well aware that no one else is willing to give him that title.
Why has the government refused to allow a plebiscite on this flag question? Why are they so afraid to have a plebiscite on the issue?


An hon. Member:: Why are you afraid to have a vote?


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Let us stop to think. Had it not been for the official opposition we would today be flying throughout this
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Forgie).]
country the three maple leaf flag, or the Pearson pennant. The flag committee-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member is not only reading his speech but there seems to be someone reading one just behind him, coming to my ear through the earphone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Forgie):: I cannot conceive of that being a fact.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I can tell the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) that I do not intend to read my speech and I am not listening to anyone behind me. If the hon. member would contain himself he will, I am sure, have an opportunity of making his own speech. But for the official opposition that flag would, by now, be the flag of Canada.
I say it was unnecessary to bring this question before the House of Commons, when there is so much other work which could and should be done. It makes one wonder why the government should be so afraid of letting the people have a say in choosing the flag which is to fly over this great country.
All those who have been following this affair know that the committee was destroyed before it was even set up. Everyone realizes this. In the speech from the throne there was no mention of a new flag design and many members on the other side told me that no proposal for one had been raised in their caucus before the question was introduced in the house. If it was considered so important to change the flag, the intention to do so could very easily have been announced in the speech from the throne. A committee representative of all parties could have been set up to deal with the matter before controversy arose in the House of Commons itself.
I would remind hon. members that when it was introduced in this chamber the Prime Minister stated there would be a free vote. As reported on page 3164 of Hansard of May 12 the right hon. gentleman said:
When the time comes to submit the decision of the government in this matter to the House of Commons I would hope every member of the house would vote as his conscience dictates and that there will be no question of confidence or non-confidence in a party sense.
A few days later the picture changed. The right hon. gentleman was not as strongly supported within his own party on the new proposed flag design as he had thought he was. And a few days later, on May 19, as reported on page 3337, when he was asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam



DECEMBER 1, 1S64

[Stage Direction]
(Mr. Douglas) to say how the matter stood, he replied:
The government must stand or fall on the result of the decision of the house. But we have gone out of our way, and X have gone out of my way personally, to let the members of this party know that in a question so personal, so close to their conscience, so deep in their emotions, as a flag, a member of the Liberal party in voting against the design submitted by the government would not be read out of the party for so doing.
So the picture changed. I heard members from every party except one say, in casual talk, that they were strongly in favour of the red ensign but would agree to some modification. Why did the picture change so completely when the Prime Minister said this decision would be taken as a vote of confidence? All the members on the other side, except one or two, ran for cover. What happened to the members of the splinter parties? Why were they so afraid that they covered up and got behind the government? Mr. Speaker, I could read what some members on the other side of the house have said in this regard. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) is reported as having said, "The people of Canada have never asked for, nor have the people said they want, a flag other than the red ensign". Why should people allow themselves to be scared into accepting a new flag design overnight? Many people have said to me when I have been back home occasionally, "Have you fellows got nothing else to do? What is wrong with the flag we have?" Many people of ethnic groups from all over Europe live in my constituency. They are proud of the flag that we have. In spite of this, I have not heard anyone, when speaking in favour of the red ensign-not even in our party-who was not perfectly willing to accept some modification in the design; but it has been felt that the heritage of our two founding races should be incorporated in the design of a Canadian flag. I believe this was very unselfish on their part.
No one can say that members of parliament have not the right to heed the hundreds of thousands of letters received from many organizations and Canadians. These letters certainly warrant recognition and attention. There have been thousands of postcards and letters received saying, in effect, with regard to the red ensign, "Keep the old flag flying". Thousands of such letters have been received by members of the house, and surely they have warranted recognition on our part. Many organizations have written to members of parliament. Many of us have received requests very recently from such organizations as the Canadian Legion, the I.O.D.E. and 20220-680J
Canadian Flag
others, which we must recognize. One cannot ignore this vast majority of people who hold something dear to their hearts. If one stops to think, one realizes that had it not been for the official opposition in this House of Commons the Pearson pennant would be flying today. I ask the house, what does it look like when compared with our glorious red ensign?
Now another design has been proposed, and in all fairness to the committee I wonder just what happened during its meetings. I have every respect for the maple leaf, but what would this proposed flag look like when the white background became a little dirty? What would it look like flying outside the House of Commons, compared to the wonderful colours in the flag we are flying here today? I wonder what happened to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), who was a member of the committee. How did he vote when the three maple leaf design was considered? This is the man who has taken so much credit for bringing forward flag designs; the man who went to Winnipeg with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to try to ram down the throat of the Canadian Legion their choice of a flag, whether the Legion liked it or not. Where was the hon. gentleman who introduced this design, who thought he was an expert on designs and should introduce a flag design and nobody else should have anything to say about it, not even the members of his own party, when the vote was taken in committee?
We know that the committee did a wonderful job and put in a great deal of hard work and many, many hours. But as I pointed out, their efforts were defeated before the committee was even set up. Why should we be faced with this issue in the Christmas month? Some people blame the opposition. How can you blame the opposition in this connection? Consider the error we would have fallen into today if it had not been for the official opposition. Consider what would have been flying over this House of Commons. Can you blame the official opposition because the government has seen fit to bring forward this issue again, when so much legislation is pending? I think the government and their supporters had better take another look at some of the fumbling and bungling with regard to the way in which the business of this house has been conducted. I think it is high time people did not have to tolerate such a ridiculous government. People ask what is going on in this session of parliament. One has only to consider the length of time this house has been in ses-
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
sion and the many things that could have been done and which the government should have done, rather than bringing forward a maple leaf flag. Instead of putting a red maple leaf on this design, they should have put a red herring on it.
Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I think of all summer when we were debating the flag issue, when they were saying we were the ones holding up parliament; in fact, Mr. Speaker, they did not have the legislation ready.


Edward Nasserden: The house leader smiles in acknowledgement.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: When I travel through my vast constituency I meet many Indians and Metis. These people are not worrying about the flag we have at the present time, any more than they worried about their treaty rights agreed upon and signed under the union jack and their great mother, Queen Victoria. These people are not worried about the red ensign; but some of them are worried about what they are going to eat.


An hon. Member:: Will a plebiscite help them?


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Many of these people are concerned about what they are going to eat; but they have adopted the red ensign and are proud of it. However, they are wondering about some of the promises of this government. What happened to the Indian claims commission, for example-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: -that was shoved down to the bottom of the list?


Eric Alfred Winkler: A very good question.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: That is what these people are worried about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Forgie):: Order. This is extraneous to the subject the house is discussing at the moment.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: These people are not worried about a plebiscite; they would be very happy to have a plebiscite on the flag. I think what I have been saying pertains to the question of a plebiscite. However, Mr. Speaker, there are other matters that these people are worried about today more than they are concerned with our debating the flag, which they are proud and happy to live under. I attended an Indian conference and saw how proud and loyal these people are in regard to the red ensign. They are not
IMr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake).]
concerned about a different flag; they are satisfied with the one they have today. But they are concerned about what they are going to eat this winter. They are concerned about the problems this government promised to do something about. Why should the government be scared of a plebiscite being held?
I heard one member last night challenge us to put this question to a vote. I challenge him to put the question to a plebiscite. I challenge him and the government to go to the people, to call an election, on this issue. Let's have an election on this issue, if they think it is so important and they are afraid of a plebiscite. This is a serious matter. Why are the government fumbling and bungling along? If they are so determined that they are right, let's have an election.
I know it is said we must not fight an election on this issue because the unity of the country will be destroyed. This government has already destroyed the unity of this country, which is at its lowest ebb ever. It is true we do not want an election fought on the flag issue, but if that is the only way the government sees it, let us go to the country. We are not afraid to go to the country on this issue. We know where we stand and we know where the people stand.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member is reading his speech again.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is better than you. You do not even make a speech. You speak from your seat.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: I know a lot of people across Canada will be pleased to read that tomorrow. I say to the government: Go to the country on this issue if you want. We are ready to go. As I pointed out, we are in the Christmas month, a time when we should be winding up the work of the house so that we can get back home to our families and our constituencies. But we find ourselves with a government trying to force something down the throats of the people of Canada in order to attain their own ends.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to put my thoughts on record in connection with this flag issue. We are now, after a great many perambulations and circumlocutions, considering an amendment to the report of the flag committee. May I begin by expressing my own personal appreciation of the manner in which the flag committee carried out its duties. I refer not only to the representatives from our own party who were on the committee, but from conversations I



DECEMBER 1, 19G4

[Stage Direction]
have had with various members of the committee I am convinced that a conscientious job of seeking to choose a compromise design satisfactory to the people of Canada was done. The committee succeeded in part and in part only, but they are still entitled to our thanks for the work they did.
The report which was brought in by the chairman was a masterful report. He reported fully, and I am sure that all hon. members of the house had a reasonably full understanding, when the chairman had presented his report, of what went on in the committee. His report was fairly given and I am sure much appreciated.
The amendment to this report advocates the use of a plebiscite in choosing a design for a new Canadian flag. I believe in the principle of a plebiscite and was not converted to this view only recently after the report was brought in. I want to refer to a question I asked on February 24 of this year. As reported at page 136 of Hansard, a time when hon. members will admit we had reached not very far into the 10,000 or so pages of Hansard we have created so far this session, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the following question on the orders of the day:
In view of the government's undertaking to provide the people of Canada with a distinctive national flag, has consideration been given or will consideration be given to allowing the people to make their own choice through a plebiscite or referendum from among several of the most popular designs, including the red ensign?
I had, Mr. Speaker, given some thought to the question of choosing a flag for Canada, and the question I asked was not an idle one. It was not a question intended to embarrass the government. It was an honest question asked for two purposes: first of all, to obtain information as to the attitude of the government to the possibility of holding a plebiscite; and second, to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that others were thinking along these lines. Indeed, I was not the first hon. member in the house to mention it this session; it was mentioned by others even earlier in this session. The Prime Minister answered as follows:
All I can say at the moment, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the procedure which should be followed in this matter is that parliament certainly should be put in a position to decide for or against a particular flag. As to whether it would be desirable to have a popular referendum on this matter so that the people could choose from among a number of designs, I would like to give that matter very careful consideration before agreeing to it.
Canadian Flag
So that my belief that a plebiscite would be a good and satisfactory means for choosing the design for our national flag is not new.
In his speech this evening the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) gave the house the results of some public opinion polls which were held in various parts of Canada and which indicate that a great many people across the country, at least in some parts of the country, are seriously considering the possibility of a plebiscite as a means of choosing a satisfactory flag design.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what does the Conservative party stand for in regard to this issue? I cannot speak for the Conservative party but I can speak for myself. I realize I am not the only one in the Conservative party who feels the way I do; there are many others. I also know that some of my colleagues do not agree with me, and for various reasons. And I do not insist that they should. Our party is democratic and the members of our party, ever since my association with it and since I was elected to this house, have been free to express their own opinions in their own way on every occasion. No pressure has been brought to bear on them at any time by our leader or by members of the government. Our members have been free to go their own way and there has been no unpleasantness and no pressure brought to bear. That statement I can make honestly, and it is true despite suggestions to the contrary which have appeared from time to time in the press.
In the first place I think the purpose of every member of the Conservative party is to promote and maintain national unity. We believe the best way to retain and promote national unity is to devise some means of choosing a flag, as a result of which there would be no losers and no winners.
If hon. members opposite support the government in its method of choosing a flag, a great many people in Canada will have bitter feelings toward a great many other people in Canada, and that is a most unfortunate situation. If we chose a flag through imposition a great many people will feel bitterly disappointed.
I should like to know why the government is in such a hurry to adopt this flag. If the government had argued early this summer that there was some urgency about choosing a flag, that argument might have been understood; but such an argument carries no weight at this time, and a course followed along that line of thinking, with such persistence, will
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
do nothing but create friction and develop a great deal of bitterness between the two founding races of this country.
Since early this summer the flag question has become the centre of activity in this House of Commons, and all the government legislation has been built around it. I do not suggest the government euchred us out of an Easter recess, but we certainly did not have an Easter holiday. We did not have a summer vacation, and I am not sure we are going to have a Christmas break, as things appear at this time. The government can be assured, however, that neither bribe in the way of holidays, nor pressures in the way of threats of an election, will prevent me from using every rule in the rule book to see that we devise a method of choosing a flag which will generate the least possible bitterness in this country, but which will maintain the greatest possible national unity.
I suggest there should be no reason for bitterness between our French speaking and English speaking colleagues in this country. However if we persist in imposing a flag on the people of Canada, I see no opportunity of avoiding a great deal of bitterness. I think we can avoid this bitterness by adopting the suggestion that a plebiscite be held, during the next election in order to save expenses. If we co-operate in this way I am sure we can choose a distinctive national Canadian flag of which all Canadians, French and English speaking, can be proud, while avoiding a a great deal of bitterness. We must avoid rushing into a decision. We must avoid these continual pressures, and we must avoid threats of an election. Let us discontinue the practice of tying our legislative program to the flag issue. The members of this house have been under constant pressure since this matter was first introduced during this session. I am sure the members of the house as well as the people of this country are sick and tired of the whole show.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: The fact that we have been under pressure and are sick and tired of the whole situation is not something which will prevent me from continuing to discuss this matter, with the hope that a proper and satisfactory solution to the benefit of the people of Canada can be found.
Again, speaking for myself, I suggest that a ballot be prepared for submission to the electors at the next general election containing several suitable compromise designs. In view of all the argument and discussion that

has taken place in this house and across the country about the red ensign and the three maple leaf design, neither of those should appear on that ballot. The presently proposed one maple leaf design might be considered as a suitable compromise for inclusion on such a ballot, because it is the design recommended by the flag committee.
In this regard, three proposed flag designs have been distributed in this house within the last 24 hours. They might be designs suitable for such a ballot. Other designs have been of interest to some of our French speaking colleagues in this party, and I am sure those designs are possibilities for submission to the people on a ballot. I think five or six designs in colour and in miniature should be placed on a convenient-sized ballot so as to allow the people of Canada to express their preference. They could do so by marking the figure 1 beside their first choice, figure 2 beside their second choice, figure 3 beside their third choice and so on. I think the results of such a plebiscite should be calculated on the single transferable voting system. That is, all votes cast for the last choice design could be allotted to the remainder. All the votes cast for the second last design should be allotted then to the remainder, and so on until one design had a clear majority support. That is not a new system of voting, but one that has been used in the province of Alberta for many years in single member constituencies. I think that system has also been used in other provinces. That system, used to calculate the results of a plebiscite as has been suggested, would be a foolproof method. No matter which design illustrated on a ballot-provided they were all reasonably compromise design-was chosen by the majority of the people voting, no one would lose and all French and English speaking citizens could be justly proud of it. This would eliminate or reduce to a minimum all bitterness and controversy. I am glad to associate myself with any other members of the house who are prepared to keep this discussion going, in the hope that reason may prevail, that the government in its wisdom may find it possible to follow some line of approach in choosing a national flag which will be less dangerous to national unity than the method of imposing a flag by a vote in this house.
There have been charges of obstruction levelled against our party and I should like to deal with those charges.


Some hon. Members:: Question.



DECEMBER 1. 1964

William Howell Arthur Thomas: Not too fast, my friends, not too fast. There have been charges of obstruction and a great deal of criticism, but did you ever stop to think what would have happened if there had been no extended discussion of the flag issue in the house? Have you ever stopped to think what we would have had? We would have had a flag imposed on the people of Canada which even the party that endorsed it would not support in the final analysis. The three maple leaf design was endorsed by the government, but later when they had had a chance to look around and after they had listened to a great many speeches-174 Conservative speeches, was it -on the subject, they decided it was possible to devise and choose a more suitable design, and that is what was done by the committee. So the fact is that the continued discussion did serve a purpose.
The hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) rose in his place this afternoon and said he never did like the three maple leaf design. He made no such statement during the extended discussion of that design. But when the opportunity came to choose a more satisfactory design he was very glad that it was found possible to do so and that a more satisfactory design was recommended by the committee. I say it is just possible that if members of the Conservative party keep on talking for a while we will be able to devise some other design which will bring to government members as well as to all other members of the house, and to all the people of Canada, as much more pleasure as the single maple leaf did as compared with the three maple leaf design. It will possibly be a further improvement over the present proposed design. This is possible.
Why do members criticize us so severely for keeping the discussion alive and continuing to thresh over and reconsider the idea? Much progress has been made. I submit to all members of the house that in this flag issue we are playing for keeps, or we should be playing for keeps. We should not approach the matter lightly. What would have happened if through action of the house we had imposed the three maple leaf design on the country? The country would have had a flag which a great many people did not like and which a great many members of the house did not like. When the sponsors of that flag were faced with a better choice, not one of them stayed with it.
There is no reason at all to suppose that this question is closed. If members of the
Canadian Flag
house will put their minds to it we can just as easily produce a still more satisfactory design. What is the hurry? Why not take our time? After the house has done all it can to provide suitable designs on which the people can vote, why not let the people themselves choose their flag from among the several designs recommended by a committee of the house?
In our amendment we are asking that the flag problem be referred back to the committee. So far as I am concerned I would not say "the" committee but rather "a" committee, because what can we expect if we refer back to the same committee a matter which they in their wisdom have already considered? There were only 15 members of the house on that committee. Why not submit the problem to 15 other members of the house? Set up a new committee with different members on it and let them have a go at the matter. It is very unlikely that they will come up with exactly the same solution as the former committee. I think that would be most wise and that would be my idea of how we should go about this matter. Appoint 15 other members to a committee and let them have a try at choosing a design. If we keep on we will end up with a number of very suitable designs which can be placed on a ballot.
Again I repeat, what is the hurry? If there was hurry last spring then I know of no hurry now. I know that the government of the country promised to bring in a distinctive flag within two years, but surely they have tried. Surely they have made an honest effort to carry out that promise to the electors. If they have not succeeded, at least they have tried and they are entitled to the credit for trying. But there is no hurry now. I can see no need for hurry. So let us take our time and do this thing right. Let us use methods of choosing a design for a new national flag which will tend to prevent friction among the different sections of the country.
I stated that I intended to deal with the topic of obstruction and filibuster. Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 119, contains this statement in paragraph 2 of that citation:
In parliament every comer of the country is represented and no rule should silence elected representatives when they think they have a message to deliver. Freedom of speech is a sacred principle and if there is a place where it should be fully respected that place is the parliament of the nation, and it is the Speaker's responsibility to see that this principle is not infringed upon.
In paragraph 1 of citation 119 we find this opinion:

Canadian Flag
Delays, multiplicity of amendments and even obstruction must not always be regarded as illegitimate political weapons.
I am going to repeat that.
Delays, multiplicity of amendments and even obstruction must not always be regarded as illegitimate political weapons.
In paragraph 2 of citation 119, we find these words:
The mere object of shortening sessions may lead to an undue curtailment of the freedom of speech. The duties of a representative of parliament are too important to be performed in a hurry.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member, while he is looking at Beauchesne, would refer also to citation 149, paragraph (i), which states that a member must not-
-use his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing business of the house.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I have much ground to cover yet, Mr. Speaker, so if our friend does not mind I am going to plow ahead. He will be at liberty to take 40 minutes in due course and make his contribution to the problem of choosing a national flag in some way which will not tend to arouse friction between the various sections of this country.


Eric Alfred Winkler: He can be the spokesman from British Columbia. Nobody else will speak.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I am speaking in support of a plebiscite, and bringing forth reasons why a plebiscite is desirable on this matter. These references in Beauchesne indicate the rights of minorities in the House of Commons to challenge the government's right to proceed when in conflict with public interest. There is provision in the rules, however, for the government to override the demands for change of policy by a minority. This is the closure rule. If the government are sure enough of their position, they can invoke closure and answer to the people for their actions. No government can, therefore, successfully contend that they have been prevented from carrying out their responsibilities through the act of a minority opposition.
If the government are unwise in their method of producing a national flag, let them take the steps to start the action suggested. I would say that any charge by the government now or in the future, that a minority are preventing them from carrying out their responsibilities, is completely unfounded. The government are responsible for submitting business to this house, and if the opposition
believe that the government are making a mistake it is their job to use every advantage in the rules, every provision in the rules which is available to them, to prevent the government from making a mistake or taking an unwise action. Surely, hon. members on the government side cannot criticize members sitting on this side of the house for doing the job the people sent them here to do.
Now, in dealing with the flag issue, may I repeat that this is playing for keeps. We do not look forward to having a flag issue or a flag controversy with every change of government. What a situation that would be in this country. This is something which is done once in a generation, once in a lifetime-my colleague says, once in a hundred years. We should not have any talk about changing it again. We are playing for keeps. Why hurry? Why not let us take sufficient time to do the job properly? If the government persists in their present method, then I submit they are planting in Canada the seeds of bitterness for several generations to come. This flag issue is of the utmost importance to our national unity. I believe that the problem should not be approached in haste. No amount of effort no amount of time, and no amount of expense should be permitted to stand in the way of choosing a national flag which is capable of enhancing the national unity of our country.
This afternoon one of the speakers from the southeast corner of the house, I believe it was the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) said that he was elected, and his colleague were elected, on this flag issue. Well, perhaps they were, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what the election issues were in Ville-neuve. I was not anywhere near there. I was in western Ontario, in Middlesex West, with one or two exceptions. This is where my campaign speeches were made. I do not remember making any extravagant promises. My main promise was that I had done my best to carry out my duties and I promised if re-elected I would continue to do just that, to do my very best in carrying out my duties as a member. I was re-elected; but to the best of my knowledge there was no mention made of a new Canadian flag in that area.
It is true the Conservative party, in their national conference, had passed a resolution in favour of a national flag, but that was not an issue in our election. May I call it ten o'clock?


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 2, 1964
The house met at 2.30 p.m.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of privilege. One Georges Marcotte is at present under sentence of death and is destined to die tomorrow night for the crime of murder. We have been trying all day to obtain from the Minister of Justice an announcement of the decision the cabinet has madp as to whether the sentence is to be commuted to life emprison-ment. The Minister of Justice has declined to make such announcement until such decision has been taken. If the decision is delayed any longer, Mr. Speaker, it will make it virtually impossible for those members of the house who are interested in the case to take any action they might deem appropriate in the light of the decision which the cabinet may have taken. I want to raise as a point of privilege that the failure of the minister to make this decision known to us is an infringement upon our rights as members, and is in effect preventing us from taking the action which we might deem necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has to decide whether there is or is not a question of privilege involved here. I have listened to a statement but I have not seen any supporting evidence outside of the mere statement that the minister has not informed the hon. member or some other hon. members about this matter. I do not see any question of privilege in that. The minister is simply carrying out his duty, as far as I know.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, no longer than three minutes ago I spoke to the minister on the floor of this chamber, asking him to make an announcement about this decision, and he again declined to make this decision known to me.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Batten that the sixth report of the special committee on a Canadian flag presented to the house on Thursday, October 29, 1964, be now concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Monteith.
William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last evening I was attempting to show cause for submitting the flag issue to the people of Canada in the form of a plebiscite, so that the people across this country can choose the design for a new flag.
By way of a short resume of one or two of the points I covered I should like to state that I, as well as other members in this party and I believe in common with all hon. members in this house, stand for national unity. It is the purpose of parliament to maintain national unity, and we in this party have been searching for ways and means of promoting that unity and avoiding in every possible way discord among our people. If the government follows its present proposal to impose a flag on the Canadian people through a vote in this chamber, there will be discord. The whole issue becomes a party matter. I am sure the party to which I belong as well as other members of the house will agree that if we can devise some means of choosing a flag which will avoid discord and disunity in our nation we should do so.
The Conservative party has moved an amendment to the motion for concurrence in the report of the special committee to the effect that this matter be referred back to the committee with instructions to consider arrangements for submitting this question to the people through a plebiscite. Speaking for myself in this regard rather than for the party-and I should be glad to associate myself with any member of this house who feels the same way-we should continue this discussion with the hope that some better means will be found for deciding upon a flag for the Canadian people than through a government proposal to impose a flag by action of this house.
To show that there is not unanimity in the country, I have permission from my colleague the hon. member for Elgin to place on the record of the house a telegram which he received this morning from radio station CHLO in St. Thomas, Ontario. I may say that

Canadian Flag
this radio station also covers the Middlesex West area. It reads as follows:
Jim McBain, M.P.
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont.
Jim: Monday and Tuesday, Doug Hinz conducted a straw vote on "High Gear"-
"High Gear" is the name of the program he conducts in the morning hours.
-re the single maple leaf flag design. For your information, Monday's program showed 80 per cent of listeners against it. Tuesday's program 83 per cent against it. Program attracts listeners from 6.30 to 9.15 a.m. Regards.
Barry Kentner CHLO Radio.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the amendment moved by representatives of the Progressive Conservative party. However, I must explain that I am giving expression to my personal opinion on this occasion and to what I am very certain is the opinion of the majority of the constituents I have the honour to represent. I must again emphasize that in matters of conscience members of our party are free to express their personal opinions with respect to any issue that comes before the house, and like the members of other parties in the house we are not all of one opinion on this question.
Personally I favour the red ensign as a flag that represents the realities of history which, if we go into our history, we find were given voice in Anglo-Saxon assemblies, in the terms of Magna Carta, in the struggle for freedom during the reigns of Edward III, the Tudors, the Stuarts and James II, in the glorious revolution of 1688, in the reform acts of 1832, in the representation acts passed from 1867 up to 1948, in the mother of parliaments in Great Britain that provides for a government and an opposition, which protects the rights of the minority to free expression and which we are very glad to see has found its counterpart in the parliament of Canada.
However, Mr. Speaker, regardless of my personal opinion and even of some of the very strongly voiced opinions of some of my constituents, we are anxious to adopt a flag that will be acceptable to the great majority of all Canadians. We enter this debate in a spirit of compromise to that end. I spoke of this question on June 30 last, Mr. Speaker, and expressed my criticism of the way the Prime Minister had handled this question. I was particularly critical of his bringing this
(Mr. Thomas.)
flag issue before the remembrance service of the Royal Canadian Legion convention held at Winnipeg earlier this year, and of other speeches he made on this issue. For that reason I urged support for a national flag that provides for the continuity of our history, with the inclusion of the union jack and all it stands for throughout the whole of our history, as well as the inclusion of the fleur-de-lis which stood for so much in the struggle for freedom in France in the days of long ago.
As I said before, we enter this debate in a spirit of compromise with a view to developing finally a national flag that will bring complete unity to the Canadian people. Referring to my own constituency, Mr. Speaker, I must say I have had the wholehearted support of all the Legion branches in my riding, the I.O.D.E. organization throughout the riding, the Orange lodge and a good number of other organizations, including the women's institutes which have expressed their views very strongly with regard to this question. In addition to that, sir, I have had somewhat over 2,000 of my constituents who have informed me in writing of their views with regard to a national flag for Canada, a flag that will contain symbols of our struggle for freedom, for parliamentary institutions in Great Britain, in France and in Canada.
I hear the hon. member for Leeds asking me to name those constituents. I am sorry, I did not hear correctly, Mr. Speaker; it was somebody else over there. Naturally, I could not do that, because I believe that everyone who wishes to speak in this debate should have that opportunity, and then we should vote on the issue.
Before proceeding further I should like to pay tribute to the chairman of the flag committee and the members of that committee. While there have been some criticisms of leaks from that committee I must say that in my opinion they laboured long and laboured in silence. I think there was less in total leakage from the flag committee than from any other committee with which I have had anything to do in this house over a period of 19 years. I think it is only fair to say that.
Unfortunately, from my point of view and the point of view of the majority of my constituents, and I am sure the majority of the Canadian people, the committee did not produce a flag which will be satisfactory. I must say that I am not enamoured with this flag. I do not like this design. I should like a maple leaf with other emblems on the flag as suggested by a speaker from the Progres-



DECEMBER 2. 1964

[Stage Direction]
sive Conservative party, which would then include symbols of the founding races of this country and the other groups that have helped to build up this great nation of ours. That is the reason I am supporting the amendment at this time.
There has been a very strong demand for a plebiscite. I have heard pleas for a plebiscite made by the Royal Canadian Legion, the Canadian Corps Association and other veterans groups. In this connection I would like to place on record in part what they have said in this respect. On November 11 the Canadian Legion presented its views to the cabinet with respect to veterans legislation and other matters, and included a copy of the resolution which it adopted at its convention in Winnipeg earlier this year. That resolution reads as follows:
Be it resolved that the delegates to this, the 20th biennial convention of the Royal Canadian Legion assembled at Winnipeg 17th-22nd May, 1964, reiterate the stand taken by the delegates of our 18th and 19th biennial conventions that we urge the government of Canada to, by act of parliament, adopt the Canadian red ensign as the national flag of Canada.
I also have here a very interesting letter from Mr. Heesaker, dominion president of the Canadian Corps Association, which contains the following passage:
Therefore, the Canadian Corps Association, dominion command, again emphatically requests the Prime Minister of Canada, and parliament as a whole, to place this subject before the people, at the next regularly scheduled general election. Let the voters of Canada finalize this matter.
I have received correspondence in similar vein from other veterans organizations, and from reading the papers I understand public opinion polls have been conducted on this issue. I am informed that some 60 per cent of the persons questioned in these polls have asked to have a plebiscite at the next general election in order that they may choose the flag they wish.
We have had nearly 100 years of self government under the British North America Act. So far as I know we are the first country to bring a measure before parliament to change its national flag after nearly 100 years of history. Though that was done by newer members of the commonwealth which obtained their independence in recent years, we are the first country which, having had that long experience of parliamentary government, has brought such a measure before parliament.
I urge members of the government to give consideration to the fact that the veterans of 20220-6814
Canadian Flag
this country have spoken clearly and with one voice on this issue. I am talking about the organized veterans of the country.
Some hon. Members:: No.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Other responsible organizations across Canada have also urged the necessity for a plebiscite, and I ask members of the government to give consideration to their representations.
I am quite sure that the symbols we have at present, the symbols in our red ensign, the symbol of the fleur-de-lis, are very dear to many people because they represent such a great sweep of our histories.
I support the amendment to refer the matter back to the committee so the committee may bring in a report containing two, three or four designs which could be submitted to the Canadian people in a plebiscite at the next federal election. I am confident that if this were done-and it could be done at little extra expense added to the cost of the election-whatever decision was reached would be accepted as a majority decision of the Canadian people made with conviction and in good faith.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in concluding my somewhat brief remarks I urge that when every member has had an opportunity to express his views with respect to this amendment and his views on the remaining portion of the flag debate, we should then return to the realities of present circumstances and deal with legislation that awaits our attention.


An hon. Member:: They don't have it ready.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Willingly.


Steven Otto: I ask the hon. gentleman to believe that I raise this question for our edification. He mentioned that the fleur-de-lis was at one time or another a symbol of freedom. I think we all recall the tricolour and even the cross of Lorraine, but I wonder whether the hon. gentleman could remind us of the time in history when the fleur-de-lis was a symbol or emblem of freedom.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I willingly do that, Mr. Speaker. I consulted my good friends the Creditistes as to the history of the fleur-de-lis in the development of French democracy.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, of all the many words that have been said on this flag issue and of all the many speeches that have been

Canadian Flag
made, the words Your Honour used, although you are not supposed to make speeches, impressed me more than all the others I have heard. I refer to a few remarks Your Honour made in this house on September 2 last. I believe Your Honour was dealing with a point of order on a subamendment, and you quoted from Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 119(3). I read it in part:
A great deal of latitude must be allowed in the House of Commons which is a forum where every phase of public affairs can be discussed and every member has the right to be heard-
Sometimes we doubt that.
_even if in doing so he sometimes disregards
the rigidity of procedure.
Then you went on to say, Mr. Speaker; and these are the words I refer to in your very short speech:
Basing myself on this principle, and in view of the highly charged emotional context of the issue, it seemed to the Chair that members should be dealt with in a most reasonable fashion.
I would say that if in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, you could have in some way impressed upon the Prime Minister of this country those two points, this flag debate would have been finished weeks ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Hon. members on the other side laugh, but let me just repeat what you said, Mr. Speaker:
Basing myself on this principle, and in view of the highly charged emotional context-
I think we would all agree with that. And the flag issue is not the basic issue; the basic issue with which we are dealing, although we may be speaking about a flag, is the unity of this country; and that is very basic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: As Your Honour has said, this issue should be dealt with in a reasonable fashion. I contend that this is all the opposition has been trying to do ever since we began this debate. We have asked the Prime Minister to treat it in a reasonable fashion. In fact I am one of those who contend that it is not our place to decide on this flag issue; it is an emotional issue that should be decided by the people. It has nothing to do with the social welfare of the people or the economics of the country. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if you in your position could even now impress these two points upon the Prime Minister I am sure this debate would be finished today.


Some hon. Members:: Yes?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Some hon. members say "Yes?" The reason we are dealing with this issue now is that it was an election promise. Coming from the west, I wonder about some of the other promises made by hon. members opposite. There are not very many Liberal members in the chamber. One promise that was made in the west that is perhaps more important to the west than the promise of a flag was the $2 a bushel for wheat. When is that promise going to be kept?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: In fact some of the western members mentioned a figure of $3 a bushel. What has been done about that election promise? I just wish to say a few words on this matter, Mr. Speaker. Instead of the price going up, it has been going down. I refer to the price of Durum wheat mentioned in this house the other day.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: This is in order. I am talking about the promises the government made. They have said the flag was an election promise, and that is the reason the Prime Minister introduced this issue into the house. We contend there is more important business for the House of Commons to deal with than the flag issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: We ask ourselves, why was this issue raised in the first place? Why was it raised at the time it was? Why was it not mentioned in the throne speech, if it was so important? We can give hon. members opposite the answers to these questions. They may have different answers, but we know why this issue was introduced. It was because legislation was not ready.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: They laugh, Mr. Speaker. Do they want me to point out those pieces of legislation that had to be withdrawn after being introduced into the house? There were two or three such cases, and it is not necessary for me to give the details. I have said before that there is other and more important legislation to be dealt with. Some of this is legislation that could be dealt with in a very short space of time. In our opinion the flag question cannot be dealt with in a very short space of time; as Mr. Speaker has said, it should be dealt with in a reasonable manner. I repeat that all we are asking

is that it be dealt with in a reasonable manner.
Members of the New Democratic party are very anxious that the bill dealing with the labour code be brought before parliament. We are also anxious that this be done.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In my opinion, you should call to order the member who is speaking at this moment and ask him to keep to the subject under discussion. Furthermore, I would ask you to render your decision immediately, as you did yesterday, and suggest to the hon. member that he confine his remarks to the subject under discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be helpful at this time to indicate to the house the understanding of the Chair. The discussion should relate to the amendment. If we assume that a member is going to speak for 40 minutes, I do not see any particular harm in speaking generally for five minutes, but the other 35 minutes should relate to the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: What about the farmers in Quebec? Why don't you make a speech about that situation? Come on; stand up.


An hon. Member:: He is not allowed to speak over there.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out once again that your remarks impressed me for this reason. We are speaking on the amendment and raising the question that this whole matter should go to the people in the form of a plebiscite. Because Your Honour made those remarks, to my mind what I have been saying is directly related to the issue before us; in fact, it is the strongest argument that I have.
This is the reason it should be decided by way of a plebiscite. I refer to the two points that Your Honour raised. I do not understand why backbenchers opposite should say it is not relevant. We just wish to deal with legislation that should be dealt with at the present time, and this question has been raised time and again. This is another reason this matter should be decided by a plebiscite, namely that there is important legislation with which we should deal. I refer to the rail line abandonment legislation, for example. That is another matter that is very important to us in the west. Perhaps it is not
Canadian Flag
so important to the people in the east; it appears to me that to some of them the question of a flag is more important. As far as I am concerned, this is a strong reason for this question being decided by a plebiscite.
My second reason for suggesting that the question should be decided by a plebiscite I take from the remarks of the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Danforth. I refer to just one paragraph of his speech for the moment, in which he said:
I am aware that some members of the committee felt very strongly that a flag ought to contain-
I would point out that he was speaking for the committee:
-the union jack and the fleur-de-lis. That is a view we listened to with the greatest of respect and we explored every possible argument pro and con. I respect that view, but in the end-
I emphasize this last part; the hon. member refers to those in the committee.
-most of us came to the conclusion that by putting emblems such as that on our national flag we would be merely giving ourselves a perpetual reminder of the things that divide us-
Well, Mr. Speaker, whoever heard of the coat of arms of our country being something which would divide us? I submit that this conclusion which was arrived at by the committee is based on a false or erroneous premise. Certainly the union jack will not divide us. I ask the members of this House of Commons, what will the maple leaf do to us? It has already created another faction which did not exist before.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John (Jack) McIntosh: To some people-perhaps not to those who are anxious to get this through and are calling "carried"-a national flag represents the deepest emotions of the heart. It means heroism, self-sacrifice, courage and love. I do not think there is anything there which would divide us regardless of which province we come from. I suggest that this is another reason why this issue should go back to the committee and to the people by way of a plebiscite.
Further on in the hon. member's speech he said:
The one thing which it seems to me is significant about the committee report, and which lends great weight to its recommendation, is that if anything can be said it is that this is a parliamentary flag. This is not the flag of any particular party. It is not the flag of any particular individual.
I think had I been helping the hon. member with his speech I would have said "Nor

Canadian Flag
is it the flag of any particular country". It does not, as the hon. member tried to point out, signify unity. Unity is not something which can be legislated, as we all know, any more than a flag can be created by an act of parliament. A flag is merely a bit of coloured cloth until people take it to their hearts, and that cannot be ordered by decree. This flag to many of us is still just a piece of coloured cloth which may come to mean something to us if it is the selection of the people of Canada as a whole.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the report of the committee is not realistic. It means nothing. In my opinion the flag they have recommended is a nebulous design because it means nothing. The hon. member for Leeds a day or two ago said that the maple leaf represented Canada, and he referred to some publication he had obtained from the parliamentary library. That publication stated that this flag represents all Canada. However, the hon. member neglected to say that the writer of that book died roughly 100 years ago. It did represent all Canada at that time, but not today. When that book was written Canada stopped at the great lakes. Since that time a much larger and greater country has developed, and certainly the maple leaf is not seen west of the great lakes. Therefore in my opinion it does not represent Canada. I would say that each group in Canada should have some representation on the flag to which their hearts are attached.
The hon. member for Kootenay West, who spoke a few moments ago, told us what the union jack meant to him. I have heard members from Quebec say what the fleur-de-lis means to them. I hope I respect that meaning, and in return I would ask those members from Quebec to respect the fact that the union jack means something to me.
I should like to refer to a speech made in this house some time ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who is a returned soldier. He was speaking on what the flag meant to him and referred to the days of liberation after both world war I and world war II; I believe he served in both. The hon. member said the red ensign began to mean something to him when it was waved not by people of Canada but by people liberated by Canadians from oppression and tyranny. As the hon. member said, he realized at that time that the red ensign also meant something to him. I was born an Anglo-Saxon and I served a number of years in the army. Because of those two facts I like the red ensign, and as I say the union jack means

something to me.
At this time I think I should put on record what the red ensign means to our veterans organizations, and I should like to read a letter put out by the president of the Canadians corps. I think this letter was sent to every member of parliament. It is dated November 27, which actually was about three days before this amendment was moved. It is addressed to all members of the House of Commons and reads as follows.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I refer to Sir T. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, page 470, which reads:
Although it is the duty of the Speaker to interfere in the first instance for the preservation of order, when, in his judgment, the occasion demands his interference, it is also the right of any member who conceives that a breach of order has been committed, if the Speaker refrains from interfering (either because he does not consider it necessary to do so, or because he does not perceive that a breach of order has been committed) to rise in his place, interrupting any member who may be speaking, and direct the attention of the Chair to the matter, provided he does so the moment the alleged breach of order occurs.
May I also refer to page 451 with respect to the subject of relevancy of debate. It says:
Debate must not stray from the question before the house-or anticipate a matter appointed for the consideration of the house.
We have numerous illustrations of this principle being followed, and I would ask the Chair to direct that what we are concerned with here is the question of a plebiscite and nothing else.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should attempt to answer the point of order. It is all very well to cite principles, if hon. members are able to find citations, but those principles have to be enforced. If I may refer the hon. member to standing orders, standing order 34 (2) says:
Mr. Speaker or the chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in committee, the chairman shall report him to the house.
In this type of debate, dealing with this type of subject, it seems to me the Chair should at least be given wide discretion, and to follow subsection (2) of standing order 34 is just not called for at this time. I am watching and listening very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member, and I would ask hon. members to trust my judgment to

interfere if and when in my humble opinion it is necessary to do so. Up to the moment, although the hon. member has been speaking quite generally, he is working toward a conclusion and to that extent should be given the benefit of the doubt.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, if I could make your job any easier for you perhaps it would help if I read the last paragraph of this letter, which is rather unusual. It says this:
The Canadian Corps Association, dominion command at this time reiterates that no change in Canada's present national flag should be made unless the government is so instructed by the citizens of Canada by means of a plebiscite vote held in conjunction with Canada's next general election.
Everything I am saying is related to the amendment now before the house. I also remind the hon. member for Leeds that this is the first time I have spoken on this issue either inside or outside the house. I could become irrelevant by repeating something he has said in regard to this issue, but I would be off the subject so I will refrain from doing so.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to read what the Canadian corps has to say about what they wish the Prime Minister would do, and I suggest it is exactly the same as we would like the Prime Minister to do. They say:
The right hon. Prime Minister Pearson and some of his associates have, during the past few days, called for British fair play and justice.
The Prime Minister has, therefore, substantiated the veterans of Canada's demand that our present government must not eliminate from Canada, the flag of justice and freedom, the Canadian red ensign.
The Canadian Corps Association, dominion command sincerely hopes that with the latest events in parliament, that the members of the House of Commons will take a closer look at these disclosures and then decide whether to be stampeded by irresponsible people whose only aim is to remove from Canada all the things that we, as Canadians, have been proud of for years.
Perhaps I should say that I read the last paragraph first. At this time on behalf of the Canadian Legion particularly, and veterans generally, I should like to place on record what General Charles Foulkes, former chairman of the chiefs of staff had to say about a cartoon which was detrimental to veterans, as reported in an article in the Toronto Telegram of May 6. The article is headed "Ridicule-how quickly we forget". I believe that statement to be true, and perhaps it is our fault here that we forget so easily. The general had this to say:
A recent cartoon in the Ottawa Citizen depicted two apparently inebriated legionnaires expressing
Canadian Flag
disapproval of the Prime Minister's proposal for a new Canadian flag. While I have no inclination to get into the controversial flag issue, I must take issue with the cartoonist and the Ottawa Citizen for publishing this most insulting cartoon, which attempts to associate the views of the veterans of two wars to those of two inebriates.
Perhaps some of the legionnaires do imbibe a bit too much in their haunts in the various Legion halls, but we should remember that these were the same individuals whom we exhorted to come forward and fight in the mud of France and Flanders. I suspect that many of those who are now poking fun at these old veterans were not too conspicuous in the actual fighting of the last war.
I believe that is true, because of an investigation which was carried out to find out who was responsible for putting this cartoon in the Ottawa Citizen. The general continued as follows:
I rarely speak out on such occasions but to allow such an impression to get abroad that the views of the Canadian veterans can be assumed by such a cartoon is just too much for some of us to take. The newspaper concerned may have forgotten that the men they are lampooning are the same men who withstood the savage attacks at Vimy and Cambria and the Somme. Those of us who saw the fighting in Sicily, Normandy, and Germany are indeed very sympathetic towards the heroes of France and Flanders and take serious umbrage to those like this cartoonist who make fun of the old veteran who still likes his pint of beer, but in his day offered his life in order that we can now enjoy the freedom of the press.
To have affection and pride for a flag and symbol which was once the flag of battle seems to be misunderstood by some, perhaps it is because they never had or wanted to see that emblem in the heat of battle. Be that as it may it hardly behooves any of us who fought under that flag to make jest or fun at his expense. How do we know what he may have suffered or sacrificed while serving under this emblem?
How soon we forget! How easy it is to take a crack at the burned out veteran and his pint of beer and his affection for the flag he fought for. But it was his sacrifice and that of thousands who never came back, that make this free discussion of a Canadian flag possible.
Do what you like about the flag, but don't dare lampoon those who fought to make this free decision possible.
I agree with the general. As a result of the heated argument that has taken place on this issue, and in an attempt to find some solution to our problem, I have read the speeches of many members of this house to ascertain whether I could find some common ground, or a common denominator. I should like to refer to Hansard of November 30, which was last Monday, and particularly to the remarks of the hon. member for Danforth, who had this to say:
-it would be preferable to have a distinctive flag that says just one thing, Canada-not French Canada, not English Canada, not ethnic Canada, but Canada.

Canadian Flag
I should now like to turn to another statement by the same member, as recorded in the same volume of Hansard.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am finding it difficult to pick out anything that is relevant to the amendment now before us in the speech being made by the hon. member. His remarks seem to be relevant to the main motion but without relation to the amendment. Perhaps I should refer again to that citation from Bourinot. The hon. member seems to be anticipating a matter appointed for the consideration of the house which is not the subject matter of the amendment.
According to citation 119 (3) of Beau-chesne's fourth edition, relevancy is not easy to define. However, in view of the number of speeches we have had for so many days, and in view of the decision taken by Your Honour yesterday on the matter of relevancy, I think the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is out of order and should be called to order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the same point of order. I am not surprised that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency has attempted to prevent my colleague from speaking, because he is one of those who, in a speech some time ago, recommended that closure be applied.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The difficulty of the Chair in attempting to maintain relevancy and avoid repetition is self evident. I do not wish to be involved in one procedural argument after another. Hon. members must discipline themselves to a certain extent.
Perhaps I can help hon. members in this way. It seems to me that the amendment now before us for consideration deals with the holding of a plebiscite. The house has already reached a decision on the subamendment having to do with the four questions that were suggested should be asked through a plebiscite. We do not have to deal with that matter again. The opinion in that regard can be found at pages 6912 to 6920 of Hansard of Monday, August 17.
We are now dealing with the flag question in relation to a plebiscite, and it seems to me the questions to be asked are, should we have a plebiscite or should we not have a plebiscite? What are the reasons for holding a plebiscite? That is the question before the house at the present time, and I am sure hon. members will do their best to help the Chair by trying to be relevant and trying to avoid repetition.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that the amendment is even more specific than the question of whether a referendum should be held or not. The subject of the amendment is to refer the report back to the committee with instructions to change a paragraph and replace it by another. The matter of a plebiscite is relevant but it is not the main point of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith).
I must point out to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot that I am not stopping anyone from speaking, but I ask the speakers to restrict themselves to the matter under consideration. I said earlier that I was in favour of closure, and I still am.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to establish the reasons why we should hold the plebiscite and I prefaced my remarks by saying that my main reason stemmed from two statements you yourself made in the house. I will repeat them again for the benefit of the hon. member, who I understand believes in closure. The Speaker said that this issue has a highly charged emotional content and should be dealt with in a reasonable fashion. That is all I am asking the House of Commons to do, to deal with this issue in a reasonable fashion, to deal with the people of Canada in a reasonable fashion.
I also said that to my mind, and you may not agree with me, the flag issue is not the basic issue, and I will have something to say about the province from which the hon. member comes in a few moments. I went on to show the reason why I think there is a mutual channel which we can all follow, if we will, in that time and time again the speeches by members on both sides of the house have expressed the desire that we want to be Canadian. I should like to repeat a few remarks that were made by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe). As found on page 10711 of Hansard of November 30 he said:
Do you admit that? This is what we have to consider before going any further in the life of the whole people whom we want to be Canadian, just plain Canadian and not French Canadian, English Canadian, Scottish-Canadian, Irish Canadian, Italian Canadian or German Canadian, no more than American Canadian.
In other words, apparently all of us are of the view that we want to be Canadian and, if so, maybe we are going at this problem the wrong end first. We all say we want to

be Canadian regardless of what country we came from or where our ancestors came from, and we have one thing in common. Can we work from there? Maybe a plebiscite will help us to do so.
For the benefit of some of the Quebec members who may not have travelled extensively in western Canada I am going to read a portion of a letter I have received from a constituent which may startle them. I think we in the House of Commons must face facts if we are going to settle our problems. This constituent's letter reads in part as follows:
This also raises the Quebec question. Surely it is time someone said "enough". The militant group which is supposedly reflecting public opinion in Quebec are like a labour union and every concession is a confession of weakness. They do not set a limit to their aims. All they want is more. Surely there must be enough intestinal fortitude on the part of someone who will say "no, this is it". Surely it is time for Canadians-
Here he repeats something that we all have in common.
-not English Canadians, French Canadians, Scottish Canadians, Russian Canadians, etc., to forget all their previous ancestries and be one thing only and that is Canadian.
You as a member of parliament have a voice in the affairs of Canada and surely there are enough good Canadians of all political and racial backgrounds and creeds in the house who will be prepared to stand up and speak for Canada. If you do not and it is not done soon there will be no Canada as such in our lifetime. This small militant minority cannot be allowed to destroy our heritage for their own peculiar and selfish ends. I can assure you that they are being sponsored from without.
I say again that the flag issue is not the basic issue. The basic issue, and the reason we should have a plebiscite, is to preserve what unity we have in Canada, not to divide us more but to try to bring us together. To me it is apparent that our primary need for unity in Canada today is between the people of the province of Quebec and the people of the other nine provinces. The question that has been asked many times, to which we from the west have not received an answer, is, what does Quebec want?


An hon. Member:: Quebec.


John (Jack) McIntosh: If we do have a plebiscite we may possibly find out during the course of the plebiscite or during the course of our discussions with other members of the House of Commons what Quebec wants. We have asked this question on numerous occasions and we have had different answers. I am being very frank when I say that some of my people in the west think that Quebec hates the union jack and will accept any emblem on
Canadian Flag
the flag other than the union jack. I am told by some of my colleagues on this side of the house that this is not so. I am also told that the premier of Quebec said: "We do not care what flag the House of Commons chooses; we will not fly it anyway because we have our own flag". I do not know whether that is right, but if it is then I say to the members from Quebec: Why should they try to impose on us in the rest of Canada outside of Quebec a flag we do not want?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that the hon. member try to restrict himself to the plebiscite, why it should be held, how it should be held, when it should be held.


John (Jack) McIntosh: And the reason why it should be held, Mr. Speaker. That is what I am trying to express. The rest of Canada does not understand Quebec. I have editorials here written by people who are supposed to be authorities in Quebec pointing out what they want, and if this is what they want then certainly the rest of Canada cannot tolerate everything that is written in these editorials. I will not read them.


Guy Marcoux: They do not understand the Conservatives either.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You want closure.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I would say to the hon. member from Quebec who has just interjected that I do not see how he and his party can criticize the rest of us because he entered the house as a member of a party which subsequently split, and now the two groups apparently cannot understand each other.


An hon. Member:: Where is the hon. member for Three Rivers?


Gilles Grégoire: Where is Balcer? Where is Martineau?


David Réal Caouette: Where is Pigeon?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is here.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to leave the house to attend a meeting of the special joint committee on the Canada pension plan at 3.45?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, as my time is rapidly running out I will eliminate some of the remarks I was going to make. I would say that I have been thinking about the decision I must make in regard to this issue and, as I said before, it is an emotional issue. I do not think it is an issue that we as mem-

Canadian Flag
bers of parliament should decide. However, I have tried to assess it and in doing so I have made a summation of what I believe the red ensign stands for. I also have made a summation of the French Canadian viewpoint, as I see it. I have a great number of citizens of French Canadian origin living in my constituency. I would say that they are real Canadians, and I am not taking anything away from the people of Quebec. I say that the majority of them are great Canadians. There are one or two exceptions, but I do not want to name them.
I say that if there is to be a choice of a flag by means of a plebiscite, you should leave the Canadian red ensign as one choice as the veterans have requested. This is a request of certain Legions in our country, you could say the majority. Certainly it is a flag that we have honoured for a number of years. There may be reasons why it should be changed. I know that I am biased; I am prejudiced about it. Since I am prejudiced, I will lean over backwards because I represent a large number of people of French Canadian origin and let them put on this flag any emblem that they desire. I am proud of the contribution the French people have made to Canada. I am particularly proud of the contribution the French Canadians have made to my constituency. They are great constituents. I may not get many of their votes, perhaps 1 will not get any of them. Nevertheless, I represent these people at the moment.
In so far as my summation of the red ensign is concerned, I want to say that when its design is examined dispassionately without prejudice or unreasoned emotion, it can be seen that every desire of our multiple religious, racial and cultural backgrounds is answered. If we aspire to religious and racial tolerance and the attainment of our national objective by negotiation, while maintaining loyalty to ideals rather than narrow nationalism, then our Canadian ensign represents us in a manner that no simple combination of colours or numbers could do. A flag with great depth of meaning capable of representing our complex idealism, it also represents not only our varied traditions and cultures, but also the single aspiration of the Canadian people as a whole, in a manner which a new design could not possibly match.
By understanding the ensign through a study of the elements in the flag, we may better understand ourselves, and will see that all of us can proclaim it as our symbol of unity, the ideal flag for a country like

ours. The ideal of unity by negotiation is also the very basis of our country, Canada. First, our French forefathers negotiated the Quebec Act which guaranteed the religion, language and civil law of the French. Then our British forefathers refused to join in rebellion and decided to settle their differences with their King by negotiation. They knew that the British system of justice was a tradition of great value, and to save it they were prepared to abandon their homesteads and start anew.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Drouin):: I must interrupt the hon. member to inform him that his time has expired.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, since the flag debate was resumed at the beginning of the week hon. members on both sides of the house have expressed their views and I wish to take this opportunity to state mine.
Mr. Speaker, I know that on both sides of the house, among government members as well as within the ranks of the official opposition, or even within the New Democratic party and the Thompson group, there is no unanimity about the adoption of a distinctive national flag. On the other hand, on the government side there is no unanimity on the choice of a distinctive flag, whether it be the three maple leaf design already proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or the single maple leaf design recommended by the committee.
At the outset of the session the Prime Minister himself introduced legislation concerning the adoption of a three maple leaf flag, as well as the union jack, to indicate our membership in the commonwealth and our allegiance to the crown.
Generally speaking the Canadian people did not like the way the Prime Minister-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I submit that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is continuously out of order when he talks about the three maple leaf flag while the house is considering the proposed single maple leaf flag. Therefore, I would ask you to call the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is customary for the Chair to give all members taking part in a debate some time to come to the point and I suggest that the hon. member for Joli-



[Stage Direction]
ette-L'Assomption-Montcalm did not go beyond the rights usually granted.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, yesterday-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or on a question of privilege?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. While a Conservative member had the floor yesterday, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) interrupted for the same reasons as those referred to a while ago by the hon. member for Lapointe.
I wonder if the hon. member for Lapointe is not right when he very humbly and respectfully submits that the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm are entirely irrelevant since he is dealing with something else than the amendment now before us.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I should like to draw to your attention that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) is not in his seat at the present time.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote a few legal precedents and parliamentary citations in connection with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lapointe, and I apologize for not being able to quote them in French but Mr. May's treatise has not yet been translated from English to French.
I shall read the citation in question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think I am sufficiently informed to make a ruling now.
The present Speaker does not have to follow the line of conduct adopted yesterday by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, but should rather make rulings in accordance with the attitude taken since the beginning of the debate by the Speaker himself.
The Chair is of the opinion that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has complied with standing orders until now and I suggest that he resume his remarks.


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wish to speak to the point of order that has just been raised and I maintain that, according to Beauchesne-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has given its ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and the hon. member for Joliette-
Canadian Flag
L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) now has the floor.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I think-


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to quote Beauchesne and May on the matter. Otherwise, I will have to appeal your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair was satisfied with the comments put forth a moment ago and gave its ruling. If I may, I would suggest to the hon. member that if he is not satisfied with that ruling, he is not following the proper procedure. There is another one, and I invite him to use it if he is not satisfied with the Chair's ruling.


Raymond Langlois: I respectfully accept your advice and I appeal your ruling.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your impartiality in the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Did the hon. member for Megantic say that he appealed the ruling of the Speaker or that he accepted it? I did not quite understand him.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I appeal your ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member for Megantic has some doubt about a ruling made by the Deputy Speaker. We might now inform the Speaker of the objections made against the ruling.


Raymond Langlois: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has been out of order since the beginning of his speech.
I spoke to a point of order raised by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and I tried to quote, in support of my point, the fourth edition of Beauchesne and the sixteenth edition of May, but the acting speaker merely said that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was in order.
I respectfully submit that the hon. member was out of order and I sought to quote May and Beauchesne to prove my point.
Mr. Speaker, I appealed your ruling, because I could not quote May and Beauchesne.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic will undoubtedly have the courtesy of allowing me to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm so that I can reach my own decision as to their relevancy.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, considering that an hon. member is appealing a ruling, should you not call a vote on the ruling?

Canadian Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Villeneuve will be the first one here to take into consideration the special circumstances involved and to co-operate with me so that I can judge whether or not the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm are related to the matter now before the house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I would not want you to overrule the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes who was in the chair previously. I think his ruling was made honestly and according to his experience and conscience.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to co-operate also with the Chair and to proceed with his remarks.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a while ago, at the beginning of this session the Prime Minister brought forward legislation concerning the adoption of a flag with three maple leaves, and of the union jack to symbolize our ties with the crown and the commonwealth.
Hon. members on both sides of the house were dissatisfied with the Prime Minister's move. There was no unanimity either on this side of the house or on the government side.
Later on the Prime Minister retreated four or five times and decided that the whole matter would be referred to a committee of the house.
I wonder why at the beginning of the session, instead of selecting himself the flag design with three maple leaves and the union jack, the Prime Minister did not choose to refer the whole matter to a committee of the house which would have selected a national distinctive flag and then reported to the house-


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It seems to me that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has now had enough time to come to the heart of the matter. I think it would be high time to call him to order and to ask him to speak to the amendment before the house, which deals with referring back to the committee the report on the flag, so that certain recommendations included in that report-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member wishes to take part in the debate at this time. In my opinion, he should allow the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who had merely started his remarks when
[Mr. Caouette.l