1964-11-13

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand, which reads as follows:
I have received with heartfelt pleasure the joint address which the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada have sent me.
It has been a source of profound satisfaction to me and to my husband to be in Canada during the centennial celebrations of the first meetings of the Fathers of Confederation at Charlottetown and Quebec city.
We both deeply appreciate the kind and loyal sentiments which you have expressed and we send you our sincere good wishes.
Elizabeth R.



NATIONAL PARKS


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies of the report on the urban development plan for Jasper, Alberta.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister about a matter in which I am sure he has more than an academic interest. According to news reports this morning there has been extensive pollution of the waters in and around Elliot lake, and I am wondering whether this matter has been a subject of study by the branch of the government of Canada which has the responsibility for dealing with radioactivity, or is this a matter which is entirely in the hands of the water resources commission of the province? What report has the government received in this regard?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which my hon. friend refers is, of course, one under provincial jurisdiction; but as soon as I read the report and, indeed, as soon as I heard about this possibility last night I got in touch with the officials of the federal government concerned and we are examining what can be done to co-operate with the provincial government if such co-operation is required.
But, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention to the headline of the story that appeared this morning: "Elliot Lake Contaminated by Radioactive Mine Waste". I regret that headline greatly, because it is misleading and can do very serious damage, as can the story itself if it is misinterpreted, to a community which has already suffered a great deal of misfortune and whose people are struggling to establish a new future for the community. I say this because the waters involved-the story itself shows this and that the headline is misleading-are not Elliot lake at all, that being the lake on which the community is situated, but Quirke lake and the Serpent river watershed; and Quirke lake is not connected with Elliot lake at all.
So while the matter must be taken seriously and investigated because of the story, I would hope it could be made clear that Elliot lake as such is not involved. I would also call attention to the statement of the premier of Ontario in commenting on this matter yesterday to the effect that he was satisfied there was no danger. However, I myself am getting in touch with Mr. Robarts personally to make sure the matter is looked into.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the mining and sale of uranium is controlled by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and in view of the fact that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has most of the knowledge with reference to the disposal of uranium waste, does the Prime Minister not think the federal government has some responsibility for making sure that this waste is properly disposed of? Second, may I ask the Prime Minister if there are any other cases across Canada that have been kept under wraps, as this one apparently has been for some two years?
10048	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the statement that this matter has been kept under wraps in any wrong sense at all. I have admitted, of course, that the federal government has a responsibility in these matters, but as I have said the jurisdiction is primarily provincial. I accept that responsibility, naturally, and I am in touch with the atomic energy authorities and we will be in touch with the provincial government. What I am anxious to remove is the wrong impression conveyed by the headline that Elliot lake itself is involved in any way, shape or form, because it is not connected with the lake where the radioactive material has been deposited. I would also point out that while there were 11 uranium mines in operation in this area some time ago, which undoubtedly constituted a problem and one that was recognized at the time, there is only one mine in operation now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned not only about Elliot lake but as to what extent this condition may be prevalent across Canada. Is it the intention of the government to work out with the provincial governments adequate supervision of the disposal of waste from the processing of uranium?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated that as soon as I heard of the report I made inquiries. As a result of those inquiries I hope to be able to make a full statement at the earliest possible date. I appreciate the importance of this matter and that the fears of my hon. friend and others must be removed. Perhaps the statement I will be able to make will in itself help to remove some of those fears that have arisen in regard to this matter.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister consider conveying, on behalf of the members of the house, congratulations to the public health officer who pursued his investigation of this matter against the reported objections of the mine management involved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it would be quite wrong to do that until I have got all the information, because the only information we have now is the story in the newspaper which is being investigated.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: In
the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare perhaps I could direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can he advise the house whether any of the provinces were consulted prior to the announcement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the general pension scheme would be tied to the cost of living index? Further, was any consideration given to the effect this would have on the general welfare programs across the country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge. Matters concerning old age security are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and just as the raising of the old age security pension by $10 last year was done by the federal government, so this particular change was within the responsibility of the federal government. I doubt if there was consultation or if consultation would be required, unless we had the same kind of consultation with the provinces when they took action on those matters which are within their jurisdiction.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton West, which the Prime Minister answered. This deals with the subject of old age pensions and the statement made by Premier Robarts. Do I understand from the right hon. gentleman's answer that the government now takes the position that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over matters of old age security and pensions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I think my answer was quite clear. In matters of this kind, where the federal government has to take responsibility for making a decision, that responsibility is not always discharged only after consultation with the provinces. Otherwise the decisions might be delayed for a long time, because consultation with one province would necessitate consultation with all provinces. That does not mean there is not always continuous consultation with the provinces on economic matters, including pension matters.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that the government has decided to meet with the medical representatives regarding the Hall commission report, will they announce a date for a conference with the provinces?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I will be happy to take the question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister in order that there can be a reply at the beginning of the week.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to an answer given to me yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) after the question I put to him on this new policy with regard to the dairy industry.
As recorded on page 9996 of Hansard, he answered as follows:

I would be glad to make the announcement just as soon as we have one.
This is a clear implication that there is no policy as such, but the French version does not say the same thing at all.

Whereas the answer is as follows, as reported on page 10184 of the French edition of Hansard:
Je ferai volontiers Vannonce en Question des Que nous y serons autorises.
There is a marked difference here. I wanted to point this out to the house in order that the correction might be made in Hansard. I do not suggest that the minister changed anything, since the English version is precisely what was said in the house. I believe the mistake was made when the text was translated from English into French, since the 20220-6364
Inquiries of the Ministry minister did reply that he had no policy at present with regard to the dairy industry. [Text]


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: I am prepared to accept the French version, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforfh):: I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he has an answer as yet to the question I posed yesterday regarding the I.T.U. strike in Toronto.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the persons concerned were requested to leave Canada after the minister's statement on October 26. The majority have left and the persons remaining, three in number, have been allowed until the end of this week to effect departure. In the event of their failure to leave by that time the provision of the Immigration Act respecting special inquiries and deportation if necessary will be invoked.



REFUSAL OF ENTRY TO UNITED STATES AUTHOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question of which I have given him notice. It relates to a story in the Toronto Telegram of Wednesday entitled "U.S. author thrown out of Canada". The article alleges a great deal of authoritarian conduct on the part of immigration authorities in rejecting this visitor because of a conviction which he had 25 years ago. In view of his threat to go on United States television programs and make quite an issue out of this, I wonder whether the minister could make a statement to the house giving us some facts about the matter.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, the facts in the case of Mr. Sands are as follows. He applied for temporary admission to Canada at the international airport, Malton, in the evening of November 10 in order to be interviewed for a C.B.C. program and in connection with the promotion in Canada of his autobiography.

Inquiries of the Ministry No advance arrangements had been made with the Canadian immigration authorities. The questions regarding his appearance on television in the United States and his authorship of a book were designed to establish his identity. Mr. Sands admitted that he had been convicted of a crime and had served a prison sentence in the United States. This placed him within the category of persons prohibited by statute from admission to Canada. His deportation was ordered on those grounds.
Mr. Sands was informed of his right to enter an appeal against the order for deportation but declined to do so. He asked to be allowed to return to the United States that evening if possible; ordinarily he would have been accommodated in a hotel near the airport overnight and departure would have been made the next day. The C.B.C. and his publisher in Toronto were aware of the circumstances, and he was visited by the latter's representative. By no means was he held incommunicado. A flight to Cleveland was available later in the evening, and he elected to return to the United States on that flight. Should any request be received from Mr. Sands for admission to Canada the department would be prepared to consider making special arrangements for his temporary entry under a minister's permit.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Did he receive a report from the R.C.M.P. concerning the dynamiting of the automobile of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, and can he tell the house if the said report establishes a link between this criminal and the one who dynamited a railway line in my riding with a view to making an attempt on the life of the former prime minister who is now the leader of the official opposition?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received any report on this matter, but inasmuch as additional facts have been brought to my attention I shall inquire further into this affair.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question in a humorous vein.

Does the Minister of Justice intend to order the R.C.M.P. to guard the residence, the automobile and the family of the member for Villeneuve, who is an avowed monarchist?



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the minister has yet received a report from the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. regarding the activities of the police in general in Quebec city on the occasion of Her Majesty's visit? Some time ago the minister indicated that he expected such a report. Has he received it, and does he intend to make it public?


Guy Favreau: I have not yet received such a report, and when it is received a decision on whether to make it public will be made at that time.



DISCIPLINARY MEASURES RESPECTING APPLICATION OF FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, this is a complicated question which I do not think lends itself to reply on orders of the day. When my estimates are up I will be glad to deal with it.']
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. The minister will recall that on July 17, 21, 24 and 27 I put certain questions to him with respect to the trial, conviction and appeal of two mounted police officers in Montreal with respect to the misuse of government funds. I understand that the appeal has now been dismissed, and I wish to ask whether the minister can inform the house if he has received any recommendation from the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. on the dismissal of these two officers, and whether that recommendation has been acted upon?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, there are two disciplinary cases in respect of which I am still receiving representations and which therefore are still presently before me for consideration. All steps are being taken which are necessarily inherent in a full consideration of such cases, and it would be quite inappropriate for me to say anything more about the matter at the present time. At the proper stage I shall make an appropriate announcement about it.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, since news reports would seem to indicate

that the two officers concerned are Chief Superintendent Belec and Sub Inspector Poitras, and since these news reports seem to carry a good many other details about the case, could the minister give the same type of information to the house, in particular whether he has received a recommendation from the commissioner urging the dismissal of the two officers concerned? If so, when was that report received and has it yet been acted upon?


Guy Favreau: With respect to the merits of the matter, I must stand by the answer I have just given. With respect to the news reports to which the hon. member for Yukon has referred, if he cares to send them to me I should consider it my duty to look into the matter.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of Justice. The minister will recall that last night in his office I did discuss with him this matter of the previous question I asked. Is it still his intention to report fully to the house with respect to all the circumstances surrounding the trial, conviction, appeal and dismissal of the two R.C.M.P. officers concerned?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I should think this supplementary question is fully covered by the answer I have given. When the hon. member reads my answer he will notice I said that at the appropriate time I would make a statement on the matter.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house whether the invitation of General de Gaulle to Canada, as expressed by the premier of the province of Quebec, represents the views of the Canadian government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a report of the invitation in question, but if it was made by the premier of the province of Quebec I am sure all Canadians would be very glad if President de Gaulle were able to accept it. As
Inquiries of the Ministry a matter of fact, when I was in Paris some months ago in January, I extended the same invitation myself.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of reports of concern and some dissatisfaction with the difference in rates of pay between our Canadian troops in Cyprus and those paid by the United Nations, who are reported to be paid almost three times as much as the Canadian troops, has Canada made any representations to the United Nations in this regard in view of the fact that Canada does pay its contributions to the United Nations and then sees United Nations troops paid three times as much as our own troops, who are selfsufficient?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, this is a complicated question which I do not think lends itself to reply on orders of the day. When my estimates are up I will be glad to deal with it.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he inform us officially of the proposal Canada advanced at the United Nations in an attempt to resolve the non-payment of dues or assessments problem that exists, and would he also advise the house of the reaction to that proposal?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the initiative taken by the Canadian representatives at the United Nations yesterday had to do with an announcement by the government of the United States that until such time as the financial problem in the United Nations was resolved it would not agree to pledge its contribution, which represents 40 per cent of the total amount, to the United Nations voluntary assistance programs.
The government of Canada has indicated to the government of the United States that it did not take the same view of the relationship between this conference and the defaulting position of certain members of the

Inquiries of the Ministry United Nations. We suggested therefore that the conference be postponed so that further consideration could be given to the whole question. However, it was not possible to obtain general agreement, and the meeting is taking place on Monday next.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Can the
minister advise us whether what took place yesterday was the only Canadian initiative toward resolving the financial problems of the United Nations, or may we look for another?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Any idea which the Canadian government may have as to how this problem may be resolved is, of course, a matter for negotiation. Such negotiations are now under way. The problem yesterday had to do with the request by the secretary general for commitments by contributors to the voluntary assistance programs of the United Nations.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What action does the minister intend to take on the proposals set forth in the brief from the maritime lumber board requesting that subsidy payments toward the capital construction costs of wooden vessels be increased to equal those paid in respect of the construction of steel vessels?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I intend to see that the proposal is very fully considered.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D, M. Fis-her (Port Arthur): May I
direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him whether the government has considered a policy attitude with regard to the intention announced by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to construct a line from western to eastern Canada through the United States.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, as the hon. gentleman knows, has declared its intention to apply to the national energy board

in Canada and to the appropriate authorities in the United States for the necessary authority to construct this line. This is the proper procedure, and I do not think it would be proper for me to express an opinion on the merits of the case at the present time.


Mr. Fisher:: Would the minister indicate whether the government is considering the question from the viewpoint that the Canadian line at the present time is running to capacity, and there is certainly much doubt and questioning in parts of Canada through which the present line runs about the intention to build through the United States.


Mitchell William Sharp: The national energy board is charged by parliament with the responsibility for hearing applications of this kind and for making its recommendations, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to say more than that at the present time.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Yesterday the hon. gentleman agreed, I believe, to table certain orders in council or regulations rescinding orders in council governing parts of Banff park. Has he filed or tabled those documents today in the house?


Arthur Laing: I thought I had convinced the hon. gentleman last night that no order in council has been passed. I told him also that decisions which have been taken with respect to permits granted there have been strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the Oberlander report and that action would be validated by order in council later.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In other words the minister said there were licences or permits issued but there is no law permitting those same licences to be issued.


Arthur Laing: We have no intention of waiting for three years as the previous government did in this respect.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is no answer.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Considering that the figures released yesterday by the dominion bureau of statistics show that unemployment increased considerably during the month of October, have the Prime Minister and his cabinet decided to take concrete steps to check this situation which could become serious next winter?

Right Hon, L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
The rise to which the hon. member refers has been made public, but I would point out that though unemployment in October represented 3.7 per cent of the labour force as compared with 3.1 per cent in September, the figure in October one year ago was 3.9 per cent, and it was considerably higher in the years before that. While we regret, of course, any rise in unemployment, measures are being taken every day by the government to ensure that maximum employment is created.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
Since the minister held the 11 per cent tax on building materials which he established last year responsible for the improvement of economic conditions in Canada, does he intend to propose other measures of what nature to reduce unemployment?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will undoubtedly have read the report and the reasons for this unfortunate increase in unemployment in the month of October, so he will know that it was largely due to lay-offs in the automobile industry occasioned by labour disputes, difficulties and disruptions in the United States.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance who has just drawn the attention of the house to a report which had already been published, to the effect that the rise in unemployment was due to
Inquiries of the Ministry a strike in the automobile industry, that is at General Motors in the United States.
Now a strike is on at the Ford Motor Company. May we expect another wave of unemployment in the automobile industry as a result of the strike at the Ford Motor Company in the United States and, in this connection, will the minister decide to take necessary steps to show that the Canadian automobile industries are really Canadian and independent?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to make a broad generalization of that kind, but if the hon. member has anything specific in mind which he would like to suggest to me in order to accomplish that objective, I would be very glad to see him afterward.
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. A few moments ago he mentioned measures which the government is taking to overcome unemployment. I wonder whether he could inform the house of the nature of some of those measures.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if I inform the house of some I should inform the house of all, and that would take the rest of the morning.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: All I ask is for one or two.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister mentioned that he would make a statement concerning steps to be taken by the government to alleviate unemployment and that it would take all morning to make that statement, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us when he will be making that statement and when will those steps be taken?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Every time I make a speech I give an indication of what is being done, as do my colleagues. At present I am heavily engaged in preparing a report for my own information on all the measures which have been taken by the government concerning unemployment. I would be very glad to send a copy of that to my hon. friend.

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might not have been a failure in the interpretation system, but that is not an answer to the question I put to the Prime Minister.
I asked him when he would announce what steps he intends to take, not the ones which have been taken already, with a view to remedying the unemployment situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I misinterpreted my hon. friend's question. Any new measures, of course, will be matters of government policy and will be announced as we go along.


Gilles Grégoire: May I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister?
Could the Prime Minister be a bit more specific? I feel that his statement is rather vague, while the increase in unemployment is far from being vague, in fact it is a concrete thing, and I feel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had grave doubts that the original question was in order, but with a view to getting on with our business the Prime Minister did reply. I do not think it is reasonable at this time to expect any further illumination.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday the Minister of Agriculture undertook to make representations to the railway companies to see whether there was anything which could be done to expedite the return of livestock cars to the market places in western Canada. I should like to ask him now what was the response from the railway companies to his request, and also whether there are now sufficient cars in the market places of western Canada to move feeder livestock as they come in.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to give the hon. member a report, but I have not yet seen the report since the inquiry was made.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and ask whether he would be willing to arrange an early meeting with a committee representing the Hastings-Prince Edward regiment.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would entertain a suggestion for a possible meeting, but in all fairness to my hon. friend I would discourage him from arranging such a meeting if it is to take place on the basis that there would be a change in the decisions which have been announced.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport relating to the Atlantic development board. In view of the fact that the $100 million fund made available to that board is being rapidly depleted, can the minister inform the house when we can expect a statement from the government as to the future of this very important board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, that would be a very good subject for discussion when my estimates come up for consideration.



GALLERY OF PORTRAITS OF BRITISH PRIME MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works, but in his absence perhaps I should direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the impending visit of Prime Minister Wilson, will the minister ensure that the gallery of British prime ministers in the sixth floor corridor is brought up to date before that event?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we must always keep up to date on this matter of prime ministerial pictures if we possibly can. I had notice of this

question, for which I thank the hon. member, and I can inform him that I have consulted His Honour the Speaker, who has informed me that the two pictures in question are under order and expected to be received shortly.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-72, 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-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Pearson)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening we were considering clause 13 and the amendment proposed thereto by the hon. member for Bow River.
On clause 13-Rules to be applied in preparing report.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, when I rose last night just before the ten o'clock adjournment I did so because I considered that the last debatable clause of Bill No. C-72 was going through the committee stage too quickly. There are problems raised by this whole bill which should be brought out as fully as possible before the bill is finally passed.
I indicated last evening that I wanted to make several brief remarks on clause 13. Had I been granted a few extra minutes last night I am sure I could have completed my remarks, which are of interest to all rural constituencies and of particular concern to the province of Saskatchewan. I intended to speak earlier during our consideration of clause 12 in regard to the threatened loss of four federal seats.
Under clause 12 the number of representative members for a province in the House of Commons is subject and according to provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act and the rules therein. In this clause 12 of the bill there is no provision for special consideration for special areas.


Lucien Lamoureux: I should like to remind the hon. member that clause 12 of the bill has been passed by the committee and we are now considering clause 13.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions


James Ernest Pascoe: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. I was just suggesting that there was no mention in clause 12 of the bill about special consideration for special areas, and that is why I am making my remarks on clause 13 where there is provision for special consideration. I realize that the tolerance referred to in this section has regard to the population totals in particular constituencies, and I should like to base my remarks on this phase of the situation.
I consider the arguments which I intend to use about tolerances for individual constituencies are also applicable to provincial representation, and I should like to make one reference in this regard to the fact that we are considering constitutional changes. Under the proposed formula the provinces will have to be consulted about the number of seats in the House of Commons allocated to them. Because of that fact there should not be any drastic changes made now in respect of provincial representation.
To get back to a consideration of clause 13, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bow River suggests a tolerance of 25 per cent in the electoral quota for constituencies in the provinces. I am prepared to support the amendment in its general application, providing the commissions in particular provinces have the recognized right to exceed this tolerance in special cases as mentioned in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subclause (b) of clause 13. These two paragraphs relate to special geographic considerations and special community interests. It is in this regard that I wished to speak last evening, because there should not be an absolute tolerance limit of 25 per cent in respect of every special geographic consideration or special community interest. In other words, I cannot subscribe to the wording of clause 13 which says that in no case shall the allowable tolerance be more than 25 per cent. There must be special consideration in special cases.
Mr. Chairman, now that we have more time available than was available last night I intend to speak at greater length. I should like to answer some of the questions posed by previous speakers to the effect that there should be a great deal more representation of cities in the next parliament with less representation of rural areas. I do not speak for Saskatchewan alone, but for all rural areas of Canada. An editorial which appeared in the Financial Post of April 31, 1963 must also be answered. Part of the editorial stated:
At the best of times, because of an old custom that has no rational defence, Canada's rural voters

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
have too many M.P.'s, its urban voters too few. By tradition, two persons living in the country have about the same political power as three in the city.
The editorial also commented on the 1952 redistribution which it said "gives the agricultural and small town minority roughly the same weight as the industrial majority". These are the kind of arguments we have been hearing from city interests, the contention being that representation in parliament should be strictly on a population basis.
The hon. member for Danforth, in an earlier speech advocating strict adherence to population figures in constituency redistribution, said:
There should be the lowest possible variation in population figures in order to abolish finally the rural tyranny that has dominated this parliament for decades.
I realize, of course, that he was speaking for urban constituents just as I am asking for equitable treatment for rural constituents. As others have pointed out large cities have other effective means of representation in addition to representation in parliament. Each city has a mayor and council, an active chamber of commerce, a labour council and professional associations to help look after its citizens. City residents have somewhat uniform interests and problems and, as I said earlier, they live in a compact community and can present their views by means of small or large delegations or meetings.
Rural residents have diverse interests, and they are scattered over large areas. They do not have the same contact with or representation by chambers of commerce or other citizens' groups. It is more difficult for them to meet with their member of parliament or for him to contact them. In this connection I should like to refer to the 1964-65 statement of policy by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, page 69. With regard to the redistribution of federal constituencies, paragraph 291 of their statement of policy reads in part as follows:
There should be factors other than population used in determining equitable representation.
That is the point I am trying to emphasize here. I contend that the agricultural and small town portion of our population should have roughly the same weight in parliament as the urban population. There are others in the house who support this view, including the Liberal member for Renfrew South, who spoke out against his own party's apparent indifference to fair rural representation. I should like to quote a couple of his statements

in this regard. As found on page 859 of Hansard for March 12, 1964 he said:
Might I point out, Mr. Speaker, that representation by population is one of those pat cliches which makes a nice sound.
He went on to say:
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that merely to cry representation by population without recognizing the factors extant in our constitution, and without taking a very careful look at geographical, social and economic conditions as they exist in Canada today, is but a hollow, empty and futile cry.
He also said:
I suggest that the tolerance clause will merely give a wider latitude, a greater discretion to those gentlemen who form the commission to do those things that are best, in the interests of providing the best possible representation in the various areas of Canada.
I agree with the hon. member for Renfrew South. Clearly defined regions or sections of Canada with common interests should have a fair share of spokesmen in parliament. This may be straying from the question of constituency tolerances, Mr. Chairman, but I think western Canada should have representation in parliament equal to Ontario or Quebec. With regard to the question of city and country representation there was a statement by an earlier speaker that he had one of those tightly knit city constituencies. That statement outlines very clearly why there is need to work out some form of equitable adjustment in the population formula as between compact urban constituencies and huge rural ridings.
I have a map here, Mr. Chairman. I cannot file it, but it shows the distribution of population according to the last census. It indicates that the population is concentrated particularly in two very small areas of the whole of Canada. The point I am trying to make on this question of tolerance is that there should be some better system of providing equitable representation in the house. Population should not be the only basis for redistribution.
As I said earlier, I am speaking in general terms for all areas of Canada, not just for Saskatchewan. But I want to point out again that the arguments I am using for special tolerances and special consideration for rural ridings apply equally as forcefully to predominantly rural provinces. In the 1952 redistribution bill there was a special provision that the province of Saskatchewan should only lose a certain percentage of its representation. There are senatorial floors for New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and I

think there should be some way of making the tolerances in section 13 apply to areas. I believe the Minister of Transport recognized this himself at an earlier stage in the discussion of the bill when he proposed four commissions, one for Ontario, one for Quebec, one for the maritimes and one for the western provinces.
In the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of December 11, 1963 there is this statement:
It seems Inevitable that future parliaments will be dominated by members from heavily populated urban centres and the voice of the farmer will be lost in the tall grass.
I contend again, Mr. Chairman, that the voices of the farmers and of the residents of towns and villages must not be lost. Parliament should make it very clear, by definitely established rules and regulations for redistribution, that rural ridings must receive fair consideration. In an article in Weekend Magazine for November 29, 1963 Robert McKeown stated:
Much more is involved here than simply drawing squares on the map to equalize the population of the ridings. The commissioners will have to take into consideration a number of racial, religious, geographic and other factors in deciding where to put the boundary lines. Parliament will have to give the commission strict instructions on these matters if it is to avoid stirring up hornets' nests of opposition.
Again on the question of tolerances I should like to refer to an editorial in the Family Herald of September 26, 1963, which reads in part as follows:
The legislation to initiate redistribution of Canada's electoral ridings will widen the rift between rural and urban representation, as has no other similar legislation in this country's history. As in 1952 when a city-bound population movement had already begun to take its toll of rural seats, Saskatchewan will again be the focal point of this conflict. But unlike 1952 the problem of a declining rural population, as opposed to an exploding city population, will make itself felt not only in the allocation of seats among the provinces, but also in the shift of seats within provinces. The combination of these two forces will seriously affect the farm vote.
I have taken the time of this committee, Mr. Chairman, by the indirect method of referring to tolerances for individual constituencies, to emphasize the special considerations that should be given to provincial representation as a whole while amendments in this regard may be coming forward under constitutional changes. We should try to maintain the status quo to as great a degree as possible until provincial representation has been decided by the dominion-provincial constitutional conference.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready to vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bow River?
Amendment (Mr. Woolliams) agreed to: Yeas, 60; nays, 11.


Mr. Moreau:: I have a further amendment to clause 13, Mr. Chairman, to which I referred briefly last night. The principle I should like to introduce into the bill is the relative rate of growth of a constituency. I do not feel this should be interpreted as necessarily a rural-urban issue. I think, primarily, what I should like to aim at would be perhaps a city riding as against a suburban riding that is growing very rapidly while the centre of the city is shrinking in population. I feel that particularly in a riding like York-Scar-borough, and there are many of this type in Canada, the 1961 census figures are already very much out of date. I realize it is very difficult to forecast the projected growth, but by the time redistribution is completed the population of these ridings would exceed the tolerance that we have in mind when we use the 1961 census figures.
I do not want to get into a long debate on how we determine the rate of growth. I should like to feel that we can rely on the discretion of the commissioners to apply common sense in a situation of this sort. I feel that if we had the principle indicated in this clause of the bill the commissioners could then use their common sense in applying it to the 1961 census figures in a riding like York-Scar-borough. It might be that in these suburban type ridings they would use the tolerance on the down side to accommodate a situation which already exists or is certainly going to exist within the next year or two.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 13 be amended by striking out lines 34 and 35 on page 4 and substituting therefor:
"special geographic considerations including in particular the sparsity-density or relative rate of growth."


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee prepared to vote on the amendment?


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, members of this party have already indicated that we are in support of this principle and I think this amendment will meet the views of the house generally. It strikes me, however, that the commissioners might like to know just what we mean. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough when he said he did not want to get into too much detail, but when the phrase "relative rate of
10058	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions growth" is used, what basis does one have in mind?
Perhaps I might shorten my remarks by putting what I have in mind in the form of a question, either to the member for York-Scarborough or perhaps, if he does not mind, to the minister. Does not the minister think, even if we do not write the complicated details into the statute, that there ought to be something in Hansard so the commissioners will know what parliament has in mind? Is it the rate of growth between 1951 and 1961, for which the official figures are available? Is it the rate of growth between 1961 and now or some other date, the figures for which are not official? What direction is it we are giving to the commissioners?


Maurice John Moreau: I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think we can get into considerable controversy on what figures we are going to use. I suggest that one official and regularly available figure would be the interim census every five years. This may be used as a measure of growth and would be projected from 1956 to 1961, for instance, which would be a factor. This is an official census taken by the federal government, and I feel it could be very valuable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might say a word. I indicated last night that I would support the hon. member's motion if he made it, and indeed that it would make it much easier for me to support the 25 per cent tolerance. I would remind hon. members of the committee that the hard, governing fact is the 25 per cent tolerance which the committee has just adopted.
These special geographic considerations are merely indications to the commissions of what was in the minds of hon. members here. "Sparsity" and "density" are just as relative terms as "rate of growth". They are the kind of things found in the preamble to a bill. They are an indication of the kind of considerations that ought to be taken into account in using the tolerance, and that is all.
The tolerance is the only hard rule in this clause. No matter what the rate of growth might be, the commissions cannot go above or below the 25 per cent tolerance. If I were a commissioner this would indicate to me that in a constituency which seems to have a relatively static population and looks as though it would continue to have that, I could not make any particular allowance unless it was such a huge constituency that because of the tremendous area covered there should be


a tolerance on the low side so far as population is concerned.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni pointed out, the rate of growth is not purely urban growth around metropolitan areas. Some of the fastest growing constituencies are like his and the constituency of my hon. friend the member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador where, because of the phenomenal growth of the woods industry in recent years, there has been a large increase in population and the appearance of whole new towns. These are practical considerations that I imagine would influence the commissioners, but this cannot be regarded as anything more. "Considerations" is the main word, and I suspect commissions would take these into account even if this were not included in the bill.
I also suspect they would take into account sparsity and density, but so far as the legal effect of this is concerned I do not believe it would make any difference if we just said the tolerance was to be 25 per cent and added nothing more, because that is the only mandatory part. That is the only part on which a commission can break the law if it creates a constituency larger than 25 per cent above or 25 per cent below the norm.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: To make sure my understanding of this point is the same as the minister's may I point out that you might have a situation where, according to the official census figures, the population of a constituency is shown to be 10 per cent below the norm, whereas in actual fact at the time of redistribution its population is 10 per cent above the norm.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can only say that if I were a commissioner that is the kind of consideration I would take into account.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Although I cannot think of any at the moment, I take it that if there were other circumstances than those outlined a commission could look at them also?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can think of one very special consideration. I tend to think about the place where I was brought up, Manitoba, which has four corners. There is one constituency all across the north but there are three areas where the tolerance would almost certainly become a factor. How big a factor I do not know, but two of the southern comers are also sparsely populated areas and the constituencies cannot run into Saskatchewan, northern Ontario or the Northwest Territories, at least not until Manitoba

annexes the latter and apparently it is not seeking to emulate some other provinces.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether the minister and the hon. member for York-Scarbor-ough have considered that under clause 25 and other clauses where we provide for members of parliament making protests to the House of Commons about reports and decisions, we almost force the group of members of parliament who will protest to base their objections on a referral back to clause 13 in order to justify them. Probably I am anticipating more trouble than is likely to ensue but it seems to me, particularly at the first shot, that it will be fairly easy to get one third of the members from a province to make some objections.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman recalls the amendment passed the other evening. I think he is basing his contention on the original bill and not on the amendment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am still for the amendment, but it would be fairly easy to get ten members to object. The present amendment gives one more reasons for making objections. Ordinarily whatever we may say about what becomes the law does not really matter a damn. We have encountered that many times, particularly with reference to sections of the Railway Act. One can go back and read the debates and note what members thought those sections meant, but by the time the courts got through interpreting them they did not come out the same way at all. This is an unusual statute in that it is going to give members of parliament the possibility of practising delaying tactics and interpretation tactics. Has the minister considered what this amendment dealing with the rate of growth can lead to? It is really nebulous, and almost any member of parliament could hinge an argument on it and thus raise an objection. Given the fact that objections are likely to be certain, this is a small point, but the minister should consider it.
Dealing with this clause and the bill generally may I say I gathered, particularly from listening to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, that some members and some of the people who are commenting on redistribution have not yet grasped the enormity of it all. There is just not going to be the same pattern in Canada again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not expedite the passage of the bill by saving that part of his
Electoral Boundaries Commissions speech for his next article after we have adopted this clause?


Douglas Mason Fisher: If I ever thought the minister would deign to read the article, I might consider it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, they are reading them.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Perhaps they are, but I do not flatter myself. It is like rocking a boat in a lake without producing any ripples.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After the fine commercial the minister gave you-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, the minister is good at giving himself and the Liberal party commercials.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: His estimates come up next.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Whose estimates come up next?


An hon. Member:: The C.B.C.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should not have these distractions. There is not a constituency in Canada, except for Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland, which will not be much changed; and I expect that anything we do here will only add to the complication. My hon. friend sitting next to me said he was looking at this density matter, and that some constituencies were more dense than others.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was he thinking of Port Arthur?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, he was thinking of Newfoundland. I merely wish to suggest to the minister that by this amendment, which I still intend to vote for, we may be creating a complication which will be remembered in a year or so when the protests against the new boundaries are mounting in this chamber.


Mr. Harkness:: I am glad to see this amendment introduced. When I spoke on this bill some months ago in the earlier stage of its consideration I expressed the view that some account should be taken of population growth, that is the growth which had actually taken place since the census on which the redistribution was based.
There is no doubt in my mind that the absence of such a consideration at the time of the last redistribution in 1952 is one of the main reasons we have such an inequitable position at the present time as far as the suburban areas of our cities are concerned. Had any consideration been given to the known growth factor in those years we should

Electoral Boundaries Commissions not be confronted with the problem of these enormous constituencies such as York-Scar-borough. I believe that in many ways this is one of the most important provisions which could be written into the act in order to secure an equitable redistribution, and I am glad to see it impressed upon the minds of the commissioners as one of the factors to which consideration should be given in the determination of what the boundaries shall be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have only a brief word to say. I wish mainly to thank the hon. member for York-Scarborough for giving his answer, at any rate, to the question I posed earlier. It seems to me that the Minister of Transport cannot write off these subclauses. My hon. friend from Port Arthur has made the point that the commissioners will in effect, have to justify any departures they may make by referring to the guide lines given to them by parliament. If we are giving them another guide line, namely the rate of population growth, we should surely be as clear as possible about our intentions. I will settle for not putting the detail into the statute, but the commissioners may well ask the question, what did parliament mean by this relative term "rate of growth"?
The hon. member for York-Scarborough answered the question when he said "You compare official sets of figures". I think it is good to have that on the record in Hansard; that this should be done not on the basis of guesswork but on the basis of official sets of figures. On that understanding I am prepared, as is everybody else, I believe, to support the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: There is another matter which arises with reference to clause 13. It has to do with the question of dual ridings of which there are two now in Canada; at one time there were a number of them.
It is noteworthy that down through the years the dual constituencies of Queens and Halifax have been retained. It is obvious that there were reasons, reasons considered good and sufficient, for the retention of these constituencies, whether they were sociological, historical or geographical. In Prince Edward Island at one time the reasoning was mathematical. One of the reasons our province was reluctant or, indeed, unwilling to enter confederation was the opposition put forward to its demand to be represented by six members. Sir John A. Macdonald asked why the province wanted six members. Why not five?

The answer was "We must have six because we have three counties, and you cannot divide three into five". So, with exceptions only for very brief intervals, a dual constituency has been retained there.
It is not for me to prejudge whether there should be a dual riding retained in Prince Edward Island or in Halifax. But I am inclined to think that in the one I know best, in such a small province where the population is large but not dense, there will be no great gain from changing the well known boundaries of the constituencies. I do not want to prejudge the issue and I do not think this house should do so, or trammel the commission in its work. Perhaps the commissions, when set up, may decide it is unwise to have dual ridings in Prince Edward Island and Halifax. They could conceivably reach the conclusion that a better pattern of representation would follow from the establishment of a dual riding somewhere else in the country. But this is a matter for the commissions to look into. AVe expect good work from good commissions, and I believe it would be a mistake for this legislation to train its guns on two of the existing constituencies, to say that two of the constituencies must be altered and that the commissions shall have no choice, no scope at all to consider whether all the good and sufficient reasons which prompted the retention of these ridings still apply.
I would therefore ask-and surely this is not a controversial matter-that we reserve for the commissions the right to decide whether the existing dual ridings be retained or whether in fact the pattern of representation might be improved by establishing others. Perhaps the commissions will end by abolishing them all; perhaps they will not. But I would think it unfortunate if at this stage we were to legislate two existing ridings out of existence, and I wonder if this could not be prevented.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could say a word about this matter. Since the hon. member for Halifax is unable to be in the chamber himself today, he made very strong representations to me along the lines of those the hon. member for Queens has just made to us.
I have been giving a lot of thought to this question and, like one of the questions I had to consider last evening, it is a difficult one. It is like one or two questions I considered last evening. There are arguments on both sides which are very strong, and if hon. members would be patient with me for a few moments

I should like to put them so we can consider both sides of the question.
It is quite true, as hon. members such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who have been in the house for a long time, will recall, that at almost every redistribution the question of dividing Halifax and dividing Queens comes up, and in the end this is not done. At least the hon. gentleman said it was done long ago, but it has not been done for a long time. There is a certain pattern, and I think that is true in both places. Perhaps I am a little more familiar with the kind of considerations which were put to me so strongly and so recently by the hon. member for Halifax in connection with conventions in Halifax applying not merely in the federal field but in the municipal and provincial fields as well. I think all of us would be very reluctant to disturb considerations of this sort by general legislation unless there is a strong argument on the other side.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think there is a strong argument on the other side. It is much stronger in the case of Halifax than in the case of Queens, but I think it applies in both cases. In the case of Halifax, by itself Halifax county, not taking into account the relative rates of growth, would be almost entitled to three members. So if the law is to be followed there is no possibility anyway of retaining the historic constituency of Halifax; only part of that constituency could remain a dual riding. I certainly do not think we would want any triple ridings; at least I would not have thought it possible in legislation of this kind, which is not dealing with the election law but is dealing with redistribution, to seek to make an amendment of that kind to the election law. I think that would be an altogether bad thing to do.
In the case of Prince Edward Island I have not done the arithmetic-I have no doubt the hon. member has-but I have the impression that Kings county, even with a 25 per cent tolerance, would probably have too small a population to be a constituency. So the historic riding of Queens will not remain the historic riding of Queens if the law is carried out. I have not done the arithmetic, so if the hon. member says I am wrong I will accept that right off, but I think that is the case. Probably Prince county has too large a population for the existing tolerance having regard to what would be the norm for Prince Edward Island.
Since I had been warned about this matter I did have something drafted so that we could look at it, but before we decide whether
Electoral Boundaries Commissions we should move an amendment perhaps we should consider rather carefully whether, even if we did seek to do this, we would be carrying out what are the hon. gentleman's real intentions.
There is another consideration that is of some importance. I might say that the method suggested by the gentleman is the only method I would support at all. I would not be prepared to say to the commission that there must be dual ridings. All I would be prepared to say is that if they saw fit they could preserve them in these two cases only. That is the most I would vote for, though I am not saying that I would even want to vote for that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the minister going as far as saying that he would put this in the statute? Is that the suggestion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it could not be done unless there were an amendment to this clause. If we leave the clause as it is now amended in this way, it will not be possible for any commission to establish a dual constituency anywhere. The only way this could be done, as the hon. member for Queens has indicated, is by moving an amendment to provide an exception. Well, it could be done in two ways. It could be made a general power of commissions all across Canada, although I would not be in favour of that at all. I do not think we want to introduce these things where they do not exist. I think the only way which could be justified would be by giving the commissions power to perpetuate as far as they legally could these two particular situations.
I am also a little troubled-and I am trying to be very frank and dispassionate-about delegating a legislative power of this kind to the commissions. It is one thing to tell them to draw the boundaries fairly, but I am wondering whether it would be quite right for parliament to tell these commissions that they might in these two cases, one in Prince Edward Island and one in Nova Scotia, if they saw fit, preserve their dual constituencies in the new boundaries which were drawn, one of which would be the heir, so to speak, of the present constituency of Halifax. It could not be the whole of the present constituency; that would be impossible. The same would be done for Queens.
I have sought, Mr. Chairman, to put the arguments on both sides. I appreciate that I am an import to a part of the country where history and traditions are perhaps cherished more than in other parts of the country.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions It is a part of the country where one hates to upset old and established customs; at least, the kind of historically minded person that I happen to be hates to do this. I can understand the point of view of the hon. member for Queens very well. I confess to having a certain sympathy for his argument, but such logic as I possess does not seem to run in the same direction as my sympathies. However, I do not think, having said that, that I should say anything more because I am sure there are other hon. members who want to say a word on this matter.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If I may just say a word, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. and learned minister has himself very well demonstrated the importance of having this matter considered by the commission. He has put forward arguments pro and arguments con, and that is all I would ask we arrange for. We certainly could not' insist on making it mandatory for the commission that there be dual ridings; but I think in view of the sort of process through which the minister went a few moments ago without, as he admitted, having the figures, that the commission, with its experts and their figures, might look at this situation.
I am not going to burden other members of this committee with the details of the situation in Prince Edward Island, but it is obvious that there will only be four seats there. There are only 107,000 people in that province. I think it would be unfortunate if, before the commission moved into the constituency-drawing process in Prince Edward Island, we said to them-in effect this is what we would be doing-that no matter how logical it may appear to have a dual riding in the area surrounding the capital city, or perhaps some other urban population centre, this was not to be the case. I think it would be an unnecessary and unfortunate restriction upon the commission which will find, as all commissions will find in every province, some demographic problems when it gets to Prince Edward Island, where the population spread is not as mathematically neat as it might be for purposes of constituency drawing. So I say that we would improve the potential work of the commission by giving them the opportunity to study the situation, to peruse their figures and to do in detail what the minister has done himself so well during his discourse to us.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one or two words in this regard, and make it clear that there are four
IMr. Pickersgill.]

members of this committee, only two of us here today, who have a special concern in this matter. Because we are the only members of the house who represent dual ridings we are all very much aware of the special considerations and traditions that affect those ridings.
I think our general feeling and concern is that the committee is not being sufficiently careful if it passes the bill as it is, because by so doing it will make it mandatory for the commissions to eliminate dual ridings. I want it understood immediately that I have no thought that the commission should have the privilege of instituting dual ridings where none now exist, nor do I suggest that it should be mandatory that the present dual ridings be continued. I do think it would be reasonable, in light of the fact that these dual constituencies have survived every redistribution in this century, that the arguments pro and con in each case be carefully studied by the commissions in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
Personally, from a theoretical point of view I favour single constituencies, but I realize that in these special cases the general advantages of having single constituencies are outweighed by other considerations. Therefore I feel we should introduce an amendment at this time, and I think this is non-controversial, which would allow the commissions to look into the matter carefully. If they find it reasonable they should have the option to come up with single constituencies or, if they find heavy arguments in favour of the other side of the question in these two cases, they should not be categorically precluded from the privilege of continuing dual constituencies in one or both cases.
Mr. Chairman, I should be very pleased if the minister would let us know what amendment he would consider appropriate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that although the Minister of Transport tried to give the arguments on both sides, his argument was very strong that parliament should not toss this legislative decision to the commissioners. I should also like to add one argument which I do not think he made, unless he did so when I was called away to the telephone. If we give this discretion to a commission, are we going to give it to all the commissions, or just to the two in question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I did make that point very clear as far as my position is concerned. I would not approve of any amend-

ment which extended this in any way whatsoever.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I then proceed one step further. If this discretion is being given only to the two commissions, we must remember that these commissions operate independently. It is true there is one man who is on all of them, but what happens if one commission, say the commission for Prince Edward Island, decides on a two member seat for Queens but the commission for Nova Scotia decides on a single member seat for Halifax?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That situation would present no problem, because they would have an option, as the senior member for Queens just indicated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister suggests this would present no problem, but I think those who are on the opposite side of the decision might think it presented a problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would not be a legal problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other point I wished to touch upon is the issue raised by the two members for Queens when they made a point of their desire not to have serious changes in something which has been a fact of history. May I point out to them that the members and people across this country are going to receive the shock of their lives when the boundaries of the constituencies are drawn in light of the rules that we are laying down. I suspect the constituency which is now the constituency of Queens, although it will be divided as a result of this legislation into two parts, will probably be geographically closer to the present constituency of Queens than 90 per cent of ridings.
The hon. member for Port Arthur started to say a moment ago, when the Minister of Transport told him to write it in his column, that hon. members did not realize the enormity of changes which will take place under this legislation. I do not think what will happen to the constituencies of Halifax and Queens, if these areas are divided into single area ridings, will be anything compared to the enormity of change which will take place generally.
Whatever does take place, Mr. Chairman, I think this decision should be made by parliament, and we should not leave legislative decisions of this kind to the commissions.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am getting into bad company and becoming argumentative. Neither the senior member for Queens nor myself has been arguing that
Electoral Boundaries Commissions the status quo be preserved, but if it should happen that the commission in any province finds that a certain constituency should remain unchanged, surely the commission should have that right. We are asking that the commissions not be prevented from deciding, suggesting or recommending something which happens to coincide with an existing fact, namely the existence of dual ridings. That is all we are asking, and I am quite confident that the commissions can deal with this matter. Although conservative, r am not an unrelenting champion of the status quo. I am trying to look for the maximum efficiency for a commission as it deals with these problems, which I know is going to be saddled with some difficulty.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, in this connection I think it should be pointed out that in the constituency of Halifax there are established traditions and principles which have been in effect for many, many years, whereby a dual constituency has been maintained. More than the usual geographical problems would be presented if that constituency should be changed now, because there have been very easy relationships and working arrangements established throughout the years. There can be no question whatsoever raised as to representation. If a commission should decide to divide that constituency, and perhaps make some additions, into two watertight compartments, it would have to draw a line through established principles which have been maintained for over half a century. I think the course followed by the cow which Laura Secord drove through the woods at the time of the war of 1812 could be considered a surveyor's line compared to any line drawn by a commission which attempted to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I think there is some merit to the suggestion that' we should leave to the commission the right or responsibility of making a decision in those cases where dual constituencies have been established heretofore, Queens and Halifax. The commission should be allowed, if it so determined, to maintain dual constituencies rather than create two single constituencies. Personally I have had experience in another theatre of a dual constituency, and I would not wish that kind of experience on my worst enemy, because it involves a very difficult task. There are many entrenched problems associated with this question, particularly in Halifax, and I should like to see something.
10064	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Commissions done whereby the commission would have some latitude in reaching its decision.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I should also like to add a few words by way of support. We are dealing here with exceptional cases, but I think in many instances an exceptional case removes us from the blandness of a purely uniform and mathematical formula. After all, Prince Edward Island already has a constitutional floor, and this proposal is not going to impose any burden on the representation from that province. The numbers are not going to change. X do not think anyone is going to suffer any injustice. I would say that the same applies in Nova Scotia.
To me there is no compelling argument to make the change. There may be pros and cons, but none of them is of sufficient weight to justify a change. Under these circumstances I think we should provide the commissions for these two provinces with the opportunity of choice in this regard. We are not asking for it elsewhere in the country.
I should like to refer to what is perhaps a similar situation. When the city of Edmonton decided to number its streets and avenues it adopted a very monotonous, rectangular, mathematical plan of streets and avenues north and south and east and west and gave them numbers. I say thank goodness that somebody was instrumental in retaining Jasper avenue, running right through the middle of the city.
I would say the same thing in this connection. This exception does not hurt the rule. There is also a strong historical background, and I do not see why we should destroy history in so far as these two provinces are concerned. If the province of Newfoundland had had some historic dual ridings at the time it entered confederation I am sure this would have commended itself to the Minister of Transport, and that he would have found compelling arguments to retain that right to individuality rather than ruling it out absolutely by the stroke of a pen or by the printed word as we are proposing to do today. Therefore I heartily recommend that hon. members should support any amendment put forward on behalf of the members for Queens and Halifax.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, obviously I do not want to prolong this debate, but may I say I do not feel I could propose such an amendment. On the other hand, I have one drafted here that is slightly different from the one shown me by the hon. member for Queens, who was good enough to send me the one


about which he was thinking. I would think that the one I have here would be preferable if this is going to be done, because the only real difference between the two is that in the one case it just says that the commission "may" and in the other case it says "may if it sees fit to do so".
In view of the queer interpretations sometimes placed on the word "may", if that additional phrase was not included I think there might be a suggestion that parliament's inclination was to have it done. My own inclination is not to have it done. I say that quite frankly. I really feel about this matter, and it is going to be very difficult for me to vote. I have been thinking I might do something that I thought only members of the N.D.P. did, sit on my hands, if there is a vote.
I have not made up my mind yet, but I certainly do not want to influence the judgment of any other member of the committee. Particularly because of the objection reiterated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I do not feel it is fair to impose upon the commission the making of another decision which in my bones I feel we ought to make ourselves if it is to be made at all. I think it would be very hard for me to vote for this. On the other hand I am rather impressed by the argument put forward. I want to reiterate, however, that these historic constituencies will not survive anyway. Halifax county is far too big to be one constituency, so we will not be preserving the historical situation there and probably not in Queens either. However, if the hon. gentleman wishes to do so I think the simplest way would be for him to move his amendment in order to test the committee on it and get the agony over with.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I think this is certainly fair enough. In my opinion the minister's suggestion as to an amendment is an improvement on the one I had in mind. For the information of members of the committee who are not familiar with the maritimes I might say that this is not an anomaly in the maritime setting. In the legislatures of the maritime provinces, unlike other provinces, virtually all the constituencies are multiple constituencies. In New Brunswick some of them have as many as four or five members. In Prince Edward Island they are all dual constituencies, and in Nova Scotia there is a similar situation. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to read this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Move it. We would like to hear it.


John Angus MacLean: I am buying this in a poke because I have not read it yet. I think I will read my own amendment and in doing so can add to it what the minister has suggested. I move:
That clause 13 be amended by deleting the word "and" in line 31 and inserting a new subsection (b) as follows:
"(b) where, immediately before the coming into force of this act, any electoral district in a province was represented by two members of the House of Commons, the commission may, if it sees fit to do so, recommend the continuation of such representation, in which case the division of that province into electoral districts and the description of the boundaries thereof in accordance with rule (a) shall proceed subject to such adjustments as are necessary in order to give effect to the continuation of such representation;"
and that the present subsection (b) be designated subsection (c) and that in line 46 thereof there be inserted after the word "case" "except as may be necessary in order to give effect to rule (b)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the other one has been vetted by the law officers of the crown I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would mind having it formally moved so that we will not get into any possible legal troubles.


John Angus MacLean: I believe it is the same wording. I have not read it, but I would move it as the official amendment.


Lucien Lamoureux: Mr. MacLean (Queens)
moves:
That clause 13 of Bill C-72 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 30 to 33 on page 4 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(b) representation commissioner under section 12; where, immediately before the day this act was assented to, provision was made for any electoral district in the province to be represented by two members of the House of Commons, the commission may, if it sees fit to do so, recommend the continuation of such representation, in which case the division of the province into electoral districts and the description of the boundaries thereof in accordance with rule (a) shall proceed subject to such adjustments as are necessary in order to give effect to the continuation of such representation;
(c) the commission may depart from the strict application of rules (2) and (b) in any case where"
(b)	by striking out lines 46 and 47 on page 4 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"but in no case, except as may be necessary in order to give effect to rule (b), shall the population of any electoral district in the province as a result thereof"


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I recall an earlier observation of the minister that perhaps those who come from the eastern part of the country may have a greater appreciation of historic traditions and customs than others. As someone who was born, brought
Electoral Boundaries Commissions up and has lived all his life in western Canada, may I say that at least some of us have some appreciation of the historic traditions and customs not only of our own areas but of other parts of the country.
However, Mr. Chairman, the point on which I wish to rise in speaking against the proposed amendment is that while I may have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view of members who have suggested this amendment out of respect for their own local customs and traditions, nevertheless I think it should be obvious that in spite of that sympathy we in this house have to recognize that this amendment, if it passes, is not going to be confined in its implications and results to Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, it is.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Hon. members are trying to tell me I am wrong, but perhaps they should listen to my conclusion. I think we recognize that each provincial commission is going to be autonomous in respect of its operations within a province under the provisions of the legislation. Nevertheless, I think we recognize also that there is provision in the proposed legislation for objections to be raised in this house.
The point I should like to make is that accepting an amendment such as is proposed may very well develop arguments as to why certain customs and traditions with regard to county boundaries and other historic considerations in respect of constituencies in other parts of the country should be retained by commissions in the respective provinces. It strikes me, therefore, that this is not purely a local issue with regard to Halifax or Queens, but one to which consideration should be given because of its general effect across the country.
It is with that sort of consideration in mind and, as I say, with some sympathy for the point of view that has been advanced for the respective traditions, that I feel it would be most unwise for us to adopt this amendment. It would serve to put not only the commissions in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island on more of a hot seat, but indirectly the commissions in other provinces across the country.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?
Amendment agreed to: Yeas, 24; Nays, 17.


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


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the many amendments that have been made, I think we should not have third reading until we see a reprint of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I very much regret that hon. members do not see fit to give it third reading now. I would have liked to get this thing completed today, but of course the rules are against me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the minister will just cast his mind back a few years to the time when he was on this side he will recall that he took the same position with regard to bills of this importance and complexity in which many changes had been made, notwithstanding the pleas of the government. This is not with the idea of getting back at anybody. I think a bill of this nature, with this number of amendments, should be reprinted before it is given third reading. We give an undertaking that we will see it Monday afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not like it to be thought I was complaining, but one can always hope.


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


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.

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


Lucien Lamoureux: It being one o'clock I do leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
SECRETARY OF STATE Office of the chief electoral officer-
1. Salaries and expenses of office, $106,000.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, the position of chief electoral officer is being filled on an acting basis by Mr. Castonguay, who is also representation commissioner. In fact I think the latter is his principal job because it is for it he gets paid. Up until this point it would seem to present [The Chairman.]

no difficulty in having Mr. Castonguay fill both these positions, but now that the redistribution bill may soon be passed Mr. Castonguay will have to devote a great deal of time to his work as a member of ten provincial commissions. That being the case, would it not seem desirable to make an early move toward filling the position of chief electoral officer?
I am not fishing for a prediction as to the date of the next election. The Secretary of State is probably no smarter than the rest of us on that point.


Mr. Lamonlagne:: We would not want to move on this until the redistribution bill has been finally approved, but the hon. member may be quite sure that we will try to find a suitable replacement as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does "as soon as possible" mean within the next few weeks so that Mr. Castonguay may devote his full time to the representation job and not have to worry about the possibility of having to conduct another election?


Maurice Lamontagne: Provided we can find a suitable candidate for the job, it will be within the next few weeks.


Mr. Winch:: Do I understand that on Mr. Castonguay's appointment as representation commissioner he will not have authority as chief electoral officer? If that is the case, then I want to register my opposition because I believe he and his father before him have done wonderful work as chief electoral officers.
I should like to speak briefly about Mr. Castonguay himself. One may not always agree with his decisions, but based on my years of experience campaigning for federal office I doubt if in the history of Canada there has ever been anyone like Mr. Castonguay, with such a knowledge of the Canada Elections Act and with such decisiveness in reaching conclusions when required during the heat of an election.
Though I can appreciate the reasons he is to have such important responsibility in the matter of redistribution, personally I would very much dislike it if some person is named as chief electoral officer without Mr. Castonguay having overriding responsibility. Does passage of the redistribution bill mean that we will lose the services of Mr. Castonguay as chief electoral officer? I repeat that I would hate to see the day come when he will not have some responsibility in the electoral and campaign system of this country.


Maurice Lamontagne: I am sure we all share the views expressed about Mr. Castonguay by the hon. member but, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, his important new responsibilities as representation commissioner will require a lot of his time if we are to implement the new redistribution system during the next few years. Mr. Castonguay will continue with his present responsibility as chief electoral officer until we are in a position to make a new appointment. However, I am afraid it will be impossible for him to carry on the two jobs indefinitely.


Harold Edward Winch: After the redistribution is complete, will Mr. Castonguay carry on in the office of commissioner or will he return to carry out the duties of chief electoral officer?


Maurice Lamontagne: I understand that when a new chief electoral officer is appointed he will be responsible to the representation commissioner, so we may not lose the services and the experience of Mr. Castonguay completely.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand that whoever is given the new appointment will be responsible to Mr. Castonguay and that final authority will still rest with him?


Maurice Lamontagne: I believe that if the hon. member would refer to the act he would find this to be the case.


Mr.   Nesbill@: I gather that the concern in the mind of the Secretary of State and, indeed, in the mind of the government is that if Mr. Castonguay is made representation commissioner he could not obviously carry out his duties in the event of an election taking place at the same time. However, if a federal election were to come before Mr. Castonguay had completed his work as commissioner there would obviously be no great hurry for him to complete the task of redistribution. What would be the objection to his having leave of absence, as it were, so as to take charge of the election arrangements? Afterwards he could return to complete his other job.


Maurice Lamontagne: I understand that the act requires each commission to end its work within a year. Moreover, once we have made the appointment of chief electoral officer it would not be easy to ask the new man to vacate his responsibilities.


Mr.   Nesbill@: The Secretary of State is correct in accordance with the present terms of the legislation but there are a great many of us in this house-in fact, I think, most of
Supply-Secretary of State us in all parts of the house-who would hate to lose the services of Mr. Castonguay as chief electoral officer. It is true that in his other appointment he may have a supervisory capacity but many of us are disturbed about the thought of losing his services in this regard, and I am wondering whether the Secretary of State could not consult with his colleagues and insert some amendment into the redistribution bill which might allow Mr. Castonguay to take temporary leave of absence to carry out the duties of chief electoral officer before returning to his duties as representation commissioner, if a general election were to come after the appointment had been made.


Maurice Lamontagne: Should an election come before the new appointment is made then, of course, Mr. Castonguay would be in charge of that election. However, we certainly cannot delay this appointment indefinitely; and I might add that no date for the new election has yet been announced.


Mr.   Nesbill@: Perhaps the whole difficulty could be obviated if the Secretary of State were to consult his colleagues over the week end. Possibly some minor amendment could be made in the redistribution bill which would allow Mr. Castonguay to leave the one office for a temporary period so as to act as chief electoral officer should an election take place. In that event it would not make much difference if redistribution were completed within one year or say, 15 months after the election had been called.


Maurice Lamontagne: I will be happy to discuss this with my colleagues during the week end.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: There is one small matter. I will not ask the minister to tell us the date of the next election, but the senior standing committee of the house, the committee on privileges and elections, did a great deal of work on the Canada Elections Act last session and I wonder if it would be correct to assume that since the chief electoral officer has sent supplies out to the constituencies it is the thinking of the government that no further consideration shall be given to the elections act, and the careful scrutiny the committee gave it. Important suggestions were made as to the lowering of the voting age, and so on. I have been trying to elicit some information on this subject from the leader of the house. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could bring us up to date as to the government's thinking in this regard.

Supply-Secretary of State


Maurice Lamontagne: The decision taken by the chief electoral officer recently was an ordinary administrative decision taken by him without any kind of instructions from the government. It was, I understand, a routine exercise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was just about to say there was one question the answer to which might solve the problem we were discussing a moment ago. In view of the high regard we have for the work done for us by Mr. Nelson Castonguay and in view of the equally high regard we have for the work done for us previously by his father, Mr. Jules Castonguay, the question is: Are there any more Castonguays?


Mr. Leboe:: I am interested in the question raised by the hon. member for Queens-what will happen to the work of the committee on privileges and elections? Will the work of the committee be finished, or will it be left in abeyance.


Maurice Lamontagne: We hope that the work of this committee can go on, perhaps before the end of this session, but certainly at the beginning of the next session, so as to enable the government to introduce changes and revisions in the act in 1965.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When will the next session start?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It seems to me that the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Queens have put their questions to the Secretary of State the wrong way round. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he will confer with his colleagues and bring us an assurance that the work of the redistribution commissioner and of the commissions will be completed before we shall require the active services of a chief electoral officer.


Maurice Lamontagne: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Service Commission-
1. Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the suggestion award plan of the public service of Canada $5,516,500.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to delay the passage of these estimates, but I wish to take this opportunity to make a few remarks concerning the civil service commission.
Could the minister tell us whether he intends to have the civil service act amended
[Mr. Macquarrie.l

during the course of this session or the next one to provide a bonus for any civil servant who is bilingual, in other words for those who speak French and English.
In my opinion, that would be a positive step since it would contribute to the spread of bilingualism within the federal civil service.
There are many disadvantages to the fact that a good many senior officials, in various services, are unilingual but that situation goes way back in the past.
I know it will be a tremendous job for the minister to remedy that situation.
When, for instance, a farmer from the province of Quebec wishes to approach the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) or a departmental section chief who is unilingual, it is very difficult for him to obtain the information needed. That may be one of the reasons why agriculture in Quebec, more particularly, is in a state of inferiority; means of communication are lacking between the federal Department of Agriculture and the French speaking farmers in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that if the government granted a bonus to bilingual persons, at all levels of the federal administration in Ottawa the situation would improve. It is not a question of rushing things, of changing the policy overnight, but rather of implementing it gradually for those who are already bilingual and for those who are applying for civil service positions.
I also feel it to be important that all deputy ministers of the federal administration, in every department, should know both languages, in order to make their own contribution towards the improvement of the situation within the various departments.
May I point out that in many countries across the world, in foreign affairs, applicants are not only required to know the language of the country, but also to have some knowledge of French and English.
For instance, Mr. Chairman, in the United Kingdom applicants for a job in foreign affairs are required to learn another language, either French, German, Spanish, Italian or Russian.
The same situation applies to France, and also to Belgium, which is a bilingual country and where not only the knowledge of French and of another language is required, but also of English and Dutch. The Federal Republic of Germany also requires sufficient knowledge of English and French, apart from the official language of the country. The same situation exists in Holland and Austria.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of External Affairs reflects the cultural character of a country, and it would be important, particularly in that department in Canada, that candidates be bilingual so they can assert, on a world-wide level, the bilingual and bi-racial character of our country.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has endeavoured to create a school where French will be taught. I think that school is located in the province of Quebec.
But I am wondering if the fact that that school is run with public funds is fair and reasonable since the Canadian government, supposedly to help our English speaking compatriots, puts at their disposal professors paid by the government to teach French to civil servants also paid by the government during their working hours.
Yet, Mr. Chairman, French Canadians had to spend their own money for the courses they had to take to learn English.
That fact may not be of prime importance but it is worth mentioning.
I wish to point out that there are at the present time in all the departments of the federal government deficiencies in the French section of the information services. I think there should be some way of improving the situation.
I have another suggestion: That the translators and interpreters, who are bilingual and carry out important and indispensable work for the government be given a higher salary than they are receiving now.
I also ask the minister whether there is no means of increasing the number of translators, so that all the house committee reports might be published simultaneously in their English and French versions, and all other government publications be issued at the same time in both languages, under a single cover. In this way, there would be no exceptions, and the minister would be sure that French and English publications were issued simultaneously in every department, as they would be under one and the same cover.
Mr. Chairman, those were the few remarks I wanted to make in the interest of national unity.
I feel that this constructive action would make it possible to stem the separatist wave which is now on the upsurge in some parts of the country.
A last remark. Does the government still intend to allow civil servants to incorporate as a union, like the other workers of the
Supply-Secretary of State country, in order to negotiate a labour agreement?
I know that several members of this house would be happy if there were such legislation.
I would be glad to know what the minister intends to do so far as bilingualism is concerned in the federal civil service.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, there are a few observations I would like to make to the Secretary of State on the question of the civil service commission. The minister is in a rather unique cabinet position inasmuch as he transmits messages to, or replies in this house on behalf of, two creatures, or perhaps I should say creations, of parliament, one being the civil service commission and the other the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. On the latter creation of parliament I shall have some observations to make later on, but on the civil service commission I have a few to make at the present time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Among a dozen others.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes; as the hon. member for Port Arthur says, among about a dozen others.
When the civil service was created it was my understanding that the intention-and it is a very commendable one-was to get rid of what had become a black mark on the face of Canada, namely political patronage in the civil service. In former days I am told that every time the government changed while everyone in the government service was not removed most of the important jobs changed hands. The result, of course, was that it eventually became impossible to get people of any competence to do these jobs, and no one for one moment wants to see a return to that state of affairs.
On the other hand, I think in its efforts to make the civil service commission completely independent of political patronage- and as I say I think the theory behind this is very commendable-the civil service commission itself has bent over backwards almost to the point of breaking in half in order to try to show that it is not influenced by any kind of political patronage. Those of us here who have sat on both sides of the house know that this is true; as far as political influence is concerned I have heard of very little political patronage in the civil service commission in connection with making appointments.
However, with the good which may go with this sort of arrangement there is also the bad. In order to keep political inter-

Supply-Secretary of State lerence out of the civil service commission, the commission itself has as a result now become responsible to nobody. I know that in theory the civil service commission is responsible to parliament as a whole, but that is a rather nebulous status. In fact, the civil service commission like the C.B.C. has become a law unto itself, does what it likes and is probably the greatest example there is in Canada of the so-called establishment. Any time anybody makes recommendations in connection with the C.B.C. he is either brushed aside, as though no one is supposed to know anything about it except those who sit on the civil service commission, or else it is suggested that the proposals are some kind of political interference, no matter what they may be.
I think in most cases-and I want to make this perfectly clear before I continue further; the theory and principle behind the civil service commission is excellent-the commission generally speaking does a very good job and has done a very good job over the years; but like any other organization composed of human beings problems arise, errors are made and improvements are required. It is in this latter regard that I have a few suggestions I should like to make.
Regardless of where members of parliament sit in this house, they do from time to time receive letters from constituents who are applying for jobs and are asking for recommendations. A new member to this house very naively, and almost invariably writes a letter of recommendation and forwards it to the civil service commission. Members always receive very polite acknowledgments and an undertaking that the commission will keep the member informed as to what takes place. I must say at this time that the commission always keeps its word in this regard. It has been my experience, as I am sure it has been the experience of a good many members of parliament, that the longer one is here the more wary he becomes about writing letters of recommendation as to character and background on behalf of those individuals who make such a request, because it is my impression, and it may be an inaccurate one, that a letter from a member of parliament to the civil service commission in recommendation of an applicant is tantamount to the kiss of death. I have yet to hear of many individuals being successful in applications for a civil service job who have had the dubious advantage of letters of recommendation from members of parliament. Most of us in this house feel


we are second class citizens as far as making recommendations are concerned, even for the most trivial positions. Perhaps we are developing an inferiority complex in this regard. That certainly is the feeling one gets, and it becomes stronger the longer one is here.
Mr. Chairman, in the event the civil service commission officials are not aware of this fact, it is time they were told in plain language that regardless of where members sit in this house they have the feeling that their recommendations are unheeded. I have heard individuals state in private that if the civil service officials accept the recommendations of members of parliament they are allowing political patronage to creep into the system. While I realize that may be true, and that is something we do not want, I should like to make it quite clear that there is a more practical approach to this problem. In respect of positions which are of a strictly local nature, and perhaps I can use the position of postmaster in a rural or semi-rural community as an example, quite apart from certain qualifications required, there are other important characteristics, such as the ability to get along with the people of the community, record of honesty and the like, which can be assessed by the local member of parliament as well as or better than anyone else. Surely a member of parliament is qualified to know about these things, or in a position to find out about them. If a member of parliament makes a bad recommendation the electorate can rectify that error at the following election.
What actually happens in fact is that an individual from the establishment makes a trip to the village or the community and very often consults with people who are not in a position to know whether an applicant is qualified, and then sends in a report which as often as not is quite out of touch with the general feeling of the village or community in question. I think the civil service commission could perhaps make greater use of recommendations from members of the House of Commons in this regard, particularly when considering background, integrity and general ability of applicants.
An individual who is elected to this House of Commons surely has some status of responsibility in the community which he or she represents here, and in light of that fact I cannot understand the consistent attitude taken by the officials of the civil service commission at this time of ignoring recommenda-

tions of members of parliament, regardless of the party to which they belong.
Perhaps one of the most serious things we must face in respect of the civil service is the fashion or mode now in vogue in Canada, that an applicant for a job in order to succeed must have a great number of paper qualifications. I hesitate to cite specific examples, as this does not prove anything, but the one I have in mind is a case in point. This is not related to the federal civil service commission. I noticed in a Kingston newspaper several weeks ago an advertisement for a garbageman. One of the required qualifications was grade 13 education.


An hon. Member:: For a garbageman?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, one of the required qualifications for a garbageman, according to this advertisement, was a grade 13 education. In my opinion that is going just a little bit too far. I suppose a prospective garbageman must have some appreciation of logarithms to count the orange peels in each bundle of garbage. That is the kind of thing that makes legitimately required qualifications appear rather ridiculous in certain instances.
I have certain notices of competitions for various positions in the civil service. I do not think I need to go into too many examples, because most hon. members are familiar with the type of thing I have in mind, but almost all of them contain long lists of required paper qualifications, and these qualifications are rigidly applied. I should like to know what are the qualifications of the individuals who draw up these qualifications. Several years ago representatives of the civil service commission appeared before a parliamentary committee at which time we had difficulty obtaining much information in this regard. In reply to this type of question these representatives said that the people who draw up these qualifications were experts of one kind or another. I should like to know who draws up these qualifications and who determines what qualifications are required for specific jobs. I know the answer we will receive in a moment or two is that these people are highly qualified, holding degrees A, B, C, and D from technical schools X, Y and Z. I think the rigidity of the application of these qualifications should be considered very carefully.
There is a problem in existence today as a result of automation, which makes it very difficult for anyone over the age of 35 years who has not had the advantage of a formal or technical education to get a job. This is perhaps due to the fact that individuals in this age group for various reasons were not in the 20220-637
Supply-Secretary of State position to obtain the kind of general education now afforded today's students. There should be a little more elasticity to the application of these regulations, as to qualifications for positions. Surely there is nothing wrong with allowing a certain degree of discretion to the officials of the civil service commission. We all have a high degree of respect for the ability of the officials of the civil service commission and our complaints are not directed toward them individually but toward the establishment or scheme of things which has been developed over the years.
Examples do not prove principles, but they do show the kind of thing about which I am complaining. Competition No. 64T1075 for an auditor for the unemployment insurance commission at the London, Ontario branch sets out the duties and qualifications, the number of years experience in accounting or auditing, as well as a requirement in respect of the principles of accounting, including the double entry system, and also suggests that integrity and personal suitability are required. The competition notice then sets forth certain basic educational requirements, grade 11, I believe. I do not wish to mention anyone's name because I do not think that is fair, but an applicant for this job had all the necessary qualifications with the exception of a junior matriculation certificate. He had 11 years experience with one of our principal banks in this country as an accountant. He had also carried on a successful merchandising operation for a number of years, but because of ill health had to give up that business. He is a very well thought of individual in the community. Unfortunately several years ago he was unable to obtain a junior matriculation certificate, as a result of which he was unsuccessful in his application for this position.
Mr. Chairman, that is the type of thing many of us complain about, but there is little benefit to be gained by complaining without offering some constructive suggestions to correct the situation. In a number of these jobs the application could state, in respect of educational qualifications, that such and such a level was required, or the equivalent thereof, and the qualifications of an applicant could then be left to the discretion of the officials of the civil service commission. A great many very excellent people are lost to the civil service because of some really minor technical requirement. I can remember very well what happened some years ago during world war II when officers were being selected for the navy. At one time I had some connection with that operation and I remember person after person being turned down because of colour blind-

Supply-Secretary of State ness. The reason given was that they allegedly could not distinguish between rocket flare signals at night. From a practical point of view it made no difference at all, but dozens of good people who would have been excellent in every other way were turned down because of this requirement. Eventually the navy got away from the requirement when they found it did not really matter.
This is the kind of thing one has to watch and I would hope there would be a little more elasticity in the qualifications and a little more discretion left to the members of the commission so that a good many people who are qualified in many ways will not be turned down because of some minor technical requirement. I think this is something that could improve the situation for many people. I wish that the members of the commission and the Secretary of State would bear in mind that one of the biggest problems any member of the house has is in trying to find employment for so many people who are over the age of 40. They lack the technical training to get jobs in industries now, and have to try to get other positions which often they are really very well qualified to fill except for some very technical requirement.
There is one other matter about which I should like to ask the Secretary of State and which he perhaps can deal with after he discusses it with the members of the commission. I refer to the question of bilingualism in the civil service. I know this is a very touchy and sensitive subject these days but I think it would be less touchy and less sensitive if the policy in this regard was made absolutely clear by the Secretary of State. There is a great deal of suspicion and concern on the part of many people because the policy does not seem to be clear.
I think all of us will agree that for many civil service positions it is absolutely essential that the applicants be completely bilingual. With regard to people who work in Ottawa, certainly those who work in the province of Quebec, and also in parts of Ontario and other parts of Canada such as New Brunswick, there are many jobs which require these people in their daily contacts with the public and in correspondence to be completely bilingual. I do not think anybody would quarrel with that.
However, I have had a number of civil servants approach me in this regard. They wish to remain anonymous and I can understand their point of view in that respect. They have expressed concern to me, in that with regard to many competitions, which

seemed to involve branches of the civil service that really did not require people to be bilingual at all, it was provided that only bilingual applicants would be considered. There is great concern in many parts of Canada where the French language is not spoken that the only people who will be allowed to apply for these positions are people who speak French as well as English. From a practical point of view this gives a very decided advantage to people who come from the province of Quebec and parts of Ontario adjoining Quebec-


Gilles Grégoire: Why do they not become bilingual?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I hear an interesting question from the hon. member for Lapointe and I am going to reply in a minute-as well as people who live in New Brunswick. The hon. member for Lapointe has asked an obvious question. Why do people not become completely bilingual? If the hon. member for Lapointe lived in Vancouver, Calgary or London, Ontario, he might find it rather difficult to find people there who speak French very fluently. It is just a matter of practice. I can tell the member for Lapointe that I have studied French for nine or ten years and I can read and write the language almost as well as English, but because of lack of practice in speaking the language in my own part of the country, and this applies to a good many members, it is not easy to become fluent in speaking the language unless you have the opportunity to speak it daily.


Gilles Grégoire: There is no more opportunity in my area to speak English.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I think the hon. member for Lapointe realizes that his arguments are not all that logical. Taking the total population of both Canada and the United States, English is the predominant language in commercial relations, and because of necessity, I realize, many people in Quebec have a greater opportunity to learn English than people in parts of Canada not adjacent to Quebec have to learn French. I do not think there is any argument about that. It is a fact of life. Maybe it should not be that way but it is a fact of life that exists whether one likes it or not.
There is a great deal of worry among many people that persons from parts of Canada not adjacent to Quebec may not have the opportunity to join the civil service in the future. If the policy in this regard were laid down clearly I think there would be a lot less worry and concern. There is not only



13S4

[Stage Direction]
concern on the part of those who fear they may not have the opportunity to get into the civil service but also on the part of those who are already in the service and fear they cannot get promotions.
I say again we must find some practical way of approaching this problem. It is quite clear that for many positions in the civil service people must be bilingual. I think we all agree with that. On the other hand, there are clearly some positions where it should not be necessary at all and between the two extremes, of course, there are other positions where it is a little harder to define whether or not it is necessary. Again I say it is a fact of life, whether one likes it or not, that if one lives in a part of Canada where it is not easy to find the opportunity to speak French it becomes very difficult for one to do so. If the Secretary of State would lay down some policy in this regard on behalf of the civil service commission I think there would be a lot less worry and concern because people would then know what was going to happen.
In concluding this subject may I say it is quite clear that in the part of the country from which I come it would not be necessary for persons working in the national employment office for example, to speak French because I do not believe there are half a dozen people in the whole area with a reasonably fluent approach to the language. On the other hand, it is quite clear that people must speak French fluently in many parts of Ontario, particularly in the Ottawa area. I should like to hear a definite statement of policy in this regard because the matter is causing concern among those already in the civil service and also among those who will perhaps be applying for positions at some time in the future.
I think that covers most of the questions and remarks I have in mind and we would like to hear some replies from the Secretary of State as to these matters.
Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, I too should like to say a few words at this point with regard to the matters raised by the hon. member who has just spoken, and his predecessor, the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm. I am concerned about the application of bilingualism in the public service, recognizing that this is one of the declared objectives of the government toward which we are all trying to work as consistently, fairly and equitably as possible.
When we look at the stock of bilingual persons in Canada we see according to the 1961 census that one out of every eight persons declared himself or herself to be bilingual in 20220-637J
Supply-Secretary of State the two official languages, English and French. Sixty per cent of the persons who so declared themselves resided in one province, the province of Quebec. Four out of five of the persons who claimed to be bilingual can be found in the few contact areas of English and French culture, the Ottawa valley, metropolitan Montreal and northern New Brunswick.
The recruitment of an adequate stock of bilingual persons in the public service does raise serious problems of regional discrimination in the selection process. We must recognize that this is merely the measurement of the challenge because many parts of Canada have simply not faced the problem of teaching the second language adequately. This is a provincial responsibility in the first instance. A great deal could be done at the provincial level if the provincial departments of education would undertake measures to encourage competent teachers in the second official language to come from the parts of Canada where they can be recruited and to teach within the school systems of those provinces where such persons are lacking in supply.
I think for example, of the provinces of western Canada and the province of Ontario. They could make a very great contribution to national unity by encouraging people to join the elementary school systems of those provinces who have lived and have been trained in the province of Quebec. Such persons whose native tongue is French or who were perhaps unilingual people in the first instance, could go into other parts of Canada and make a contribution toward a better quality of French, a better understanding of French in the elementary schools. The problem has to be met in the school system and has to be persistently followed up through such instruments as the C.B.C., the film board, the television programs and so on which are available to us.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I do feel there is one area in which the civil service commission is to be criticized at the present time, and very sharply criticized. I refer to the determination of proficiency in two languages amongst bilingual applicants. The procedures for the measurement of language proficiency are not consistent, they are not objective. They lead to results which cannot be equivalent from one instance to another. In my opinion there is only one obvious remedy, and I would be anxious to hear the opinion of the minister on this matter. The remedy lies in the application by the civil service commission of methods of testing language

Supply-Secretary of State proficiency in English and in French, orally and written. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the civil service commission has got to break new ground and establish for applicants for jobs that are rated as bilingual, the degree of proficiency in the two languages.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm when he claimed that a bilingual bonus should be applied to those who speak the two languages. I could not agree more, provided they really know the two languages. I once asked the hon. member in an earlier debate if he considered himself to be bilingual and he said he did. I am going to say to that hon. member that I do not think his English is any better than my French and I do not believe they could rate either of us as being completely bilingual, much as we would like to be. This illustrates again the problem the civil service commission faces. A mere acquaintanceship with the two languages is not good enough in relation to the jobs that have to be performed, and the civil service commission has not faced the problem with the objective of determining a measurement of language accomplishment.
I would be very interested, Mr. Chairman, in hearing the views of the minister as to how the civil service commission attempts to make a policy rule in terms of recruitment of bilingual candidates. When it advertises for bilingual candidates, how does it test the bilingual proficiency, what methods does it propose to undertake to make sure the applicants who are recruited for bilingual jobs are in fact bilingual according to the requirements of the position?


Erik Nielsen: I just want to add one or two comments before the minister replies. My concern arises with bilingualism in the civil service but from an entirely different angle. In a recent civil service competition poster advertising for the position of northern service officer, there was included a statement in the qualifications subheading that applicants would be more favourably considered if they had a knowledge of both English and French languages. It seems to me that a knowledge of French among the Eskimos of Coppermine or a knowledge of English amongst the Indians at Old Crow, is just about as useless as horns on a boar. Rather than requiring that the applicant for a position in the department of northern affairs for service amongst the Indians and Eskimos be bilingual, perhaps additional credits might be given if the applicant were of Indian or Eskimo origin, or per-

haps if an applicant of English or French origin had a knowledge of the Indian dialect or the Eskimo dialect in the area concerned.
It seems to me that a poster that holds forth additional credits for people who speak the French language in order to obtain preference in a job for northern service is rather ridiculous. Rather than adopting this course, the commission and the department should be adopting the course of attempting to recruit from amongst the native peoples themselves in order to fill these positions, whether or not these people speak the two languages. There is a lot of excellent material there.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Just a few words, Mr. Chairman, to mention that when I talked about granting a bonus to bilingual employees, I was referring to those working in the federal service in Ottawa where all the requests from English and French are converging.
We must not go from one extreme to the other. I know that some colleagues from other parties in the house share my opinion that a bonus should be paid to a civil servant filling an important position or working in a department in Ottawa. That he should be given a bonus because he is bilingual, this is quite normal, but if some people are opposed to this, if English speaking citizens think that it is illogical. I wonder whether they find it more logical to demand that French Canadians working in Ottawa should speak English.
When a person who has the required qualifications is employed in the civil service, we cannot expect an English speaking Canadian to speak a second language, but on the other hand, we should not require that a French Canadian who wishes to obtain a position in Ottawa be able to speak English. Let us be fair. If we wish understanding and unity to prevail in this country, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
We should not require that a French Canadian civil servant speak English, nor that an English Canadian speak French.
Why should we compel most of the French Canadians who work in Ottawa to speak English, while we do not ask the English speaking candidates who wish to obtain a civil service position in Ottawa to speak French?
The blame should not be attached to either government in particular, because the same situation existed under all governments, but I wonder why French Canadians should be placed in a special category.

Why require that they be bilingual when both languages are official in this country? If both languages are official, let us be fair towards all Canadians, whether they be English or French speaking.
I hope that the minister will remain favourably disposed without ever becoming an extremist. We do not expect an English speaking Canadian stationed in the Yukon to know French. We only wish that a premium be granted to a bilingual civil servant who works in the central administration at Ottawa.
French Canadians or English Canadians should not be forced to speak a second language because the future of Canada will suffer from it. As a matter of fact, if there is now, unfortunately, a wave of extremism in some areas of Canada, a situation which I deplore very much, it is precisely because there might be a lack of understanding and a lack of justice on the part of some Canadians.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, just a few words to answer some questions asked by hon. members.
First I want to point out to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) that I made a preliminary report to the committee last week about bilingualism within the civil service, and I am convinced the hon. member will benefit from reading the statement I made then.
Indeed, the progress made in that field during the past year is only a start and I am sure that during consideration of my estimates next year, I will be in a position to report that other important measures have been taken in that respect.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) that the question he mentioned, that of examinations to determine the degree of bilingualism, does constitute an important and complicated problem.
I am convinced that the school of languages which has now been set up in Hull will provide us with new data and, possibly, with a new method of determining the various degrees of bilingualism. I am equally confident that the civil service commission will benefit from the progress made in that field and that it will be able to improve its present examinations for civil servants.

The hon. member for Oxford listed a series of grievances with respect to the civil service commission and I am sure the commission will give serious consideration to what he said. As I stated last Thursday evening, the whole
Supply-Secretary of State system of classification is now under review, and I am further informed that the commission is setting up a new division to re-examine this situation, especially with regard to collective bargaining which is on its way.
Dealing with older employees I would like to point out that 25 per cent of the appointees in 1963 were over 40 years of age. Perhaps there may be some improvement necessary but at this stage I think that is quite an achievement. I would hope private industry could show a similar record.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, in respect to the civil service commission, the whole Canadian civil service is concerned. In my opinion, there has been an improvement in the last two years in the field of bilingualism. I think that this commission shows a lot of good will.
There is no question, as a few members said a while ago, to try and ask all civil service employees to be perfectly bilingual. I think that one cannot ask those who carry the mail in Toronto or Vancouver to speak both languages. It is the same for letter carriers in Jonquiere or Quebec city; I do not feel that it is essential for them to speak English.
Today problems are facing the civil servant, whether it be in the unemployment insurance commission, the income tax branch, the administration of old age pensions or of the family allowances act, or in any other department. There is the problem of the individual with whom he is dealing and the problem of the act he has before him, an act amended on several occasions in recent years. Then we see a civil servant who is perhaps individually a very intelligent and a very competent man, but because he is faced with many regulations and acts, as well as with numerous persons who come to see him to try and solve their problems, he rather tends to follow strictly the letter of the law-it is a way of thinking which has established itself in the civil service *-when in view of the complications of the law and of cases submitted the civil service commission should try and make innovations, instead of considering every government employee as a mere machine in the face of regulations, but as individuals using their judgment, besides enforcing the law, using their imagination and initiative, not only in order to follow the law, but to go beyond and above it, which might be called reasoning according to each individual case placed before them.

Supply-Secretary of State
I shall give an example to illustrate what I mean: an employee with the unemployment insurance commission enforced the law strictly in a certain case, for which he cannot be blamed. Still, the result was no less than disastrous. A single man was working. Unemployed, he declared that he was supporting a family, but as he did not pay all the family obligations-he was supporting his mother and his brother-when he resumed work, he was asked to reimburse a certain amount to the unemployment insurance commission as he had received a weekly overpayment of $6 or $7 during six months. When the man started to work again, he was asked to reimburse that amount. As he was unable to reimburse it at that time steps were taken to have it deducted from his salary- he was working as a lumberman

and his boss fired him because he did not want to have anything to do with garnishees. At that point the individual concerned, who owed something like $180, went back on unemployment insurance and, instead of being reimbursed little by little, the commission again was forced to pay him unemployment benefits. Thus, the commission loses in the case of strict and rigid enforcement of the law.
I feel that if civil servants are asked to enforce the law strictly and rigorously, without giving at times due consideration to conditions and circumstances, without attempting to give them as much latitude as possible in their decisions, countless examples will be found of cases similar to the one I have just pointed out.
To my mind, the Secretary of State and the civil service commission might somehow guide the official's work and leave him the greatest possible scope in considering each particular case, because he is in contact with each individual and should be able to consider the particular circumstances and data of each situation.
If officials had enough scope to deal properly with certain cases which may not strictly conform with the law, better results would be obtained than the prejudice which often follows a rigid administration of the statutes.
Since we are dealing with the civil service commission and civil servants generally, I think that the commission and those responsible for the civil service in general should seek to adopt a new policy toward the civil servant and try to consider him more like a human being, like an intelligent individual upon whose judgment we can rely, in short,


give him more authority in the settlement of problems concerning civil servants.
One may observe that this may lead to complacency. I do not think so, because the civil servant will always have to act according to regulations, but we should let him use his judgment and his intelligence in the many cases where the act should not be applied to the detriment of the individual or that of the commission or the government he is serving.
In other words, and to sum up, the government should endeavour to give more authority to the civil servant so that he may perform his duties, his mission, not only in respect of the act but also toward those who consult him, bearing in mind the circumstances surrounding each particular case, the job he has to perform. For instance, an unemployment insurance inspector often has to say: In your case, I have no authority to rule in such or such a way, although I know that in this particular case the act is not clear. This happens regularly. But this is due to the fact that the civil servant is not authorized to decide for himself what should be done in the case before him.
Perhaps one might say that this would be making innovations in a somewhat daring way; but if we start breaking new ground along those lines, if the civil servant is progressively given more leeway, perhaps our civil service will be more competent in a decade, not because civil servants are not efficient now, but probably because they are not given enough leeway to make decisions by themselves which they are not allowed to make according to their own judgment. In many cases, that would eliminate a lot of bureaucracy and transfers of responsibility that would eliminate the submission of many decisions to mediators or appeal commissions; in short it would get our civil servants used to face the current facts of life and make decisions according to their good judgment, and not always according to a lot of regulations which are amended and make their situation complicated as well as the life of the person who has to deal with the officials in a given department. I think that at this time our Canadian citizens and especially the civil servants in the employ of the Canadian governments are competent and able to show sufficient judgment, intelligence and reasoning to be allowed to use those qualities and make decisions by themselves, even if at times it is not always according to the spirit of the

law, because the law can be complicated and not applicable to all individual cases.
If our civil servants were allowed to decide by themselves in several of the cases submitted to them, this would eliminate the bureaucratic character, if I might say so, ascribed to them.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one or two questions concerning the operation of the commission. I notice the estimates provide for an increase of some $488,000 as compared with last year. As far as I can see, the largest single item in this connection represents an increase in wages and salaries paid to people in the employ of the commission. I notice, also, there has been no significant change in the total number of positions authorized in the establishment of the commission. However, it appears there has been a change in the composition of the commission's staff-a decrease in the number of clerical staff and an increase in certain categories of senior administrative and professional personnel. Could the minister explain to the committee the significance of these changes? What direction are we moving in which would result in a need for a change in the composition of this commission as compared with previous years?


Maurice Lamontagne: I understand there was a significant increase in salaries in effect for part of the year and, in addition, a number of reclassifications which I presume were being made as the commission is redefining its role and getting prepared for certain new arrangements which will be made as a result of the implementation of the recommendations of the Glassco commission. The language school is included in these estimates and it constitutes a net addition to the expenditure and to the staff.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In other words the increase is partly attributable to the development of the language school and partly to the appointment and higher salaries of professional personnel.
I see there has been a relatively substantial increase in the provision for travelling and removal expenses. I do not know whether any special significance attaches to this. Further on in the details of expenditures there is an indication of an increase of $100,000 in the amount provided for advertising for recruiting purposes. The amount has risen from $250,000 to $350,000, which is an increase of almost half as much again.
Supply-Secretary of State Can the minister tell us the reason for this large increase?


Maurice Lamontagne: This was due, I presume, to the increase in recruiting activity which took place at the end of the austerity program. In particular it was needed to meet the demands of the new Department of Industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Privy council
Economic Council ot Canada-
35. Administration $817,920.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall this item
carry?


Maurice Lamontagne: I made a report on the economic council last week and we had some discussion about it. The item was not approved, but at this stage, at least, I have nothing to add.


Mr. Lamberl:: Let us go back and consider what happened last Thursday when this matter was discussed. The minister's estimates were under consideration from eight o'clock to ten o'clock and the committee dealt with four or five items directly under the administration of his department. I can hardly agree with him that an extensive statement was made.
On a previous occasion, when we were discussing interim supply, we did discuss this matter. We asked what the economic council was doing. We did so because the council had been introduced with a great fanfare of trumpets to replace the national development council, but since that time we have not heard a great deal about it. I notice that as reported on page 9811 of Hansard the minister made a few remarks in connection with the council but I suggest he may be in a position now to add to what was said on that occasion. With the greatest respect I do not think that the two-hour discussion on Thursday indicates that this is all the consideration which need be given to the activities of the various agencies which come within the jurisdiction of the hon. gentleman.


Maurice Lamontagne: No.


Norman Platt Lambert: I know he had a few remarks to add this afternoon so perhaps we might have them en passant.


Maurice Lamontagne: I have nothing to add to what I said last Thursday about the economic council. All I said at that time was that the economic council had picked up its staff in its first year of existence and that its first objective had been to get into a posi-

Supply-Secretary of State tion to present its first annual review, which will appear in December of this year and will contain a forecast and an outline of economic problems for the period between 1965 and 1970. That is more or less the gist of what I said at that time, although I also went on to explain the activities of the council and also to point out the number of meetings, etc.
I do not think I have anything to add at this moment in regard to the economic council itself. The hon. member may know that at this stage I am not seeking to have the estimates of all the other agencies passed. As soon as we can deal with the economic council I intend to make a rather elaborate statement on the so-called cultural agencies of the federal government, including the C.B.C.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There was one point on which I thought the minister might be able to help us some more. I have had an opportunity to read the remarks he made the other day and I think he hinted at this, or touched on it briefly. It seems to me that the national development council had moved to a considerable extent in getting joint studies and shall we say a spirit of co-operation between management, labour and government, which area was most promising. The minister did give a few hints in this regard and I was wondering whether he could elaborate now. Unless he feels that this matter should be held until next month when the report will be coming forward, how far has the economic council gone in furtherance of this particular work? Because we have not heard a thing from the economic council since its foundation.


Maurice Lamontagne: You have not read the papers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, surely the minister is not suggesting that because these reports are contained in newspaper summaries the members of this house must rely on the newspapers for reports from government agencies. I do not think the minister is trying to give that impression.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to tell the hon. member that last Monday and Tuesday there was held in Ottawa an important seminar on management-labour relations. This seminar was held under the auspices of the economic council, and the event was widely publicized in the papers. It was preceded by four major studies in this field, which were considered, analysed and discussed during these two days. There were
[Mr. Lamontagne.l

at least 150 leaders from all sectors of the economy attending. This shows that the work which was started by the national productivity council is being continued and activated by the economic council.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, in relation to the last remarks of the minister I would say that I had an opportunity of talking to one of the people at the conference, one of the labour representatives, who informed me that the session had been rather illuminating and rather interesting. However, the particular point I want to make to the minister has to do with his remarks the other evening in which he said the highest priority in the program of the economic council is being given to the first of the annual reviews on Canada's medium and long term prospects, and he made reference to the fact that its report will be published in December.
The question I would ask the minister is whether or not it is the intention of the government, once this report has been received from the economic council, to revive its action on the proposal for a Canada development corporation, which can perhaps activate some of the studies reproduced in this report on the long range prospects of Canada issued by the economic council.


Maurice Lamontagne: Well, Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows, this Canada development corporation is part of the program of the present government and its establishment will be announced as soon as possible. It has nothing to do directly with the economic council.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister says that it is part of the program of the present government. My observation is that we certainly have not seen much indication of that recently. Some of us are beginning to wonder whether it really is part of the program of the present government. I think the minister will also realize that in posing this question I am implying that any useful outcome of the activities of the economic council is, it seems to me, inevitably related to some form of action along the lines suggested by the Canada development corporation.


Maurice Lamontagne: The hon. member might reserve his question for the Minister of Finance when the estimates of the Department of Finance are before the committee.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister is not going to pass the buck to his colleague, I hope.


Maurice Lamontagne: But that is not my
responsibility.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
As there are also economic councils in at least one province, and even in several provinces, and also some regional economic councils, has the Canada economic council been in touch with the regional or provincial economic councils? Is the work done in cooperation by all those councils?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated last week, the economic council of Canada works in close co-operation with similar provincial agencies.
Meetings are being held regularly, and as soon as the economic council of Canada publishes its annual review, it intends to call another meeting of all provincial agencies directly or indirectly interested in its research.


Gilles Grégoire: A further question, Mr. Chairman. Could the Secretary of State tell us whether the economic council of Canada makes use of the work already done by the economic development board, an organization which existed before the council, and whether it makes it a point to pursue the work already started by the economic development board?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, the duties to be carried out by the national economic development board have simply been transferred to the economic council of Canada which is trying, as much as possible, not only to carry out previous projects but to undertake new ones.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he give us detailed explanation about the duties of the 11 employees, under the heading "administration and professions" whose salaries range from $15,000 to $19,000? Are they economists, office managers, and so on? Can the minister tell us about it?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, of course I do not have any detailed information at this time.
However, the president of the economic council as well as the vice president, the permanent director and the other members of the council themselves have come to the conclusion that the council should have a very small staff. In fact, there is no intention of going much over a hundred employees and, of course, that number includes office employees, stenographers, secretaries, etc.
However, the council itself wants to concentrate on professional services and that is
Supply-Secretary of State how it managed to secure the services of a good number of economists from practically all quarters. Some are permanently employed by the council, others are just on loan from other government departments and even from labour unions or private industry.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I take it from what the minister has said that in addition to the relatively small group to which he has referred there is an intention to obtain the co-operation of private organizations. I believe at one time it was the policy to second, borrow or use the services of individuals connected with corporations to further, or supplement the work of the council. That is the situation as I understand it.


Maurice Lamontagne: That is exactly the situation. A small nucleus of professional people will carry on the work in collaboration with individuals invited from all corners.


George Clyde Nowlan: That was the original intention. [Translation]


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Does the economic council of Canada deal specifically with such urgent problems as that of the industrialization of rural areas?
Does the economic council of Canada deem that one of the most vulnerable areas of our economy is eastern agriculture? Even if special agencies have been established, such as the ARDA program, in order to promote eastern agriculture, does the council intend to foster expansion, and if such is the case, what steps, if any, have been taken in this connection?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, as I said in my general statement, the economic council of Canada was created in 1964. Its main objective was to organize a research group and promote research so it could submit a general report on the Canadian economy; this report will be published in December, 1964.
That project had some scope, believe me, Mr. Chairman.
According to its terms of reference, the economic council of Canada will study the regional aspect of our problems, and I trust that as soon as its first report is published, this agency will turn to other aspects, including the regional one of our economic problems. [Text]


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-C.B.C.

[Stage Direction]
1. Grant in respect oi the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service, $85,900,000.
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, as I explained last Thursday evening when I introduced the estimates of my department, I now intend to make a second general statement devoted to the so-called cultural institutions, namely the C.B.C., the B.B.G., the national film board, the national museum, the national gallery, the department of public printing and stationery, the public archives and the national library.


Erik Nielsen: And the Canadian Liberal federation.


Maurice Lamontagne: That is not cultural.
This statement will be in the nature of a progress report on these various agencies and, although it will appear to be too long, it will certainly contribute to and shorten my participation in this debate.
When the estimates of these agencies have been approved, I propose to make a third and final statement on the estimates of the centennial commission.


Gerald William Baldwin: Plus many explanations.


Maurice Lamontagne: That will depend on you.
I hope that the discussion which will follow my report will be a constructive one. In recent months most of the agencies for which I am responsible have been re-examining their activities and their administrative structures in the light of what are or should be their national goals. When these reappraisals are completed, and I hope they will be in the first part of 1965, new legislation will be needed in several cases to bring about necessary changes. That is why I hope we will have a constructive discussion during this debate, and that the members of the committee will not hesitate to make suggestions, so that we can take them into account in drafting the legislation. This is the time to improve and strengthen our national institutions. This is not the time to weaken and destroy them.

Before submitting my report on the various federal cultural institutions, I would like hon. members to consider for a few minutes at least, the need of a more co-ordinated and dynamic federal policy, as well as the general aims of such a policy.
As I have said on various occasions, there is a considerable lack of balance between our material and cultural developments, between
[The Chairman,]
the body and the spirit of our nation. In the economic field, the pace of our development has been very rapid, more particularly since the start of the 20th century, and we have now reached one of the highest standards of living in the world. To achieve this, of course we called upon private enterprise, but, on the other hand, we did not hesitate to ask for help from the state, either to stimulate individual initiative, or to complement it.
With respect to culture, we have drawn our inspiration far too much from the American tradition, and not enough from the European. We have left our cultural development almost exclusively in the hands of individuals and private organizations, whose potential is necessarily limited, in spite of occasionally outstanding efforts. As a consequence, our cultural life is anaemic and dangerously exposed to American encroachment. Moreover, to the extent that they have progressed, our main cultures have developed in isolation, for a lack of opportunities and financial means constituted the major obstacle to the setting up of frequent and worthy contacts.
Our poorness and, perhaps even more, our cultural isolation largely account for the present tension in Canada which, in many cases, is due to frustration on the part of those who are forced to live on the fringe of our society.
Encouragement to research and creative work in the field of humanities and social sciences is clearly insufficient. In spite of heroic sacrifices on the part of certain individuals, our artistic groups can barely survive and, even in Canada, their influence is mostly local in scope. Popular culture is having a hard time getting organized. Even amateur sport has its difficulties.
This lack of culture is the more tragic in our contemporary society that technical and economic progress leave more time for leisure and creative activities. Our society will truly be a failure if after having taken the human element out of man's work, it does not succeed in uplifting his moments of leisure. [Text]
Moreover, as long as we fail to build a strong cultural life and to develop frequent exchanges between our cultures, I am quite sure we will continue to be uneasy about our country and worried about its future, that many young Canadians will continue to leave Canada and to be more interested in other countries than in ours, and that we will continue to ask if Canada constitutes a nation because we will have failed to develop a real Canadian identity.

On the other hand, Canadian history shows that cultural expansion and more frequent cultural contacts will not come about by themselves or through the sole efforts of individuals and private groups. The experience of other countries, with the possible exception of the United States, confirms our own. This is why I am convinced that our cultural life needs both protection against impoverishment and stimulus to improvement and that a deliberate effort to these ends, in which each sphere of government within its own jurisdiction will play its full role, is not only justified but most urgently needed.
Up to now I have tried to show the need for a cultural policy in Canada and what ought to be its general objectives. I should like now to indicate how it should attempt to reach those goals. In the first place, it should give assistance to individuals and private cultural groups-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, since the minister's staff has been kind enough to distribute copies of this speech to the press generally and to people in the officials' gallery, I wonder whether copies of this rather long and important statement could be distributed to the chief representatives of the parties in the house. After all, the minister is speaking to the house, not to the press representatives, and if he expects intelligent comment, which I think one can expect both from hon. members on the government side and on this side, copies of this statement should be made available to us. I am not singling out the minister in this regard because I have made this point to some of his colleagues. I have said before that if a minister is going to read a lengthy statement which has been carefully prepared and distributed to outside agencies, then certainly a number of copies should be made available within the house so members may comment on it with a little more care and preparation.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I was not aware that copies had been made available to the press, but I would be quite happy to have copies made available to the representatives of the parties in the house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is not that I am complaining about the press getting it but rather that I should like members to get it too.


Maurice Lamontagne: I have no objection at all and I hope somebody will be able to take care of the matter as I go along.
Supply-C.B.C.
I was saying that in trying to reach these goals a proper cultural policy for Canada would be, in the first place, to give assistance to individuals and private cultural groups to enable them to improve themselves and to travel and to perform in Canada and abroad. This is an essential element of a cultural policy in a society like ours which relies primarily on private initiative.
The centennial commission has begun to offer assistance for such purposes and I will have more to say about it on another occasion. The government is studying ways and means of fostering a feature film industry in Canada and I have already announced our intention to establish a loan fund, which we think would be very helpful. We have given a special grant to the Canadian conference on the arts to organize a seminar next February on the situation of the arts in Canada. This meeting will give us, I hope, an overall picture of the needs and requirements in this sector for 1967.
The Canada Council was established to help individuals and groups and it has done since 1957 a most remarkable job in spite of its limited resources. More recently it has been suggested that we should increase the funds available to the council. Others have proposed that the council should be restricted to the arts and that a national research centre for the humanities and the social sciences ought to be established. We are considering these various proposals at the moment and we will announce our decision in 1965.
In the second place, a cultural policy for Canada requires public cultural agencies in certain sectors where exclusive reliance on private initiative is undesirable and which fall within federal jurisdiction. These agencies must serve national purposes and help to develop the Canadian identity. They must be acceptable to the greatest possible number of Canadians, not only to the national capital or to a restricted group. They must reflect the true picture of our country and they cannot afford to succumb to extremism. They must encourage creation with due regard to administrative efficiency.
It is in the light of these and other requirements that a serious reappraisal is now in process. Two important steps have already been taken. A cabinet committee on cultural matters has been established and, for the first time in our history, all federal cultural agencies have been brought under the same ministerial roof. Moreover, as soon as the preliminary reappraisal is completed in each individual agency I intend to set up an in-

Supply-C.B.C.
teragency committee. Such a committee will serve several useful purposes, without reducing or weakening the independence of the institutions. It will enable them to meet at regular intervals to discuss their common goals and problems, to try to improve the co-ordination of their activities, to prevent duplication and fill the gaps that may exist.
In addition, the time may have come to establish the relationship between parliament and those agencies on a more proper and continuing basis. It may have become desirable to establish a standing committee of parliament on cultural matters. All agencies responsible to parliament could be asked in succession to appear before the committee to report on their current activities and on their plans. These meetings could be most useful, I am sure, both for parliament and for the agencies themselves.
I should like now to make a rather brief progress report on each individual agency and, to begin with, broadcasting, the B.B.G. and the C.B.C. As I have said on earlier occasions, and I think it should be repeated here, there are several problems and questions involving both public and private broadcasting in Canada which must be solved and answered as soon as possible. One of the major problems is the lack of clarity and the shortcomings of the Broadcasting Act of 1958. Unfortunately the Broadcasting Act did not solve what Albert A. Shea in his book "Broadcasting the Canadian Way" called "the one basic issue... to which all others are related: what are the aims and purposes of broadcasting in Canada and how can broadcasting best be organized to achieve these objectives?"
Dr. Andrew Stewart, chairman of the board of broadcast governors, has publicly told of the board's distress at this lack of clarity in the act and the resulting confusion and conflict in its other provisions. Hence, confusion exists about the aims and roles of public and private broadcasting in Canada, about the relations between the C.B.C. and private broadcasting, about the powers of the C.B.C. and the B.B.G., and about the extension of television broadcasting.
On the question of the board's authority, for instance, certain clauses of part I of the Broadcasting Act can be interpreted to mean that the B.B.G. has complete jurisdiction over all Canadian broadcasting, but other clauses in part II can be construed to mean that the C.B.C. is independent of the B.B.G. in certain instances. By its vagueness, then, the act has set up potential conflicts between the C.B.C. and the B.B.G., both organizations apparently

operating from different, necessarily self-defined premises. The Grey cup issue was a notable example of this confused and difficult situation.
Similarly, Dr. Stewart-quite rightly I think-has alluded to the fuzziness of the act about the extension of television service in Canada. This, too, has caused certain disagreements because the C.B.C. apparently feels that it should decide, with the concurrence of the governor in council, what stations it can establish, while the B.B.G. is not at all certain that this is a correct interpretation of the act.
Should the C.B.C. have first call on all television station applications? Should it have its own stations across the country or should it depend partly upon affiliates? In other words, should the C.B.C. in future work towards a B.B.C. type system of station ownership, or should the C.B.C. system be different to fit a different Canadian situation? More generally, should there be statutory conditions under which television stations can be established by public or private broadcasters? These questions must have answers and the answers obviously depend upon what kind of Canadian broadcasting system is desired -single, dual or mixed.
Apart from these general questions and problems raised by the uncertainty of the Broadcasting Act, there are related subjects pertaining specifically to the C.B.C. The structural organization of the corporation is one of them. The Glassco commission made some general comments about the structural organization of the C.B.C. and if the Glassco inferences are well founded, important changes must be made in the corporation. At the moment the C.B.C. itself has a small "Glassco committee" studying the corporation's structures. Undoubtedly it would be useful to make serious appraisal of the findings of that study.
The government also feels that there should be a serious look at the whole C.B.C. financing picture, both short term and long term.
Included in a study of C.B.C. financing, of course, is the subject of advertising and its ramifications in terms of Canadian broadcasting, public and private.
Also involved in C.B.C. financing are the costs of C.B.C. consolidation projects like those contemplated for Montreal and Toronto. In turn, these consolidation projects may influence the future development of Canadian private producers and technical facilities whose general role vis-a-vis the C.B.C. merits serious study and consideration. The

Glassco commission had something to say about this last item, but again its remarks were rather general. There are other problems, such as the standards of programs both on the C.B.C. networks and in private stations which I do not wish to raise at this stage.
When the present government assumed office, it was already aware of those urgent and complex problems. In May 1963, my predecessor, the Minister of Transport, asked three gentlemen-Dr. Stewart, chairman of the B.B.G., Mr. Ouimet, president of the C.B.C. and Mr. Jamieson, the president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters-to consider some of the problems and questions I have cited here. The joint report of the so-called troika and the three separate reports of its members were tabled in the house on May 25. We were not surprised to see the limited areas of agreement shown in those reports because when my predecessor had announced the creation of the troika, he had described it as "an essential first step to a new definition of public policy" and as a preliminary step to a public inquiry.
When those reports were tabled in the house, I immediatedly announced the establishment of an advisory committee on broadcasting with comprehensive terms of reference and experienced members. The Fowler committee has since been hard at work. Numerous briefs are being received from individuals and private groups. The most recent developments in the United States and Europe are being carefully considered. Expert consultants have been assigned special studies on particular problems including the structural organization, the methods of operation and the main consolidation projects of the C.B.C. I have and the government has complete confidence in the committee and its work. When its report has been submitted in the first part of 1965 as expected, it will be made public immediately; the government will introduce new legislation as soon as possible thereafter and, at the proper stage, the proposed measure will be referred to a parliamentary committee. The examination that such a committee will then be in a position to make will, I am sure, be most useful.
It would seem that very few people are satisfied at the moment with present legislation and arrangements in the field of broadcasting. Private broadcasters, of course, are here to stay. They have a very important role to play in our community life. They know that this role is not limited to presenting more American shows than the C.B.C. does
Supply-C.B.C.
or programs of lower quality than those of the public network. They are more and more conscious of the fact that they are not exempted from their public responsibility only because consumers may pay a greater share of their costs than taxpayers. However, they also realize that it is very difficult to improve and, at the same time, continue to compete, if common standards are not applied to all.
A number of Canadians believe that the administrative efficiency of the C.B.C. and the content of certain of its programs should be improved and that the corporation should be more conscious of the national and public interests it has to serve. No doubt improvements are called for. Some are being made at the present moment; others will have to wait the implementation of new legislation or the completion of the consolidation projects. It is equally evident that an institution like the C.B.C., operating in such a complex and touchy field of activities will never be able to fulfil its true role with dynamism and creative imagination and satisfy everybody at the same time. This certainly does not mean that the right to criticize the C.B.C. should be denied or that the corporation should not be accessible to parliamentary supervision. It does not mean either that the C.B.C. should become cynical about criticism and negative when sound suggestions are made. It means that criticism and supervision must be such as to strengthen and improve the C.B.C., not to weaken and destroy it.
The C.B.C. has a very high reputation in the world. The rank it has gained among the broadcasting systems of the world and the great number of international awards it has won prove it. It is the envy of a great number of other countries and people including many Americans. The C.B.C. has made a major contribution to the development of our country in the fields of entertainment, information and knowledge. It has enriched our intellectual life by helping our artists and our artistic groups. It has made culture in its broad and truly human sense, more accessible to the general public. The C.B.C. is one of Canada's most vital and essential institutions, at this crucial moment of our history. The C.B.C. must become more than ever before a living and daily testimony of the Canadian identity, a faithful reflection of our two main cultures and a powerful element of understanding, moderation and unity in our country. If it performs these national tasks with efficiency, its occasional mistakes will be easily forgiven; if it fails in that

Supply- C.B.C.
mission, its other achievements will not compensate for that failure. I know that the management of the C.B.C. has been and continues to be very conscious of those vital tasks and of that great challenge.
Turning now to the national film board:
The philosophy I have just outlined with respect to the C.B.C. applies equally well to the national film board. The board has celebrated its 25th anniversary in 1964. During this relatively long period, its work has reached a very high standard of excellence and its films have faithfully reflected Canada's social, cultural and economic evolution. Over the years, with respect to each of its functions, as laid down in section 9 of the act, the board has made a valuable contribution. This is especially true with respect to its main function which is the production and distribution of films in the national interest and particularly of films designed to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other nations.
During that period, however, our country has witnessed drastic changes which require a new image to be adequately reflected. The advent and the rapid expansion of television has created a new and growing need for films, in addition to the theatrical and community audiences and to increasing government requirements. I do not believe that these changes require a revision of the functions of the board as defined by parliament in 1950. As the new demands were met, however, there may have been a shift in priorities due also to limited resources, and certain functions assigned to the board may not have been discharged as fully as it was desirable. The chairman and the members of the board are aware of this situation. 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 precisely its audiences, in relation to their needs and to the purposes the board pursues.
The board is also considering at the moment the desirability of a film training center in Canada and the means through which this could be achieved. The board's great reputa-

tion abroad has convinced many developing countries that one of the best places to send their future film-makers for training would be in Canada. If this could be done, it would be also to our advantage because it would further increase our prestige and our influence abroad. However, the board does not have adequate training facilities and programs to meet these requests. There is also a growing demand in Canada for such facilities and programs. The provinces are more and more interested in the production of films for their own purposes. Moreover, the private film industry has made real progress recently and will grow even more rapidly in the immediate future, if parliament approves our program of assistance, which will be submitted early next year. In view of these growing needs for trained people both in Canada and abroad, we may have reached the point where it is both feasible and desirable that a comprehensive film training center be established in Canada. As soon as the board will have presented its recommendations in this respect, I will be pleased to announce the intentions of the government.
With the reappraisal of the board's activities which is taking place at the present time, with the assistance program now under preparation to encourage the production of private feature films in Canada, with the consideration being given to the establishment of a film training centre, I believe that we are taking all the preliminary steps which are required for the establishment, on a realistic basis, of a dynamic, well integrated film industry in Canada, which will fill an important cultural gap and will make us less dependant on foreign sources of supply.
Turning now to the national museum:
The national museum is going through a phase of fundamental reorganization which has been too long delayed. In July 1961, the former government directed that a Canadian historical museum be ready by July 1, 1967, which would include the human history branch of the present museum, the war museum and other material; that a Canadian museum of natural history be established; and that a building or buildings be ready for occupation by the Canadian history museum by early 1966 and the natural history museum as soon as possible thereafter.
On January 24, 1963, a resolution respecting the national museum of Canada and the establishment of different branches was moved in the House of Commons but it never came up for discussion. When our government came into office, almost two years had gone by,

since July 1961, without any concrete steps having been taken, beyond the planning stage, to provide the museum with new buildings and a new administrative set-up.
Meanwhile the priorities had changed. The arts alliance of Ottawa had prepared a comprehensive report which showed quite clearly that what the national capital needed most for the proper celebrations of the centennial was a Canadian centre for the performing arts. The government accepted that conclusion. With that decision and the other priorities in the government construction program for the national capital area, it became almost physically impossible to realize the plans made for the museum in 1961.
The government has therefore decided to start the construction of the new museum during the fiscal year 1965-66 but to proceed at a slower pace than previously contemplated. Present plans provide for the completion of the first phase of the project at the Woods building and Roxborough apartments site in 1968. The second phase, which is to take place where the present temporary headquarters of national defence are located, would be completed as soon as possible thereafter.
As to the legislation designed to improve the prestige of the museum and to provide for its reorganization, I intend to introduce it during the next session of parliament.
I regret these delays, which do not mean, however, that nothing will be done in the interval. The government is prepared to enable the museum to increase its activities, to improve its collections and exhibits and to plan for its future development. We are well aware of two immediate needs which must be met.
In the first place, it is not an easy task to plan for the museum complex that we envisage. Although we have complete confidence in those devoted civil servants who are responsible for the museum, they would feel much more at ease and willing to use their creative imagination and their expert knowledge if they could readily seek the views and the reactions of an advisory group. The experience we have had with such groups in planning the arts center has been most valuable in this respect. I think, therefore, it might be desirable to establish an advisory committee composed of experts and of other people interested in this field to review the plans for the new buildings, and to give their views on the preparation of programs and activities which should be initiated by the museums as the new buildings become available.
Supply-C.B.C.
In the second place, it is quite clear that there is in Canada an acute scarcity of trained personnel in regard to the growing demand of existing museums and the future requirements of new museums which will be completed in 1967 or soon after. I will ask the proposed advisory committee to look at this problem as a matter of great priority and to propose immediate and long term solutions, including if necessary, a special program of grants and scholarships.
More than 500,000 people visited the national museum, the war museum and the aviation museum in 1963. It is expected that attendance records will be substantially higher in 1964. We hope also that the national museum will be able in the future to work in closer co-operation with provincial and other museums and to make available to them some of its exhibits and collection of objects so that this great national institution will be accessible not only to Ot-tawans and to those who visit the national capital but also to the greatest number of Canadians in various parts of the country.
Turning now to other agencies:
Finally, I would like to deal very briefly with the other cultural agencies. The national gallery needs a new structural organization which will provide greater flexibility and enhance its prestige. New legislation is now being prepared and will be introduced during the next session.
The Glassco commission recommended the separation of the printing bureau from the printing and stationery department and the creation of a new office called the queen's publisher. The separation has been made but special legislation is required to create the new office. The future role and attributions of the queen's publisher are now under review and the new legislation will be ready for consideration next year.
The public archives and the national library are also going through a period of transition. The new building is scheduled to be completed in the latter part of 1966. Apart from its other normal activities, the archives expects to resume in 1965 the publication of documentary volumes which was interrupted by the war. The first volume will be a collection of unpublished documents relating to Champlain and his times. A second volume of Champlain documents should follow in
1966.	A comprehensive edition of the letters of Sir John A. Macdonald is in preparation and the first volumes will be published in
1967.	They will be the first of a long series

Supply-C.B.C.
which will include the letters of all the prime ministers.
In anticipation of the completion of the new building, the book purchasing program of the national library is being expanded. In order to avoid needless duplication and to discover the most important gaps in the government's book resources, the national librarian, in co-operation with the chief librarian of the national research council is making a survey of all government libraries in order to secure up to date details of their collections and book purchasing policies. Although the national library gives first priority to the acquisition of publications relating to Canada, the ultimate aim is that in co-operation with other government libraries in Ottawa, it should provide a comprehensive book collection covering all major subjects.
The legislative measures which will be submitted to the house, the elaboration of new programs and the improvements to existing ones, should go a long way in fostering in Canada a new awareness of our immense intellectual and spiritual resources and in developing to the fullest measure our cultural potential.
The debate going on today in Quebec and throughout Canada gives ample proof that cultural and spiritual values transcend the more material exigencies of our Canadian existence. Many of the difficulties in achieving greater Canadian unity, a unity which must be based on moderation, good will and mutual respect, may be traced to a lack of cultural progress and to neglect of our more human values. Government policy in this field has many pitfalls. It must avoid the creation of state regimented cultures by doing too much, and it must beware of abrogating its true responsibilities by doing too little. The government must direct its efforts to assisting in the development of all our gifted creative talents and yet its cultural programs must be established in such a way as to assure a broad popular participation.
Culture has too long been confused in the popular mind with something exclusive, and pretentious. This situation only leads to a wider gap between the cultural level of a few and the cultural level of many. Our efforts should be directed to bridging this gap. Our aim should be to provide the catalyst whereby our diverse cultures, which find expression in many fields, from ballet to folkdancing, from Camus to Leacock, can grow and flourish through more frequent contacts and exchanges. Government policy must also be directed to making the fruits of our cul-

tural achievements of greater benefit to more Canadians in more distant parts of the country.
The general program I have announced today constitutes not so much a radical departure from previous government policy as it reflects an awareness of the greater need in our complex and troubled society for greater cultural and spiritual efforts. This is a task to which all Canadians of good will must lend their efforts, in which both public and private groups must participate and in which, I am sure, hon. members will find common agreement.


George Clyde Nowlan: Many of us have sat here in this place on Friday afternoons when estimates were being brought forward-usually a handful of members from the maritimes and from western Canada were present-and the function of the minister was to make as short an address as possible, to get as much supply as possible, and to have votes passed for as many dollars as possible. This has been the practice on Friday afternoons for a number of years, in fact for as long as I have been here.
This afternoon, however, we have seen a unique departure from that practice. We have seen a minister bringing forward a philosophical, a lengthy and, I will say, a learned and able dissertation on some of the cultural problems with which this country is faced. It is by way of a unique experience and it is an initiative on which I commend the hon. gentleman at this time. Certainly, what he has said is worthy of careful consideration.
Since it is now ten minutes to five, and since private members' hour begins in ten minutes' time, I am sure the minister would be horribly insulted if anybody attempted to deal at length with his estimates in the short time we now have left to us. I had thought the minister would follow the policy pursued by many of his predecessors, some of them seated on that side of the house and some on this, when we attempted to do as much as possible in such a short time. But since he has chosen not to follow that practice-and I am by no means criticizing him for this- any notes I had made on the administration of the C.B.C. would be out of place, at the present time and I do not intend to deal with the subject at any length.
The minister raised interesting questions with respect to cultural development and the development of the Canadian nation as such. I recall reading a paper some years ago by

the president of the Canadian historical association. The writer asked the question: Is there a Canada; is there a Canadian nation? He answered that question affirmatively but he also said, as the hon. gentleman himself hinted this afternoon, that Canadians are prone to take their livers out, prop them up on their knees and examine them introspectively to find out whether they are suffering from cirrhosis or some other ailment. I think there is this introspective quality among Canadians, an inferiority complex even, which requires a careful study. Possibly the minister in his statement this afternoon opened the way to a discussion of that matter at some time in the future, but certainly not this afternoon.
The minister referred specifically to the various agencies for which he is responsible. He referred to the board of broadcast governors, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to others and he mentioned the fact that there are conflicts and ambiguities in relation particularly to the act which should be clarified. With that I quite agree. When the minister responsible for that legislation first introduced it into the house he said that it was something of an experiment, that there were bound to be difficulties emerging in connection with its administration.
We were facing a situation at that time which was novel. Up until then the C.B.C. had complete control of all agencies so far as broadcasting was concerned. Pressure was put on the C.B.C., and incidentally on the government, to set up a regulatory body and the government of that day felt its way along the pathway. I think it felt its way fairly well, but undoubtedly far from perfectly. Then they set up the B.B.G. In introducing the legislation the minister at that time stated it would certainly require amendment and careful study, and he thought that within three or four years parliament would have to review the whole situation. I am glad to hear that the minister agrees with the minister of that day and apparently he intends to revise this legislation. There are one or more committees now studying the whole problem, and it is certainly one worthy of very careful study.
The committee of this house has spent some considerable time, particularly on interim supply, in relation to the C.B.C. There were many questions asked during those days which I think the minister is expected to answer. The fact that they were asked and that the minister will deal with them-I hope -will justify at least to some extent what
Supply-C.B.C.
sometimes alleged in certain quarters not too far removed from over our right shoulders-I refer to the press gallery-to be a waste of time on interim supply, because the more these matters are worked over in interim supply and the more the minister answers them now, the less time will have to be spent on the estimates of the C.B.C. itself.
I am not one of those, Mr. Chairman-I am sure I do not need to tell the committee this -who feels that parliament or the government should dispose of the C.B.C. I think the C.B.C. has performed and is performing an integral service in the development of the Canadian nation. I would deprecate any suggestion that we should do away with or should sell, or anything of that kind, this corporation. After all, it was established many years ago; and without indulging in any partisan memories I would just like to say it was set up by a Conservative government under Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. I see the minister is shaking his head; I appreciate some vague efforts were made in this regard by the preceding government, but the government of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett brought it to fruition. Although changes have been made from time to time by parliament and there have been many investigations, complaints and inquiries, every time the answer comes back that the C.B.C. is an essential part of our development and deserves the support of this country. And I agree with that.
However, this does not mean I agree with all of the actions of the C.B.C. at this time. Frankly I feel that the C.B.C. is required to exercise more self-discipline perhaps than it has heretofore. If it does not I am afraid that the government, or even parliament, will be pressured into exercising that discipline, and it will be necessary so to exercise it. I am not talking now about programming. Many of the programs of the C.B.C. I think are excellent; I think some of them are atrocious. But after all, that is only my opinion and I think in this area we are all entitled to our own opinions and the C.B.C. should not be criticized in this regard.
There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when I sat where the present minister now sits, and there was not one day that I did not receive between 25 and 50 letters. Half a dozen of them would be blasphemous. Well, they would not exactly be blasphemous because the authors of them would not indulge in blasphemy, but they were expressing opinions about what were called indecent and obscene programs produced by the C.B.C. and tele-

Supply-C.B.C.
vised on a certain night. Then again another dozen or so letters would tell me what a wonderful program it was and what a great thing it was to have me as minister and to see programs on the C.B.C. by independent producers. So there is no way in which you can deal with programming per se.
I think in the area of finance there does need to be a little discipline exercised. Although I am only dealing with small details at the moment, frankly when these estimates come again I intend to spend some little time dealing with the paper which the minister has put before us this afternoon and which I did not anticipate; therefore I am only dealing with the mechanical aspects at the moment.
I think there could perhaps be some criticism of the C.B.C. in some of its expenditures, for example in sending camera parties here, there and everywhere, to places where we have good existing media of communications. I think it is true that there were more cameramen present at the Olympic games in Tokyo than there were medals won. I think that that is a particular area deserving careful examination.
I am also directly concerned-I am mentioning this now because I know the minister will deal with it later on-with one particular item of his expenditures, and that is the loan amounting to $14,500,000 or $14,250,000 to the corporation. Loans have been made in the old days. I am not criticizing any government for this. Possibly they were made under the government of R. B. Bennett, but the point is that they have been built up, built up and built up until the minister concerned had millions of dollars under loan, all of which was impossible of repayment. To make a loan to the C.B.C. is the same as giving a snowball to a fireman in a furnace room and expecting him to return it tomorrow morning. The snowball of course will have evaporated just in the same way as this money is spent. To call it a loan is a euphemistic statement of the most extreme kind. In addition to the money listed in the public account we also have this $14,250,000 loan, which as I said is a euphemistic expression which I think is used to cover additional expenditures.
I notice the hour is five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, but as I said I am only touching on a few of the mechanical aspects at the moment. The minister has brought forward a very interesting document this afternoon and I am sure he would be very disappointed if we did not spend two or three days or even longer some time next week or the week after in
[Mr. Nowlan.J
order to discuss the matters he has put before us. Therefore, may I call it five o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I just say the house leader, who is detained elsewhere, asked me whether I would come down to the house and see, since the house has been so agreeable these last few days, whether there is a general disposition to go right on until six o'clock with these estimates? Perhaps the hon. gentleman himself wants to make a speech, as well as others, and this would provide a wonderful hour for making them.


George Clyde Nowlan: No. I think the minister's remarks were of such a wide ranging nature and so different from what is usually entertained on estimates on a Friday afternoon that as a tribute to the minister-because he deserves this tribute-we should adjourn this matter now and go ahead with private members' hour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, could we take some of the other items-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -stood over from other parts of the minister's department.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. May I suggest this discussion is out of order and that this proposal should be made with the Speaker in the chair.
In order to allow the house to proceed with the consideration of private members' business, shall I rise, report certain resolutions, and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I think it is usual on Friday afternoon before commencing private members hour for the acting house leader to inform us what business we will be dealing with on Monday and Tuesday of the following week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not in
my right place, but if the house will suffer me to speak I might say that the house leader is at this time consulting with the Prime Minister about that matter, and I do not think he will be in a position to say anything about it until six o'clock.


George Clyde Nowlan: He will be in at six o'clock.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: the second reading of Bill No. C-70, to amend the Canada Grain Act (Off-track elevator licensing).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the intent of Bill C-70 is very simple. It is to amend the Canada Grain Act by dropping the words in the second line "directly from or into railway cars or vessels". Under the definition of an elevator in the Canada Grain Act it is specified that no licence can be granted to an elevator unless the elevator is in a position where western grain may be received, or out of which it may be discharged, directly from or into railway cars or vessels. There are some further provisions.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that this definition of "an elevator" needs to be changed, particularly in view of the proposed railway abandonment or rationalization program which may come into being as a result of the passage of Bill No. C-120. I am not sure whether it is well known to hon. members of this house that there was a period of time when it was possible for the board of grain commissioners to license an elevator whether it was located along a railroad track or not, but since the adoption of the amendment to the act inserting the words "directly from or into railway cars or vessels," it has been impossible and unlawful to license an elevator unless it is located alongside a railway line.
There is a very useful purpose to be served by an elevator in this day and age, 1964, whether or not it is located beside a railway line. As an example of this I could refer to many small towns where all, or almost all, of the grain is delivered to the elevator and taken out of the elevator by motor truck transport. While there are railway lines located in these towns, very little use is made of them for the movement of grain. If the provisions contained in the Canada Grain Act were enforced, unless those elevators were standing alongside a railway track it would not be possible for the elevator to be licensed.
I am certain that in years to come, particularly if there is a large scale program of railway line abandonment undertaken, motor truck transport is going to play an increasingly important part in the movement of grain. We might as well recognize this fact now so that it will be possible for an elevator to be licensed, whether or not it is located adjacent to a railway line.
Canada Grain Act
Perhaps there would not be a great amount of grain moved from these elevators by motor truck transport for export, yet when one considers the economics and the cost of maintaining some of these branch lines solely for the purpose of carrying grain in boxcars as opposed to short movements by motor transport and then into railway cars, it becomes fairly obvious that some substantial savings can be effected by the use of motor truck transport.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend a great amount of time advocating the acceptance of this bill because it is completely obvious that it needs to be amended for the reasons I have suggested, but I hope if the government is not prepared to accept this amendment today it will at least be prepared to refer the subject matter to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, so that it can be considered at the same time as that portion of Bill C-120 which relates to railway line abandonment.
I could spend some considerable time outlining the history of this licensing practice, and give many examples of the beneficial results of off-track storage, particularly in the early 1950's, but I am not as interested in what has happened regarding these elevators in the past as I am in what may happen in the future. I know that the three western wheat pools and some of the line elevator companies have advanced as one of their arguments against the abandonment of any branch lines this particular section of the act which would in fact mean the revoking of their licences if the lines were abandoned. However, I am one of those who believe that while we cannot have wholesale abandonment of railway lines we must face up to the fact that some of them are not being used for any other purpose than to haul a very small amount of grain. If we want to be practical and realistic we have to recognize that some of these lines are going to be abandoned because they are not being used for hauling l.c.l. or local freight any more, or for passenger service or for carrying the mail. Therefore it just does not make common sense to maintain them for the hauling of a very small amount of grain.
Before anyone misunderstands me let me say that this applies to a very few railway lines, and the argument I am trying to make is that even though those railway lines are rolled up and abandoned the elevators now situated in some of these small towns could serve a very useful purpose if the board of grain commissioners would license them. The

Canada Grain Act
grain could then be transported by motor truck to the nearest railway line where it could then be moved to an export position or in some cases to flour mills or places where other types of processing of grain are carried on.
That is all I want to say about the matter. The bill is very simple and is almost selfexplanatory. Its passage would serve a very useful purpose from the point of view of some of our communities in western Canada.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-70, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act, off-track elevator licensing, has been introduced by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) and I believe it received first reading last February. I think it deserves a certain amount of commendation and has a certain amount of merit, but there are some facts I should like to put on the record.
The bill concerns the definition of a grain elevator which, according to the board of grain commissioners' interpretation of the Canada Grain Act must, for the purposes of the act, be a structure situated on a live railway line where it can be serviced by rail cars, or a structure situated on the waterfront where it can be serviced by vessels. The bill would change the act so that there would not be a restriction to servicing by railway cars or vessels. In other words, grain could be shipped out by truck without a special permit from the board.
However, the definition envisaged in Bill No. C-70 is much too loose and would permit the unrestricted licensing of any storage space at all, from curling rinks or churches to farm storage bins, with a consequent loss of control by the board of grain commissioners and by the Canadian wheat board. Moreover, it is premature in that the effects of the branch line rationalization program cannot be known for some time yet, and indeed it may never be necessary to go as far as amending the Canada Grain Act in order to accommodate the few elevators which it may be expedient to retain on abandoned lines. The situation has not had time to crystallize yet, so that no one really knows whether or not it is an urgent matter. Meanwhile, as long as there is enough flexibility in the Canada Grain Act to permit the continued operation of grain elevators on abandoned railway lines, although restricted to shipping out only, no urgent problem exists.
The board of grain commissioners does continue to license elevators situated on

abandoned lines under an agreement with the Canadian wheat board whereby the elevators may stay open for shipping out grain but, as I said earlier, they are not permitted to receive grain once the line is closed. There are currently 29 such licences in force and the quantity of grain involved is approximately one million bushels.
There are two country elevators that are fully licensed despite the fact they have never been situated on a railway line. One is at Olds, Alberta, and the other is at Makwa in northwestern Saskatchewan. The latter was erected and licensed in the expectation that the railway line was to be built, but this never happened. Producers who deliver to that point now pay 5 cents per bushel extra to have their grain trucked to the railhead. However, these are the exceptions. For those elevators not yet closed which are situated on an abandoned rail line the board of grain commissioners continues a restricted licensing but would not, of course, permit the construction of additions to them and does keep these licences under continual review.
By and large the Canadian grain marketing and handling system was well designed for the purpose of facilitating the export movement of grain and there is no reason for it to be altered now. Accordingly grain should not be stored in any facility where it is not readily accessible for shipment when it is required. Furthermore, experience has shown that grain stored at off-rail sites deteriorates more readily than does grain in elevators where it can be turned over more frequently.
This question has been discussed with the grain handling organizations and they are in full agreement that the effect which the passage of Bill No. C-70 would have on our grain collection system would not be in the best interests of western grain growers. There is a school of thought among the grain handling people that our country elevator system has been overexpanded. Some firms are known to be eagerly looking forward to the day when certain branch lines will be closed because they will then have an acceptable reason for closing down elevators where they consistently lose money.
Because of the Crowsnest pass freight rates and our egalitarian delivery quota sys-stem, our country elevator set-up will probably continue in its present general pattern rather than move to the type of elevator system that we see in the United States. Nevertheless some improvements can be carried

out that would lead to a more efficient operation and so allow Canadian grain to remain competitive in world markets. It seems to me that the dropping off of the high cost elevators along uneconomic branch lines will help us to do that. The implementation of the idea inherent in Bill No. C-70 would effectively prevent the desired improved efficiency. Consequently I cannot support the bill.
The overexpansion of our country elevator system has generated a progressive rise in both direct and indirect operating costs related to this overbuilt position, and has resulted in a total cost of operations which may well be in excess of the level that the Canadian grain system can bear if it is to remain competitive. It has been suggested that the prairie grain collection system now comprises too many, too small elevators at too many delivery points. The system now consists of 5,187 separately licensed elevators located at about 2,000 separate shipping points.
The licensed capacity totals 370 million bushels. These levels are fairly representative of the situation that has prevailed over the past six or seven years. Prior to 1940, the country elevator capacity was stable at about 200 million bushels, distributed amongst 5,600 elevators. During the war the construction of temporary annex structures and enlargements of existing elevators brought the total country capacity to 310 million bushels.
After the war the temporary storage was progressively cut back so that by 1952 the post-war low point of 293 million bushels was reached. The number of elevators totalled 5,430. The high level of crops in 1951 and 1952 reversed the trend and by 1957 a level of 371 million bushels of space was available in country elevators and special annexes, the latter including non-elevator structures such as rinks and airplane hangars. Since then this temporary storage has been progressively eliminated.
Such capacity is not at all desirable for reasons already given, and it would seem that permitting the storage of grain in elevators on abandoned rail lines is in the same category as storing it in these temporary structures.
Another factor to bear in mind is the size of the box car fleet which must, as a matter of course, be related to the size of the country elevator system. With fewer elevators and the same number of box cars, efficiency is automatically increased because the throughput is increased; that is, the ratio of the
Canada Grain Act
volume of grain moved to the storage capacity is higher. At the same time, the box cars become available more quickly and the whole grain flow is speeded up. With an adequate box car supply each country elevator can turn over its capacity four or five times per year with little difficulty. Only at that rate, as a minimum, can grain handling through a country elevator be made to pay. Because of the overexpansion, very few elevators have such a turnover and this indicates why some companies eagerly await an opportunity to close down some elevators.
It has been estimated that a country elevator system of 250 million bushels capacity, consisting of modern, properly located plants, is ample to handle marketings of 700 million bushels or more per year. If this is so, then the loss of elevators on abandoned lines will not be felt in the over-all grain movement picture. Indeed, to keep them open and transfer the grain to an elevator on a live line by truck would be a self-defeating act because of the added expense.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member one question?


Eugene Whelan: Yes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Does he not think there are other qualifications and specifications that could be applied in considering whether or not an elevator should have a licence, other than the fact that a railway line runs alongside of it?


Eugene Whelan: I said that I thought the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) had a certain amount of merit and I think it warrants some definite consideration. The fact that an elevator may not be located on a railroad line deserves some definite consideration when it comes to licensing. However, the potential of the area and the history of it should be considered in connection with licensing. If my words were interpreted in the manner the hon. member suggests, I certainly did not intend to give that impression.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Then, why are you opposing the bill?


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I find myself wholly in agreement with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), the sponsor of the bill. Actually, Bill No. C-70 will have a direct effect on the grain marketing industry in the years ahead, even if rail line abandonment does not reach the huge

Canada Grain Act
proportions the railways would like to see it reach. Actually, what the bill does is to leave out five or six words that are in the act to the effect that such an elevator must discharge grain directly into railway cars or vessels.
As the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan) pointed out, few off-track elevators are licensed. The hon. member for Essex South showed some ignorance of the grain handling facilities when he said that a 250 million bushel capacity would handle a 700 million bushel crop. Where would the extra grain be stored? It would be stored on the farms. Any farmer will tell you that one only has to go back to the fifties to find that it was obvious that farm stored grain, while it was like money in the bank, did cause many farmers to sell their grain at what one might call depressed prices. If they had only waited, they would have obtained the wheat board price for it. If the amount of storage space available for grain were cut down, this would be a retrograde step. Actually this would happen if rail line abandonment were given effect to the extent the railways want it, and if the grain act were not amended to allow off-track elevators to be licensed.
Some years ago in Winnipeg the chairman of the Canadian National made a speech about grain handling. He suggested that the elevator companies, the railroads and the farmers, the people concerned, should get together and study the grain handling facilities. He felt that 100,000 bushels of grain could be moved 50 miles on either side of the main line easier by truck than it is moved now by rail. Many of these lines could be abandoned and the grain could be moved by truck. He did not go so far as to suggest that the farmers should be moving the grain themselves that extra 50 miles, but he did suggest that the three parties concerned should get together and perhaps a trucking fleet could be devised to move the grain. If this is true, then surely off-track elevators should be licensed.
As I say, the hon. member for Essex South thought there was enough storage capacity and that the elevator grain system was now over-extended. This was not true a few years ago when the box car commission investigated grain handling facilities and grain storage capacity on the prairies. This was not the situation when we had to institute cash advances on farm stored grain. Certainly we must proceed and let experience be our guide. Experience with grain handling facilities does not suggest that grain storage capacity is

necessarily overextended. It does not suggest, to me at least, that a 250 million bushel capacity can handle a 700 million bushel crop year in and year out without putting an added burden on the farmers. They are the ones who would have to store the grain.
The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) well knows the difficulties experienced in the middle fifties with regard to farm stored grain. They tried making payments on it in one form or another in an effort to compensate for what we might call this underdeveloped grain storage system. When we are discussing this bill, we are not saying that we should go back to the middle fifties and license all the community curling rinks, skating rinks or abandoned airplane hangars for the handling of grain. We are saying that an elevator should be able to obtain a licence to handle and store grain on wheat board storage tickets, but it should be an elevator, not a skating rink or a curling rink. An elevator has facilities to move grain and turn it. The only reason grain could not be kept in other storage is that it cannot be turned if it is slightly heated or if mice and termites get into it. Therefore there is no reason why an elevator could not be chosen as a good storage place, no matter whether it is sitting beside a railroad or 15 miles away from one.
As the hon. member for Medicine Hat pointed out so aptly, there are many other specifications to be taken into consideration. This bill may not be passed today but it will certainly be considered when the railway committee studies Bill C-120.
The railroads propose to abandon 4,000 miles of track in the prairie provinces and this might envision the abandonment of 700, 800 or possibly 1,000 elevators. What will happen then if, as Mr. Gordon says, grain can be moved cheaper by truck over short dis-ances? Why shouldn't elevators on abandoned railway lines be allowed to continue in business? As road networks improve trucks will be able to handle the grain.
Although he did not say so, Mr. Gordon may prefer to use a fleet of trucks rather than a diesel locomotive. In fact the railways are fast moving into the trucking field. Perhaps this is what he envisions when he says a whole new grain transportation system should be devised.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was very interested in the comments the hon. member was making but I wonder is he satisfied that Bill C-70 would achieve what he is speaking of now? Would

not this seem to open the way for the licensing of almost any premises?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sure that before any premises is licensed-


Mr. Tardif:: Did you read the bill?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have the grain act before me and I have read it several times during the past six or seven years. I also read the bill. Surely the board of grain commissioners do not license any elevator alongside a railway line. It has to be open for public business. A farmer cannot buy an elevator alongside a railway track and keep it for his own business. It has to be open for public business before it can be licensed. Therefore the reverse is directly true. If an elevator is alongside a railway track it does not automatically receive a licence, and neither does it automatically receive a licence if it is not alongside a railway track.
A curling rink would not qualify under any definition as an elevator. I remember when curling and skating rinks were allowed to store grain but they were not covered by separate licences. It was merely the case of an extension of an elevator company's licence permitting it to store grain in an off-site storage place. When this was done away with I questioned the wheat board on it when its representatives appeared before the agriculture committee the following year, and they pointed out that it was eliminated because there were no turning facilities in such places.
I do not intend to discuss the bill at length but I know provision will have to be made for off-site storage if the railways proceed with the abandonment of 4,000 miles of track in the prairie provinces.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go on record as being opposed to Bill C-70, but I would like answers to a number of questions. For that reason I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), that the bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, is a good one.
If railway abandonment is proceeded with and these off-track elevators are licensed to accept grain I would like to know at whose expense will the grain then be moved to railway elevators? Will it be at the expense of the farmers or of the railways? If it is at the farmers' expense, then many of the benefits they receive under the Crowsnest pass agreement will disappear. Further, if rail-
Canada Grain Act
way abandonment goes through, I would like to know how many of these elevators will be licensed? Will all the elevators that are at present alongside railway tracks be licensed?
If railway abandonment is proceeded with, then instead of licensing many of these elevators I think the government should give serious consideration to having government terminals built on those lines which will not be abandoned, so that if the farmers have to haul 40 or 50 miles to these terminals there will nevertheless be money saved because these terminals will deliver grain to the ports, Vancouver or Hudson bay, but not at the farmers' expense.
I think the minister should give careful consideration to having this bill referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I do not believe it should be talked out. Representatives of the board of grain commisioners or of the Canadian wheat board could appear before the committee and give evidence as to the likely effect if offtrack elevator storage were licensed. I know this is a matter of great concern to the prairies where thousands of miles of track will be abandoned. Farmers who had to haul their grain only five or ten miles will be obliged to haul it 50 or 60 miles to the elevators, and this will be an expensive business. If these elevators which are on the lines to be abandoned would accept the grain, and if the government, or the crown companies, were to be responsible for moving it to the nearest station where it could be loaded into boxcars, it would be a different story altogether. If there is merit in the bill now before us, I think it is up to the government to allow the farmers to benefit from its provisions by referring the measure to the committee as I have suggested.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The mover of this bill, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) is to be congratulated on adopting this means of calling attention to a problem. I know that as an experienced parliamentarian he is well aware of what a private member's bill can realistically be expected to do in the hour which is set aside for us here. I think the intention of the bill is to call attention clearly to a problem which has to be thought through, namely what would be the effect of branch line rationalization on the elevators which are bound to be affected and upon our storage program.
I have followed this debate with great interest. I especially enjoyed the brilliant con-

Canada Grain Act
tribution made by my hon. friend from Essex South (Mr. Whelan). I also enjoyed the contribution made by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) whose talents I have always admired. I must say he was lacking something in fire and volume this afternoon, but I think it was very considerate of him, especially on a Friday afternoon when the house has some difficulty in maintaining its numbers, to choose to assist us. I can well recall his contributions to our debates on previous occasions and I will always remember his speech in this chamber during the flag debate, along with that of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis).
The difficulty which this bill was designed to cover is the problem which will arise with respect to elevators along railway lines which will be abandoned. My hon. friend from Essex South made a good point when he said we had to think of a desirable volume in a country elevator system in relation to an expected volume of export business. We must realize that the whole purpose is to keep our system of grain marketing competitive, and in order to do this we must see that the storage facilities are situated at points where there are no unnecessary additional trucking or related charges-points where the grain can be turned over properly and where the marketing board can maintain proper control. They must be close to transportation facilities and so on.
It seems to me there is a major line of criticism which could be directed at the bill before us. Basically, as I have suggested, a bill of this nature serves an educational purpose; it calls a problem to our attention and offers a possible solution. The difficulties which may still exist can then be examined in the course of public debate, and possibly some other line of attack on the problem can be found.
The concern I had on reading this bill arises from the definition of "elevator". The definition presently reads as follows:
"elevator" means any premises into which western grain may be received, or out of which it may be discharged directly from or into railway cars or vessels-
It seems to me by eliminating the phrase "directly from or into railway cars or vessels" one leaves the definition very loose indeed. The possibility of using any type of storage space is opened up, whether it be an abandoned aircraft hangar, an abandoned community skating rink or storage space in general-space which may not be a desirable location for the storage of grain.

I am told, although this is a field with which I am not as familiar as I should like to be, that grain in storage has to be turned over regularly, that we cannot be haphazard about these things and that control over conditions of storage is most important, especially when grain is intended for export. There is no doubt that the elevators system has to be examined. Canada must develop the most effective facilities in order that our export business may be conducted with the minimum delay and the maximum efficiency. Any amendment to the legislation which would have the effect of worsening our storage facilities by creating too loose a definition should not be undertaken lightly by this house, especially if it were likely to remove some of the tools now at the disposal of the marketing board for controlling the quality and nature of our storage facilities.
I think the fate of a measure of this kind should be as follows. The question is a large one and it deserves the attention of more hon. members than are present this afternoon. It should be up for debate again, at which time there might possibly be a correction in the definition which would meet the deficiencies which have been pointed out in the course of this debate.
The hon. member could introduce it again. By the force of compelling public debate which has brought attention to the problem an examination will take place, not only in this house and the press of the land but among those who examine public problems and try to resolve them in the most satisfactory manner. Attention will also be focused upon it within the department. Certainly the problem is there. We are going to undertake a program of abandonment of certain branch lines in the process of the rationalization of our railway system in western Canada. Legislation in this respect has been placed in general form before the house and it will be discussed and debated at great length. The final impact of the program is not yet clear.
When we have taken that step we shall have to look at the elevators program at the same time. I think the hon. member who moved the bill has shown commendable foresight in calling attention to the problem, doing so in a timely way and according to the established procedures of the house. I think it illustrates the proper use of private members' hour. I know the hon. member who moved the bill is a little more sophisticated and knowledgeable than some hon. members

of the house, not of his group but who sit near him, who seem to take a very liberal approach to the problem of private members' bills and who think that every private member's bill should be voted on, except the ones they choose to talk out. These members have chosen to talk out, for example, the Bell Telephone Company bill on a number of occasions. They have asked that other bills be voted on as a principle of reform in this house. I realize the hon. member who moved this bill recognizes the fundamental educational purpose served by debate on a measure of this type. The problem receives proper and careful attention as a result of the kind of debate which this house is undertaking. This is one of the best and the most laudable purposes of the use of this hour, which is set aside from the government business in this house.
I can only conclude, reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, that in its present form this bill does not appear to meet the requirements of the definition of an elevator which would permit the authorities charged with the marketing of grain to have the kind of discrimination they must have to build up a rational and efficient system of grain elevator marketing. If the bill has this serious defect, as I believe it has, I should not like to vote against it, although if compelled to do so I would have to vote against the bill in its present form. But I think the purpose of this bill can be achieved as a result of the debate which has taken place. The hon. member should look at it again, consider a modification in the wording, and then once again bring the matter before the house for reconsideration.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I do not represent an agricultural constituency but I have listened with a great deal of interest to all the statements from both sides of the house made since five o'clock on Bill No. C-70. There has not been one member who has highly commended the hon. member who introduced this bill. There has not been one member who has not pointed out that there is a problem here which should be considered. Some technical objections have been raised but I do not think they are of sufficient importance to override or overbalance the fact that everyone is in agreement with the hon. member, who has introduced a subject which is worthy of further study.
That being so, Mr. Speaker, and because I think all are in agreement that the bill should not be talked out, I would therefore
Business of the House
move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill No. C-70, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act (off-track elevator licensing) be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for study and report.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual for a minister to take part in the debate on a private member's bill of this kind, but in view of the motion which has just been moved I thought I should say a few words.
I,	as a member of this house, should like to consider a little more carefully the implications of the motion which has been made to refer the subject matter of this bill to a committee. As several hon. members have said-and I am very happy to join with them this bill does relate to a problem of some importance; at least it can be so construed. I share the doubts of some of the members who have spoken as to whether the bill does in fact deal directly with the problem which is in the mind of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson).


Harold Edward Winch: For "study and report", by the committee.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. Perhaps I should say on behalf of the government that the government very well understands the problem, and while the hon. gentleman has brought the matter before the house in the form of this bill it is a problem which is engaging the attention of the government in connection not only with the program of rail line rationalization, which will be proceeding in due course, but also in connection with all the ancillary changes which have to be made in the handling of grain.
Therefore I am a little reluctant to see this motion which has been put before the house decided today. I think we ought to look a little more carefully at the subject. I should like to look carefully at the bill myself before deciding whether it is the most useful way to bring the matter before the committee of this house or to have it decided by the house itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I did ask at five o'clock about the business but was told that

Business of the House
I could not get an answer until six. Can we now be told what the program will be tor Monday, and if possible for as much of next week as possible.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give the business for the first couple of days of next week in any event. Although I was not in the house earlier today at one o'clock when the committee stage of the redistribution bill was completed, it is my understanding that there were certain amendments to the bill this morning and that third reading of the bill was held over in order to have these amendments printed in the bill. On the assumption that third reading will be only a formality I propose calling third reading of that bill first thing on Monday. If it is not to be merely a formality I expect to be aware of that fact before the house opens on Monday.
I am happy to report that there is agreement among the parties to give second reading to the Canada pension plan bill in order that it may be sent to a committee before the conclusion of the sitting on Wednesday at six o'clock. In order that we have a committee to which we can refer that bill it would be convenient to adopt the motion, which is item No. 17 on today's order paper, for the establishment of that committee on Monday before second reading. When that motion is passed, and I assume it is a mere formality, we will then call second reading of the Canada pension plan bill and continue our consideration in that regard until second reading has been given, with the understanding that that will take place not later than Wednesday.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the house leader has shown a high degree of optimism in assuming that any motion for third reading, or for the setting up of a committee will be a mere formality. I trust that that may be true, but I do not know who could be sure of that in this house as it is now constituted. Nevertheless, as far as we in the opposition are concerned, we will co-operate with the house leader to make sure that we can proceed with the business of the house.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following Items were passed in committee of supply this day]:
SECRETARY OF STATE Office of the chief electoral officer-[DOT]
1.	Salaries and expenses of office, $106,000.
Civil service commission-*
1.	Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the suggestion award plan of the public service of Canada, $5,516,600.
Privy council
[Stage Direction]
B-Economic Council of Canada-
35. Administration, $817,920.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 16, 1964