1964-06-23

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the rather harsh remarks I made last night against the civil servants of the national revenue office in Quebec city.
In reading over Hansard this morning I noticed a remark which escaped me last night and that is why I rise today on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is reported to have made that remark. He said, as reported on page 4579 of Hansard, English version, left hand column.
The civil servants are not here to defend themselves. You are being cowardly.
And the Acting Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Mcllraith) said then:
-they cannot reply-to use language in reference to them that could not be used outside the house without incurring the responsibility consequent on such action.
And the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) said:
Spank him some more.
That is reported on page 4580, left hand column, of the English version of Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this. I was not being cowardly, I was not using improper language, because I am prepared to repeat outside the house, before the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the Acting Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Mcllraith), the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and anyone they care to bring along, what I said here; I am ready to repeat my remarks any time outside the house, because I know that I was right in speaking as I did about those civil servants.
If those civil servants cannot defend themselves in the house, I am convinced that the taxpayers are even less able to defend themselves against theft by those income tax inspectors outside the house.


Mr. Lambert:: It is even worse.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Pennell.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Although it is early summer, I should like to make a statement concerning the government's programs to attack seasonal unemployment next winter. While the employment situation has improved over the past year, the problem of seasonal unemployment will be with us again next winter. An announcement of the government's measures to increase winter employment is desirable at this time so as to allow municipalities and the construction industry adequate time to engage in advance planning.
The municipal winter works incentive program which has been so successful in providing additional winter employment at the local level will be continued next winter. The winter house building incentive program, introduced on an experimental basis last winter, was successful beyond all expectations. It will be carried out again during the winter of 1964-65.
Every effort will be made to improve the effectiveness of both the municipal winter works incentive program and the winter house building incentive program for the coming winter, and any modifications which may be desirable in this connection will be announced at a later date. The basic principles on which both these programs operate, however, will not be modified.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: We are happy to hear that the government intends to continue these programs, particularly the municipal winter works program which was started in 1958-59 and which has met with tremendous success year after year. The municipalities have become increasingly aware

Labour Conditions
of the value of this program and are participating more actively each and every winter. As time goes on many more projects are being undertaken under this plan.
We are glad the government have decided to carry it on, and I hope they will continue to expand it in order to help those who would otherwise be seasonally unemployed. I might say in passing that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was one of those who disagreed with this program, but now he is smiling; he is happy about it because it has proved successful.
As far as the house building program is concerned, after only one winter's experience it has yet to be seen whether it will continue its impetus, and we look forward with interest to seeing whether this program will expand or whether it has been only a flash in the pan.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, we greatly appreciate the statement just made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and the assurance he has given to municipalities and provinces to the effect that the winter works program will be continued and also his intention to increase the assistance provided to stir up housing construction during winter.
However, I should like to call the Minister of Labour's attention to certain conditions prevailing in some areas of our country, so that he may reconsider his decision to curtail the winter works period in the so-called designated areas or in those where severe weather conditions make it practically impossible to carry out some winter works.
I should like also to suggest to the minister that, among the projects that the municipalities can undertake under the provisions of the act concerning winter works incentives, there is the construction of buildings which could be rented by municipalities to small enterprises and secondary industries which cannot themselves put capital in the construction of large buildings. I know that certain municipalities consider erecting buildings which could be rented to agencies and small companies in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada which can produce nothing now but would then be able to produce. I believe that this would help designated areas by giving work to the available manpower and creating employment which could not exist otherwise.
I know that during the winter works period just terminated Quebec received a large share

of the amounts made available to the provinces. We are glad to see that for once a piece of legislation permits Quebec to obtain benefits it has never known before.
I commend the government for it, but I must also admit that this legislation had been first introduced by the previous government. It is a good piece of legislation which helps to alleviate unemployment, but we find that unemployment is still our main concern, especially in the province of Quebec where, according to the latest statistics, the largest number of unemployed persons, that is 38 per cent, is to be found.
I think the government, in co-operation with the Quebec government and the municipalities, should find some other solution to improve a situation which is unfavourable to our province, for it is largely responsible for the present difficulties and discontent. I hope the government will take advantage of the summer period to prepare programs to be announced in the fall and which will tend to markedly reduce unemployment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, of course, the winter works program supplies jobs for the unemployed during the most difficult period.
However, I wonder if the government deserves congratulations or should be made the butt of ridicule, because during the winter works period, steam shovels and bulldozers are left in heated garages or on parking lots, and while the temperature is often 20 or 30 below zero, men are employed on outside work; they have to dig for sewer systems and water works when the ground is frozen. That goes against common sense, against progress.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the government that it would now be possible to find other solutions to unemployment without compelling individuals to work in ditches in winter, when it is very cold, while tractors and steam shovels are left in heated garages.
We should try and find another method, another system; but under our absurd system, I admit that the Minister of Labour could not find another solution to get the men to work. Nevertheless, improvements should be made, as the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) said a while ago.
Last year, we of the Ralliement Creditiste exerted pressures in order to have the winter works period extended in places where the weather is the most severe, so that they could enjoy the advantages provided by the legislation.


Mr. Fisher:: Carried.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Port Arthur say "carried." I wish to draw to your attention the fact that when it is time to discuss western wheat many hon. members endlessly take the floor and we bear with them, because it is a problem with which their region is faced.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Port Arthur is always discussing problems which do not interest us and we do not interrupt him. Therefore, he should grant us the privilege to deal with the problems we are interested in.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Carried.


Gilles Grégoire: Another observation, Mr. Speaker. The salary of those who carry out winter works is not the same all across the country. In fact, in certain regions or localities it varies from $2 to $2.25 per hour, while in some other places it is $1, $1.15 and $1.25 per hour.
I think that in setting the winter works period for next year, the minister should take steps to standardize the salary all across the country, so that everybody can earn a reasonable pay, that is $2 or $2.25 per hour.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour related to his earlier statement. Is the minister aware that housing starts dropped by 9.9 per cent in the month of May last and that this is due to the winter incentive program, as stated by the Canadian builders' association? Is the minister considering any announcement in this regard, or any expansion of the winter works program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that in the past winter we had record construction activity in Canada. I am also aware that the doleful predictions made by members of the opposition as to the effect of the winter house building program have not been fulfilled, and that residential activity in Canada at the present time compares favourably with any preceding year, notwithstanding the winter housing program.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is starting to drop.	.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the statement he made earlier today. In view of the problem that many municipalities had during this last winter in completing by the deadline date some of the projects they undertook under the winter works program, and the consequent heavier load these municipalities had to bear to pay for them, is the minister or the government considering ways and means of allowing completion of certain projects that were under way, and were uncompleted because of inclement weather?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this is a question that requires a detailed answer. Would the hon. member put it on the order paper.



CANADA DAY


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-104, to establish Canada day.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, last year, after the celebration of our national day, July 1, several questions were put to the minister in the house concerning the proper designation of that day. In 1946 a bill similar to the one I am introducing now was passed by the House of Commons but was rejected by the Senate. In view of the numerous different designations used from one province to another, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and I felt that it would be appropriate to designate the national day of all Canadians, from sea to sea, Canada day or "Journee du Canada".



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house would allow me to extend congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this, the anniversary of his birthday. We wish him the very best. He shares this day with the Minister of Transport who, if he were here, would be joined in the
4598	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry felicitations from us all. However, even in his absence we wish him the best.
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the decision yesterday by the people of the Saskatoon constituency not to accept the proferred cabinet position, is the Prime Minister in a position to say when we can expect the appointment of a minister of national revenue so that department may receive the services of a full time minister rather than one who is only in an acting capacity?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have been giving a great deal of thought to this for some weeks and I am now in a position to say a decision will be made very shortly.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to a question directed a while ago by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister as regards the impending appointment of a minister of national revenue.
Does the Prime Minister intend to take into consideration the suggestions made by most of his party backbenchers so as to support the appointment of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Benson), as minister of national revenue?


John George Diefenbaker: Has the co-operation gone that far?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any date has been set for the convening of a federal-provincial conference to study the recommendations of the Hall commission on health services.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. As I said yesterday, we in the federal government are studying these recommendations ourselves. As soon as we have come to some preliminary conclusions in regard to them then we shall get in touch with the provinces and try to ascertain what date would be convenient for them to meet us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government hopes to be able to call a conference within the six month period in which the commission recommends a conference be called.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Subject to the agreement of the provinces on the date I would hope we could meet within the six months deadline.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the government considered extending an invitation to Sir Guy Powles, the New Zealand ombudsman, when he visits this country in September, to appear before the appropriate committee of the house?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea, if the committee is sitting at that time.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since he has indicated his intention to put the study of repatriation of the Canadian constitution on the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference, could the right hon. Prime Minister suggest that the name of the act be changed? For instance, would he consider the title "Constitutional Act of Canada" to be appropriate for the Canadian constitution? [Text]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to decide what we should put in the act before we worry about the title; but I did say, and I repeat it, that at the next federal-provincial conference in Charlottetown I would hope this matter would be on the agenda so we could see what progress can be made on this important matter which has occupied the attention of so many governments over so many years.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: As a
supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in addition to this matter being placed on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference, it is also intended to reconvene the meetings of the provincial attorneys general and the Minister of Justice to deal with this very important subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That would be one of the matters which should be discussed when the matter is on the agenda. I should point out that the federal-provincial conference in Charlottetown will be largely a ceremonial meeting in connection with the one hundredth anniversary of the Charlottetown conference, and it will not last very long. All we will be able to do at that conference is put the matter on the agenda before the provinces so we can then decide what could be done.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General, based on a lengthy telegram I have received from R. Kiever, president of local 400 of the mine, mill and smelter workers union. It appears that last evening between six and ten o'clock the postmen of the city of Trail were required to work overtime.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I object to these interruptions, because anything that happens in Kootenay West is of national significance. They were required to work overtime in order to distribute a letter from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company to its employees in the city of Trail, pending a referendum being taken today on a labour dispute. There is not much objection to the material in this letter, but there is objection-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As one of the experienced members of the house, surely the hon. member could shorten that question by two minutes or so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just arrived at that point, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unusual circumstances of this special delivery, extra delivery, in the city of Trail, would the minister have this whole situation investigated and let the house know under what authority this was done?
Inquiries of the Ministry


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



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


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


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wondered whether the Prime Minister had turned his mind to the problem of accepting or taking up the invitation presented to the house yesterday by the C.B.C. with regard to the Pearson film, particularly in view of the fact that procedurally it seems difficult.


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Really, I have difficulty in understanding that question myself. Perhaps it is the heat; I do not know.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Then I will put it in simple terms, Mr. Speaker. The C.B.C. yesterday, as I understand it, put an invitation before parliament for parliament to state that it wants the Pearson film shown. As I understand it, this is what they are looking for. How can this be done? Surely the onus is upon the government to inform us how this can be done.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, surely my hon. friend can contain his impatience and his desire to see this picture for the second time until tomorrow, when the board of directors of the C.B.C. are going to determine whether it should be shown publicly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There was nothing, as far as I can see, in that letter of yesterday that indicated the board of directors did not want this motion or approval from the house before their meeting.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Broadcasting Act gives to the C.B.C. control of its own broadcasting, would the government ascertain whether it would be in order for the House of Commons by a resolution to interfere with the operation of that statute?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That matter might be academic after the meeting tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
4600	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



GATT-REQUEST FOR LIST OF CANADIAN GOODS TO BE CONSIDERED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister tell the house whether his department has established a list of Canadian goods that will be recommended to the GATT meeting; and with regard to these goods is the government willing to publish the exact tariff reduction they propose on each one, or is it an across the board 50 per cent reduction?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper.



U.S. CONSIDERATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON AUTOMOBILES AND PARTS

[Stage Direction]
On the order of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister or his department received formal notice that the treasury department of Washington is considering whether a countervailing duty should be imposed on the imports of Canadian cars and parts because of tariff action taken by this government on November 1?


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



POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN SALES TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister clarify his statement appearing in the Toronto Globe and Mail that prospects for wheat sales in the coming crop year are excellent, and that we might export 550 million bushels?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I thought what I said yesterday was clear. In the fall I said I thought that our exports this crop year would be of the order of 550 million bushels. Then I went on to say, in view of certain pessimistic statements made by some hon. members, that I now thought that our shipments would be of the order of 590 million bushels.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then are prospects for the coming crop year excellent whether or not Russia buys our wheat?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is what I said yesterday.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a very important question to the Minister of Finance.
As it is rumoured that the interest rate on small business loans will be increased this fall, can the Minister of Finance tell us whether he intends to propose changes in the Small Businesses Loans Act of 1960?


Mr. Speaker:: This question, if it is in order, is surely one for the order paper.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister is giving consideration to the suggestion by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association that the federal government should grant complete exemption from the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials used in constructing pavilions for expo 1967?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: An announcement has already been made on that subject, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister referring to the announcement that the federal government has agreed to write off in one year the full capital costs of building pavilions, for each company?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I apologize to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker; that was the announcement to which I referred. There is no suggestion that these buildings should be exempt from sales tax.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct that the Royal Canadian Mint have in the planning stage a coin which will be without the likeness of the Queen?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to inquire into this matter, Mr. Speaker. Not to my knowledge.



INQUIRY AS TO SUMMER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Considering that the two by-elections have gone by, considering also that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be in a good humour, does the Prime Minister intend to announce the summer recess right after the adoption of the distinctive Canadian flag, that is during the first week of July?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the happiness engendered by the very satisfactory result of the two by-elections should interfere with our plans to work here most of July.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might address it, however, to the government house leader. In view of the fact that the prospect of a recess seems to be melting away, will the government house leader look into the possibility of arranging that, even so, the members of the staff of the House of Commons might in some way be able to get their holidays during the summer season, rather than having to wait for us until some time in the fall or winter?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, although I do not accept the assumption which prefaced the question, I am advised that the office staffs are now beginning to get their holidays in turn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that apply to sessional staff as well as to year round staff?


Guy Favreau: I will look into the question completely, Mr. Speaker, and report as early as possible.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether the house will be sitting on July 1, Canada day?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No decision has been reached on that point yet, Mr. Speaker.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, could the government house leader inform the house when he anticipates bringing forward the student loan legislation for consideration by the house?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the legislative program, as announced, is to first dispose of interim supply and then the flag resolution. We will be in a position to make further statements to the house on this matter when these two measures have been dealt with.


Michael Starr: The flag first, and student loans second?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Government obstruction. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES BY STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the house leader. Could he advise the house whether it is the government's intention to take the initiative and convene the standing committee on estimates, in the light of the Prime Minister's preoccupation with main estimates, so that this committee, which has not sat under this present administration, could get on with the estimates of some departments, such as the Department of Justice?


Guy Favreau: I will consider the matter, Mr. Speaker, and answer the hon. gentleman as early as possible.

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



REPORTED PRESENCE OF JAPANESE WHALING SHIP IN CANADIAN WATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I was going to address to the Minister of Fisheries, but in his absence perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs will deal with it. I should like to ask the minister whether he has knowledge of the operation of a Japanese whaler inside Canadian territorial waters off the northeast coast of Vancouver island. If so, can he tell us whether this has been authorized by the Canadian government. If he has no knowledge of such an operation will he look into it and determine whether some unauthorized intrusion on Canadian sovereignty has taken place?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall see that this question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. I have no knowledge in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I thank the right hon. gentleman for his greetings today, which I am pleased to accept also on behalf of the Minister of Transport who shares with me the fact that today is our birthday anniversary.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning a statement made by him and the Quebec minister of agriculture about Algerian immigrants who are anxious to come over and settle as farmers in Canada.
Can the minister rely on the co-operation of other federal departments such as the Department of Agriculture which is responsible for the Farm Credit Corporation and the Department of Forestry which is responsible for the administration of the ARDA program, so as to provide the necessary funds for the establishment of these newcomers to Canada?


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


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended once again for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and deals with the Algerian immigrants anxious to settle in Canada. The minister announced the impending arrival of those immigrants, but I should like to know approximately how many will soon be admitted to Canada as immigrants in order to take up farming?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, applications are still being examined and I believe that 30 or 40 families at most will be coming here, as a first step in a future general policy.


Gérard Perron: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Could the minister tell us approximately what the settling up of these people on farms in the province of Quebec is going to cost the government, in each case?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, there will be no cost to the government, except the regular expenses we make in the case of immigrants.
Those immigrants will be able to apply to the Farm Credit Corporation and should a loan be granted it will mean that their application was taken into consideration, as any other application for a loan.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister aware of the claim of the Ontario Indian-Eskimo association that Indian children attending a school at Fort William are being segregated from the rest of the students at the school? If so, what action is his department taking in the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper, as it requires a detailed answer.



WATER SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Due to the low water level in Owen Sound

harbour the ladders are now out of reach of anyone falling into the water, which may have contributed to a drowning which occurred there last week. Would the minister give consideration to having these ladders lengthened as well as installing more ladder accommodation ?


Mr. Speaker:: This is an important question, of course, but it is also one for the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence may I ask the house leader when we might expect the amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act to be brought before parliament.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. gentleman I must advise the house that the Minister of Agriculture is presently in hospital for an indefinite period with a very serious condition. I will communicate with him and will be in a position to advise the house somewhat later as to this.



CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about the transfer of employees of the Canadian Commercial Corporation to the Department of Industry, and I said that inquiries had been made into the circumstances surrounding that matter. Inquiries have been made and discussions have been held with the civil service commissioners concerning the respective responsibilities of the government and the commission in such cases, and I should like to make a short statement in reply to the question of my right hon. friend.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Revert to motions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am answering a question which was asked.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When employees of an exempt agency are transferred to a department or agency which is subject to the Civil
Inquiries of the Ministry Service Act, the civil service commission is required under that act to determine the classification and grade for which those employees are qualified. This procedure was followed in connection with the transfer of employees of the Canadian Commercial Corporation to the Department of Industry. The government has decided that where a function and staff are transferred in this way, the employees concerned should not suffer a reduction in salary. Employees who are rated by the civil service commission in classifications having a lesser salary will be paid their former rate of pay until such time as the rate attaching to the classification in which they are being certified becomes equal to that former rate.
In line with this policy the employees of the Canadian Commercial Corporation transferred to the Department of Industry who are filling positions at classifications for which the rate of pay is lower than the rate paid by the corporation will be paid on transfer at their former rate. As hon. members will have seen, a number of the employees who would be affected by this policy have appealed to the civil service commission against the classification they have been given, and the effect of the new policy in each of these cases will naturally depend on the outcome of the appeal.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the added statement at the end may I thank the Prime Minister for following the suggestion made in this connection, in order to remove what was an apparent injustice.



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should now like to direct a question to the Prime Minister having regard to an announced foreign award to a Canadian within the last few days. Has there been any change of policy in regard to the awarding of honours and decorations by foreign states to Canadians? In other words, has there been any change in the accepted policy that awards and decorations by foreign states should not be accepted by Canadians unless approved by the Prime Minister?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, there has been no change whatever in the policy which has been followed in this matter for a good many years.

Interim Supply


John George Diefenbaker: There has been no order in council altering the situation in this respect in any way, or placing foreign powers in a higher position relative to the granting of honours to Canadians than that possessed by Her Majesty the Queen?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Agriculture, and I am sure I speak for everyone in the house in expressing our regrets that the minister is hospitalized. We wish him a speedy recovery from his ailment. I wonder if I can ask whether, in the course of the absence of the minister, the acting minister will be in a position to make any decision regarding the grain elevator at Prince Rupert?


René Tremblay: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has the hon. gentleman any information he can give the house with respect to legislation coming before the Senate of the United States which will provide for joint participation by the United States and Canada in the 1967 centenary celebrations?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 22, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $469,308,421.26, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $329,299,209.25:
IMr. Pearson.]
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of agriculture item 5, privy council item 25 (schedule A) of the said main estimates, $2,259,116.67;
(c)	four twelfths of the total of all of the items in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $134,897,245.34;
(d)	an additional seven twelfths of the amount of loans, investments and advances item L37a (schedule B) of the supplementary estimates (A), $2,625,000.00;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of loans, investments and advances item L12a (schedule C) of the supplementary estimates (A), $227,850,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
Mr. Brewin:: May I briefly recapitulate the points I was making yesterday before the committee adjourned at ten o'clock. I said then that I had no complaint whatever to make about the minister or his staff with respect to the way in which they dealt with individual cases brought to their attention. My quarrel was with the system which I described-and I did so deliberately-as a rotten system.
In my view that strong expression of opinion is justified for this reason. Parliament has in fact, contrary I suggest to what the minister said or implied, conferred on prospective immigrants a statutory right. This is not a statutory right to enter the country absolutely, but it is a statutory right under the act to the benefit of a hearing to determine whether they are admissible in accordance with the standards set out in the act and the regulations. This statutory right is denied in practice. The reasons which are given for denying the right to a hearing are meaningless; statements such as "You do not have a visa". Of course the only authority which can grant a visa is the department itself, and the department has already refused to give a visa, and refused, also, to give any reason for withholding a visa.
The minister told the committee that he is getting advice as to immigration procedure from an eminent lawyer, Mr. Sedgwick. That is all very well. I do not complain about it; I think Mr. Sedgwick could be helpful. But let me say this to the minister. We have absolutely no need of an eminent lawyer to discover that a hearing without disclosure of the real grounds for rejection is practically meaningless; it is not, in fact, a fair hearing. There are plenty of lawyers on both sides of this house who are perfectly capable of informing the minister of the elementary principle involved, which is this. Before any important question affecting the rights of an individual is determined, that individual

should have the right to be heard, and this means knowing why he is being denied the right he is seeking.
This is an elementary principle of justice, and there are dozens of cases to support my contention. As I say, we need not go outside this house, or beyond the lawyers who sit on the hon. gentleman's side of the house, to find that this principle has long been recognized. The courts have made it abundantly clear. As long ago as 1932 Mr. Justice Duff in a supreme court case described immigration proceedings with which he was dealing as "hugger-mugger". Mr. Justice Rand, in the Supreme Court of Canada and Mr. Justice Aylesworth in the Brent case, in the court of appeal, as I recall it, described similar proceedings as farcical.
This farcical procedure, this "hugger-mugger", is still going on. Indeed, it is the standard procedure in immigration matters. It negates the bill of rights. The bill of rights says that no act of parliament shall be construed or applied so as to deprive a person of the right of a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations. This solemn undertaking made by parliament and given to the people of Canada is flouted almost daily in immigration proceedings as a result of which people seeking to exercise a statutory right to come to Canada- if they can comply with the standards of admission-are deported on meaningless grounds after a mere parade of words which conceals the real reason for rejection.
I know there is a reason for this, but I suggest to the minister and the committee that it is not an adequate reason. The basis is said to be the need for security, and it is contended that in many of these cases reasons for non-admission cannot be disclosed without breaking faith with some outside source. I say to the minister, what crimes are committed in the name of security; what unjust, misleading lists of so-called subversives have been compiled on the basis of gossip, malice and sheer stupidity. I suggest that if there are security reasons for refusing, for example, a son in Canada the right to bring his parents to this country, or parents the right to bring their children, or a husband the right to have his wife join him here, such grounds should be carefully scrutinized by an independent judicial tribunal having full access to all the facts available to the department. Nothing short of such a full review will refute the belief that security reasons are
Interim Supply
sometimes advanced as a smokescreen to hide less creditable motives.
What do I suggest is the remedy? I recognize it is not enough simply to complain about the administration of this act and its regulations. First of all, I say there is no one remedy. The first step toward a remedy is that the department should decide in all cases except where serious security questions are in issue to disclose fully the real reasons for refusal of admission.
I say that I am personally acquainted with cases in which the real reason for refusal of admission was totally different from that advanced in the formal record, yet had nothing whatever to do with security reasons when it was looked into. Let the department decide, without getting the advice of eminent lawyers, to make fuller disclosure of the reasons. Let it take the advice of members of the house, for example, and decide that it will disclose these things more fully.
Second, I suggest that an independent judicial review of an administrative nature is required in all cases of refusal of admission. The appeal board should be given full access to the real reasons for rejection, and they should be given the power to recommend clemency or suspension of the full letter of the law on compassionate grounds.
Third, I suggest there should be a parliamentary committee charged with the responsibility of reviewing the immigration laws and regulations and their administration. I believe it is this parliament that has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the laws it makes are applied with fairness and justice to those who seek to come to Canada, and I urge that such a parliamentary committee, if no appropriate committee exists, be established not just to examine this matter now but to carry on a review throughout the years. I suggest that this will relieve succeeding ministers from the frequent embarrassment to which they are subject when parliament does not have an established right to look into these matters.
Fourth, I recommend that there should be something in the nature of an immigration ombudsman, if I may use that term, some independent parliamentary commissioner who would be able to advise both members of parliament and individuals, who would have full access to immigration records. In cases where in his judgment he thought there was some unfairness or injustice produced, he would have the duty of reporting to parliament.

Interim Supply
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the minister needs no eminent counsel to advise him that the traces of discrimination that remain in the act and the regulations should be removed. These overt references to discrimination on racial grounds should be wiped out. The house will recall that in the past the act and the regulations clearly and explicitly referred to discrimination on racial grounds as a basis of Canadian policy. Fortunately most of that has disappeared, but I have called the attention of the house and the minister to the fact that sections remain which deal specifically with this form of discrimination. I give as an example section 61, I think it is, of the Immigration Act. I have introduced a private members' bill, No. C-69, which will not be reached during this session. I would not feel badly at all if the minister would say he would take the onus of removing this section from the Immigration Act which refers specifically to racial discrimination.
On this score I recommend that the minister should take another look at regulation 31. This is the main regulation dealing with the admission of relatives, and I urge him to see whether it cannot be amended so there will be no explicit discrimination in the regulations. I remind the house and the minister that there is one section which imposes harsh and narrow standards for the admission of people who come from Asia or Africa but far more liberal standards of admission for those who come from Europe or America. In the world as we have it today I do not believe there is any room for this continuing discrimination on geographical or on racial grounds.
I cannot leave this subject without expressing the hope that we can change the immigration administration so that no one can be expelled without the reasons therefor being given. Let us make sure that the will of parliament as expressed in the Immigration Act is not flouted from day to day and that the principles of natural justice, which are familiar to every member of the house, are brought into play in the daily administration of these regulations. I believe this would then predispose immigration officers to treat immigrants as though they were persons with rights.
I have heard too often that these people have no rights. They have rights. Parliament has given them rights. As long as these rights are flouted in practice the officers themselves can hardly be blamed for treating these people as though they do not matter very much and in some cases, for example, letting them

languish in jail beyond any reasonable time. I suggest that what is basically important is that we recognize that these people who come from various parts of the world are human beings who are entitled to be treated with dignity as human beings.
I want to close by saying to the minister that many ministers have struggled with the problem of the Immigration Act and regulations. He is by no means the first to do this. Many of them have made promises as to what they were going to do and how they were going to change everything. I say the minister has a wonderful opportunity to score a real break-through in this area, a break-through that has eluded his predecessors.
I do not particularly think the advice of eminent lawyers is what is required. I think a basic change of heart and a recognition of the rights of these immigrants are what is in issue. Therefore I have refrained and intend to continue to refrain from hurling insults and criticisms at the minister himself, but I say to him that I hope he will take the opportunity that is his to make a real breakthrough in this regard so that Canadians can be proud of their immigration laws and can hold their heads high anywhere in the world when discussing immigration matters.


Mr. Macaluso:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take much of the time of the committee now, as I understand the estimates of the department will be coming forward in the very near future. However, I do want to make a few remarks on the general topic of immigration and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. First of all I want to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Greenwood on the remarks he has made today. I certainly wish to associate myself with what he has said and the remedies he has suggested to the committee.
One of the most frustrating things that a member of parliament or any individual dealing with immigration matters encounters is not being able to obtain the reasons for a person being refused admission to the country. Perhaps there are logical reasons for this stand, but to date I have not been able to find out why this position is taken. As the hon. member for Greenwood has stated, on many occasions the only reason given is security. What does "security" mean? It is a nebulous term unless it is defined, unless we are made aware of what are the security reasons and what precautions are being taken.

At the present time the security reason is not known. It is very difficult to explain to a sponsor who comes to your office that his son or daughter and son in law have been refused admission on security grounds. I say to the minister that this matter has to be reviewed very carefully because the word "security" alone is not sufficient.
Dealing with general immigration practice, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that some three years ago it was decided that the emphasis with regard to immigration would be placed on those with skills and education, and I think this is good. However, this policy is being interpreted in too restrictive a manner. It is being used as a disguise and smokescreen to justify the refusal of immigrants who wish to come to this country. It is too restrictive.
A sponsor who wants to bring his son or daughter or orphan nephew to this country receives a form letter from the department saying they do not meet the requirements of the Immigration Act, and therefore consideration cannot be given at this time to allowing so and so to enter the country. These are the only reasons given, and I think it is time this policy was reviewed. There is a growing recognition that Canada's immigration facilities are inadequate, and we certainly want more immigrants who will become Canadian citizens. In the 1960's, as in the 1860's, Canada is the most underpopulated country in the world, yet we encompass a greater land area than any other nation except perhaps the U.S.S.R. If the minister really wants a more ambitious program to attract the kind of skilled immigrants we need, then we will have to take off our kid gloves and fight a strong battle with our most active competitors, especially Australia and South Africa.
If the present economic expansion should be slowed down for the lack of skilled workers, many economists state that the unskilled workers will suffer. The decision three years ago by the previous Conservative government to put the immigration emphasis on skills rather than race or country has placed Canada in direct competition with other nations. No longer do the skilled people migrate from Britain or Europe out of desperation or fear. Europe today has a generally high standard of employment and living. Canada's continuing policy "If you want to come", is not good enough for today. The people from Britain and western Europe have
Interim Supply
to be wooed and won. The skilled people in Europe are remaining in Europe today.
I must compliment the minister on a recent speech he made in which he stated:
We need an active immigration policy, better facilities, better personnel, more personnel, more contact with other governments and more publicity.
I could not agree more with this statement, Mr. Chairman. I doubt if the department, as it is presently constituted, can launch an aggressive, active program to obtain more immigrants. We have some 32 offices abroad staffed by some 350 people. This is a ridiculous number of people to be staffing these offices. In my opinion there are not enough offices. Perhaps the minister's remarks portend a greater activity in this field.
We have heard a great deal, Mr. Chairman, about changes in the Immigration Act and in immigration regulations. In my opinion the biggest sin in our immigration policy today is that it is being dealt with by regulation rather than by an act. We need a sound Immigration Act to which we can look for enforcement, to which we can look for an aggressive policy of immigration. We should be able to look to the Immigration Act and say, this is our immigration policy. The regulations are really only a smokescreen, as the hon. member for Greenwood said.
The regulations leave too much to the discretion of departmental officials, not only those abroad but those in Canada today. There is too much power in the hands of departmental officials because there is vagueness in the regulations. Vagueness breeds power and, so far as I am concerned, vagueness breeds all kinds of definitions which cannot be pinned down. The time has come, therefore, when there should be an overhaul of our Immigration Act and regulations. I am not one who believes in immigration policy by regulation. We can only benefit from a liberalization of our immigration policy. Newcomers influence our economy in many, many ways. They contribute to manpower. They participate in establishing new industries. In fact they promote employment for Canadian workers and many times they repopulate our farms. They become important consumers who bring with them immense sums of capital and personal effects.
I should like to deal very briefly with the problem of Chinese immigration from Hong Kong. I hope the minister will be able to answer these questions. I understand that

Interim Supply
immigration offices have been opened in Cairo and Beirut. I have nothing against immigration from these two parts of the world, and presumably there were good reasons for the opening of these offices. However, in 1962 only 964 immigrants came from Egypt and 292 from Lebanon. We have offices in other countries such as Italy, France where we have two, Hong Kong. I do not believe we have sufficient staff in Italy where we only have the one office in Rome. So far as I am concerned this is a disgraceful situation, not only because the department cannot handle the volume of applicants but because the applicants cannot be examined. Surely in a country from which there is a great volume of immigrants we should have better facilities, more personnel and at least two offices, one for the northern part of the country and one for the southern part.
We know the discrimination that has been practised in Hong Kong. The minister, in his speech yesterday, mentioned the organization of many rackets for illegal entry of immigrants. This is not more prevalent anywhere than in Hong Kong today or in the past few years. The Chinese people have had a problem, and I feel that problem is one that we have created. There is a great backlog of applicants in Hong Kong. No one knows what happens to these applicants. I have had ex-erience with many of them, and when the sponsors in Canada make application for these people in Hong Kong, sometimes these people are not heard from for a year or longer. The representatives of the Chinese community submitted a brief to the former minister of citizenship and immigration, now the Minister of Justice, in which they requested improvements in the machinery for admitting their relatives to Canada. They have suggested various remedies, one of which was the establishment of an independent tribunal, as mentioned by the hon. member for Greenwood. This independent tribunal would verify the bona fides of the Chinese immigrants.
This brief suggested also the admittance of sons and daughters of Chinese Canadian residents irrespective of age or marital status; the elimination of existing delays in the applications of sponsored relatives; the discontinuance of the prosecution of Chinese for past illegal entries into Canada. I am happy to say that as soon as this government took office this practice, established by the former administration, was eliminated.


Mr. Woolliams:: I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question.
[Mr. Macaluso.l


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I will as soon as I am finished. Our immigration, not only from Hong Kong but from Great Britain and all other countries, has been most unsatisfactory for several years. I wonder at times what is wrong. Is our immigration geared to bringing people in or keeping them out? I wonder at times, Mr. Chairman, why we speak very actively and very aggressively about immigration, but we really have not done too much about it over the past 10 or 15 years. I believe the last year in which there was active immigration was right after the war and in 1956 after the Hungarian uprising. Since that time we have not done too much about it. Our staffs are poorly paid; the personnel is not too strong. I sincerely ask the minister, when he is reviewing policy, to deal with these matters as soon as possible in order to alleviate this backlog of applications.
I should like to mention one other matter, Mr. Chairman; the Canadian citizenship courts. I believe this was a policy the former government established, and it was a good policy. I believe that today the immigrant who goes to one of these courts to obtain his certificate of citizenship, receives it with pride. I should like to mention the ceremonies that are performed by the court president and the great job that is done in the city of Hamilton by the I.O.D.E. in their reception for these people after the ceremonies, and by the city officials themselves. I know that they felt more pride in becoming citizens of this country. However, I believe the minister should very actively review the questions that are being asked by some of the citizenship court presidents. When immigrants go to fill out their applications for Canadian certificates of citizenship and are examined, many of the examinations are held in camera. Applicants at times are very nervous, and they are asked certain questions by the president of the citizenship court. Because of a lack of complete understanding of the language they may be at a disadvantage.
This is something I have discussed with the minister on many occasions. I have also talked about it with some other hon. members on this side of the chamber, and we are agreed there is no uniformity in the examination of applicants for citizenship papers. This is something that causes hardship. When I am in my offices at home people come and ask me why they have been refused citizenship, and tell me they have been remanded for one or two years. The explanation is simple. A person must have an understanding of the

English or French language, and this is only right. It is very difficult to obtain employment in this country if one does not have an understanding of the languages of the country, and sometimes of the geography of the country.
On occasion applicants have been asked how many square miles there are in Canada, what is the largest or smallest river, and who is the lieutenant governor of B.C. These are questions which are asked of people in Hamilton. They are unfair questions; many of us could not answer them ourselves. I urge the minister to see to it that there is some form of uniform examination, and I suggest that a booklet be prepared and sent to citizenship court presidents outlining procedures for a uniform examination.
I do not say this is the case with all the presidents of the courts. I know of instances where excellent examinations are conducted, but I also know of cases where the examinations are not just or equitable. When he is summing up later on I hope the minister will outline what he intends to do regarding citizenship court presidents and our offices abroad.
I now turn to another matter. The policy of the Liberal party in the general elections of 1962 and 1963 called for an appeal tribunal to be set up. I quote from that policy:
Decisions of immigration officials will be subject to review by appropriate and independent tribunals.
I urge the minister to advise the committee when this policy will be implemented. I shall now accept the question from the hon. member for Bow River.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The question is a short one. Is it not a fact that during the time hon. Mrs. Fairclough was minister of citizenship and immigration the regulations were changed which affect the Chinese and other people from that area? Is not that a fair comment in that regard?


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: No, Mr. Chairman, I say it is not a fair comment in that regard. I do not say this critically, but at no time were the regulations affecting the Chinese alleviated; let us put it that way. In fact it was the opposite. At no time was there more action to deport Chinese citizens who came in illegally. This is not a criticism, because I believe it was the duty of the departmental officials to concern themselves with those who came into the country illegally. I do not make any criticism of that policy, but I do not follow the hon. member for Bow River
Interim. Supply
when he says the regulations were changed. Perhaps they may have been.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to make a speech at this time, but if the hon. member will check Hansard he will see that the regulations affecting the Chinese and other people from that area were changed so they were given equal status in coming to Canada with people from other lands. Whether the departmental officials started to implement that immediately might be another question, but I say to the hon. member that if he checks Hansard he will find the regulations, in fact and by number, were changed so they were given equal status with people coming from Europe and other lands.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I will say this; I agree the
regulations were changed so that the qualification regarding race and country of origin was thrown out and the emphasis was placed on education and skills. As I stated previously, the interpretations of these regulations is being used as a smokescreen. The hon. member and I are not in disagreement, but there is ministerial discretion even in that case, and this applies to all ministers who have held the citizenship portfolio. The regulation was made uniform regarding education and skills, but there is still discrimination in the regulations, and when you examine section 31 you find this discrimination is still practised in the department or by some officials.
I repeat that Canada today needs skilled people, educated people, but we are finding it more and more difficult to compete and we need an aggressive policy in order to take advantage of that situation.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, it is 11 days since debate on interim supply started. At that time I opened up on the subject of citizenship and immigration and said many people had spent a lot of time in jail without legal justification, without excuse, and apparently without enough attention being paid by the minister. The attitude has changed slightly since then, in that now we have the appointment of Mr. Sedgwick, who is going to inquire into some of these matters.
I must congratulate the government on the choice of its appointee. Mr. Sedgwick is a most capable man, and I am sure the advice he gives the government will be most helpful. It has been previously mentioned that the type and exact scope of the inquiry are a little indefinite. The minister has made it plain it is not under the Inquiries Act, but when pushed as to how far he will go and what

Interim Supply
representations he will receive, he places the scope of that inquiry closer and closer to a full scale inquiry under the Inquiries Act.
The minister's attitude has been revealed throughout, ever since this question was first raised by hon. members asking why it was that certain people had been held in jail so long. My first observation on the attitude of the minister was that he did not seem to understand the seriousness of the allegations made. Apparently it did not occur to the minister that merely because an individual may be in the country illegally, or that he may happen to be a lawbreaker to some extent, does not excuse any government officials or anyone else taking away his legal rights.
The minister has seemed to fail to understand that he as the head of a department, and especially as head of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration where the rights of individuals can be so easily tampered with and where there can be so much hardship caused by the ordinary routines of the department, has a very special duty to know and comprehend the meanings and duties and actions of his officers. When there is an allegation made that people have been denied legal counsel, or that they have not been able to get in touch with relatives, or that they have not been admitted to bail even in the ordinary courts of the land where people appear on various charges, the minister should be aware that sometimes these allegations are made by long time Canadian citizens, by people who have their friends and relatives around, people who speak our languages, who are familiar with counsel in their own cities and who have people willing to provide bail for them.
I find that the minister ignored completely the fact that in the ordinary enforcement of law in this country, law enforcement officers can become so zealous in their duty, so determined to put a lawbreaker behind bars, that they themselves are the first to deny the accused his legal rights. Certainly the minister should comprehend that the position of our courts of justice in this country is to stand between the law enforcement agencies and the threat of overzealous action interfering with the liberty of the individual. As I said when I started on this point, Mr. Chairman, so precious is the liberty of the individual that it takes priority 10 to 1 over the possibility of an accused who is actually guilty going free.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a stronger reason than even a judge of the court. His is a double duty. The tri-

bunals that hear these applications, that hold these hearings as to whether or not someone should stay, are acting in a judicial capacity. The minister has the right to review those decisions himself. If the minister is going to be as slow as he appeared to be in this house day after day, seemingly concerned only with protecting departmental officials and relatively unconcerned with the possibility of injustice in his department, I do not see how he thinks he can hold himself fit to review decisions of a judicial nature. Added to the ordinary complications of a citizen who is arrested by the police and charged with a crime are, in this case, the difficulties of language; perhaps no friends or relatives; perhaps little or no knowledge of our judicial process; little or no knowledge of our immigration procedures, rules and regulations. On top of these natural difficulties in trying to assure for himself a fair trial, that individual is likely to be subjected to the threat of prosecution as an illegal immigrant.
I suggest that the recent increase in charges of this type being laid should have been a warning to the minister-something that he should have looked at very carefully the first time he heard of people being held in jail a long time, or the first time he heard of any injustice being suffered by these people-that perhaps the dedication of overzealous civil servants in his department to get information, to find out how many illegal immigrants there are, to do their job thoroughly and try to root them out, could lead to the threat of a criminal charge being used as a sort of blackmail, as a club over their head. This is not at all far fetched, Mr. Chairman; this is the logical outcome of a dedication to one aspect of a duty, which is to pick out those people who according to law should not be here.
It is not those officials I am criticizing so much, because certainly if we are to have our laws respected and if we are going to have admitted to this country only that type of people who we think will be a credit to Canada, we need dedicated people; we need dedicated enforcement officers, be they law enforcement officers or immigration officials. But we also need some balance. We need the minister to remember his position; we need the minister to remember what a court of justice is. A court of justice is not there to send people to jail; it is there to protect the liberty of the individual. I submit to the minister that he has completely ignored that aspect of his duty with regard to the actions of his department. I may say, Mr. Chairman,

that I am not really shocked, because the minister has been consistent, as a minister of this government in this house, in his slowness in responding to questions. I have watched as questions were asked, and the minister was, if not arrogant, certainly hesitant to even talk about it at all. Next he resorted to those bland assurances that we always get from this government. There was anything but an honest, straightforward answer containing the required information, given at once.
This is consistent with the behaviour of all ministers in this government. When there is a realization in the minister's mind Anally that this case is more than just a storm in a teacup, that the matter is not going to be dropped, that there is more than a little suspicion that there is much injustice to be cleaned up, and therefore perhaps things in his department are not running as smoothly as they should and with as much justice as we would like to see, he acts in the typical manner of the ministers of this government and starts to be pushed and edged toward things just a little.
Where is that bold action that we would have expected; the recognition of a problem and the action this government should take? I submit that when the minister Arst started to hint that he was going to have an investigation, it seemed to me it was going to be someone in his own department upon whom he could rely, and next he was sort of going to have somebody outside the department to look into this problem. Then he announced that there was going to be a real inquiry, and in response to further questions it appears that the inquiry may have something of the scope of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. I would not be surprised if the minister ended up with a formal commission of inquiry. I submit to the minister that in these days, when we hear so much complaint about the house not being able to get the business done, that we take too long with our business, if the minister would only look at his own actions in this regard he would And there the reasons for the troubles of this government and this parliament; namely, the failure to give information when questions are asked, the failure to cope when the situation is Anally driven home, the failure to come up with some direct action, and then the complete failure to be completely honest and frank with parliament.
Mr. Chairman, we are not here to try to subvert the workings of the government; to try to torpedo or undermine the work of any 20220-293
Interim Supply
minister in any department. But we do feel that a minister has a very great responsibility in this house and to this house; that where there are obvious signs that things are not right, that there have been injustices, the duty of a minister is to face up to them frankly and promptly and secure the immediate help of this house in curing them. I am sure we will not be slow in coming forward with any assistance that we can.
I noticed that the other day the Minister of Justice intervened Anally. In fact, there was a peculiar situation. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration yesterday started with a very long statement about this matter and then the Minister of Justice had to come to his rescue. During the time the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was apparently unable to see where the injustice was in these cases, why parliament was so troubled by them, and the importance of his department being cleared of any imputation of injustice, I wonder where the Minister of Justice was. Is there no cabinet collaboration? The Minister of Justice should have been the Arst to see the serious implication of the allegations being made by various members as to what was going on; the Minister of Justice should have been able to put at the disposal of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, on the Arst day, an experienced oAScer who could have gone down and in a couple of days have obtained the information that would have brought the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration up to date, so he would know what he was talking about and would have had some conception of how to handle the problem in this house.
I suggest that at this point the minister might ask the Minister of Justice for the loan of a lawyer, who could be seconded to his department and act as counsel for all people who had been held in jail for a period of as much as seven days, and who had not yet been represented by counsel of their choice. The duty of this person would simply be that he would act for anyone not represented by counsel, at least to the extent of making sure that he is advised of his rights, and has a chance to get counsel. He could also get in touch with people who could put up bond. In other words, there would be someone from the Department of Justice who would be interested just in justice and would assist the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in making sure that injustices do not occur. Mr. Chairman, I think that is all I wish to say.
4612	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Interim Supply


Mr. Belanger:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to take advantage of this debate to bring certain facts to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) and the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) who is in charge of the administration of ARJDA. Unfortunately, they are not in the house today, but I trust that their colleagues will mention to them my remarks which concern them directly.
Mr. Chairman, I know that these two ministers are seeking a means of assisting agriculture in the eastern part of our country. The efforts made at present by the Minister of Forestry to reach that goal are no doubt genuine. In fact, I was happy, on Sunday last, to hear on television the Minister of Forestry say that he was waging war against poverty in the Gaspe peninsula.
That is why I want to take advantage of his good intentions and his good dispositions to tell him that unfortunately I question the efficiency of the methods he intends to use to solve the problem of poverty and to help agriculture at the same time.
I also want to tell him that poverty does not exist only in the Gaspe peninsula but that it is just as serious in my riding of Charlevoix. That is why I want to call his attention to that region of my province.
But, contrary to our Conservative friends, I will do more than criticize, I will offer solutions; contrary also to those who believe that the role of the opposition is simply to bring down the government, I admit that the opposition must criticize the government's legislation, but it must also suggest ways to improve it and help the Canadian people by suggesting better ideas. That is what I shall do today.
Consequently, I would ask the Ministers of Forestry and Agriculture to kindly give very special consideration to the ideas I will now put forward; afterwards, I would be most interested to have their comments on my suggestions.
I will start by reminding the house that we already have a municipal winter works incentive program of which the federal and provincial governments pay respectively 60 and 40 per cent of labour costs. Even if the program greatly alleviates unemployment, it does have serious disadvantages. To name but a few, I will say that if the present system is continued, our municipalities will one day find themselves so deep in debt that the program will no longer be applicable because the taxpayers and especially the farmers, whose burden is heavier than that of
[Mr. Nugent.1
anyone else, will revolt. In fact, they have already started protesting against the tax burden.
They have already started to revolt since, to quote but one example, the farmers' march on the parliament of the province of Quebec has just been organized by the catholic farmers' union, precisely to protest against these too burdensome taxes.
On the other hand, this system, while it solves the unemployment problem for a certain number of people, does so very temporarily, for after being idle for a few months, our unemployed, in the fall, starts working for the municipal corporation, having already incurred debts, and after the municipality has furnished him with work for a month or a month and a half, our man finds himself the same as before, the day after his dismissal. Therefore, in most cases, this system is only a poultice on an artificial limb.
Moreover, in the major part of the countryside, at least in my constituency, farmers have a very low income on which they cannot live. Nevertheless, the social service refuses them any aid because they are supposed to have enough revenue, but I will not go into that.
When the winter works period starts, there begins also for these farmers the unemployment season; as they pay municipal taxes, they go and claim their share of winter works, although many of them go and spend some time in the lumber camps after which, they come back to winter works. I do not say this to reflect on the farmers of my constituency, but to show what is wrong with this winter works system, and the disorder it creates.
In brief, let us say that the winter works, as they are carried out now, affect the farmers in the first place by gradual increases of real estate taxes, to such an extent that farmers who succeeded in making a living, a few years ago, are now leaving our rural regions. In my own riding, and I think I can say in every corner of the province, you could find complete rural roads where there were once 25 or 30 farmers and where there are only two, four or six left.
If, because of the fact that farmers, in order to survive, have to become lumbermen during fall and winter, we must face another chaos, because if farmers could make a decent living with the income from their farm, they would not cut wood and thus take the jobs of professional lumbermen and sometimes compete unfairly with them.

If only professional lumbermen had the privilege to cut wood, it would have this important result:
1.	The cutting season, as we say, would last longer because there would be fewer workers to do the annual cutting;
2.	The workers joining a union could get better salaries.
In the final analysis, if everyone attended to his own business all would be sure to be right, as the proverb says.
But to achieve such a result, we must first of all give the farmers an opportunity to make a decent living on their farms. That leads me to my solution which, although it is not perfect, like everything that is tried within the "concentrationary" monetary system in which we live, would not cost any more than winter works and would be more efficient in the long run.
If, for instance, under ARDA, somebody were to go and see the farmers in my riding, say around May 15, and tell them: "Look, for the next three months we are going to pay you a dollar an hour, five hours a day, to work at improving your own land." In my constituency, according to the dozens of farmers I have consulted, we could start by having them prepare and develop what they call permanent pastures. That includes drainage operations, stone removal, fencing, ploughing, seeding and what not. Now, suppose that in my riding of Charlevoix, which is in a designated area, the government were to pay farmers a dollar an hour-which, as we all agree, is not much-over a three-month period, that would make, for 20 days a month, $100 a month or, for three months $300.
By applying this system to a thousand farmers during three years, we would have an amount of $900,000. That may seem a large sum but if the results of the winter works programs were compared with those we would obtain through the method I just proposed, it is seen that we would get ten times more for the same amount.
Here is, as 1 see it, what would happen. First, everybody knows that when one works for oneself, one works better and harder. Hence, if a farmer is paid to work on his land, that is to do something which will belong to him, which he will keep and will bring profits to him later, you may rest assured that he will work hard.
I know that it will be necessary to set up some kind of control of the amount of work done by each of the farmers, through the use of a supervisor, namely one for every 20220-293J
Interim Supply
parish, who would find out whether the amount of work done during five hours every day is enough but it will be much more for statistical purposes than for anything else, for with a few exceptions, necessary to confirm the rule, I am sure that the results would be good and even surprising, especially compared to the efficiency of those same men during the winter works, when they are assigned to work in very cold temperatures on more or less useful projects.
I am convinced that if the government would carry out such an experiment in my riding, it would once and for all take its people out of the depression in which they wallow.
Think of the enrichment that would follow if the farmers in that riding could obtain
900,000	paid hours of work to develop permanent pastures.
I am convinced that would encourage them to such an extent that they would add themselves, without pay, twice as many hours, which means that in three years very large tracts of land-now lying idle or producing very little-would be turned into permanent grazing grounds with a high carrying capacity.
Starting from there those farmers' income would increase. And why? Because the governments, having played their part as supplementary bodies, would have enabled those farmers to go very profitably into dairy farming which is the only key to agricultural prosperity, at least in my riding.
With permanent grazing grounds the problem of feed grain would be much less acute because, if well operated, those grazing grounds could produce very economically all the feed for the cattle needed to ensure a high production of dairy products.
On the other hand, request for a deep water wharf at Baie St. Paul has always been rejected. One of the reasons for this refusal is that Charlevoix county is not sufficiently developed and that it is not in a position to supply the farm produce required by the large cities rapidly developing in the northeast region adjacent to Charlevoix county.
If the government would try this method to help agriculture in the county, it would save a great deal of money on what it is now paying by way of unemployment assistance, social assistance and unemployment insurance, and it would permit the farmers of the county to take pride in their achievements as they would no longer depend on any one. Charlevoix could become the granary of the

Interim Supply
cities of the north. Farmers' sons would be less inclined to leave a prosperous farm for the city where they only swell the number of unemployed.
In short, I advocate for the government to assist the farmer directly on his farm during two or three years; thereafter he will be able to make it on his own with an adequate income. In my opinion, it would be a better solution than the plan just put into effect by the government and which enables you to buy various pieces of land, and join them together. With such a system, the number of land owners decreases but the number of proletarians increases. It has been done and it is still done in some countries which are rightly called communist countries. If the system I advocate were adopted, the opposite would occur; the number of land owners would increase which is an important asset in our struggle against communism.
Like my colleague, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) I receive many complaints about charitable donations receipts for income tax purposes. The minister replied yesterday that receipts for charitable donations were only reduced when they exceeded 10 per cent of income. Now that is false, because in every case which was submitted to me, the amounts of the receipts were less than 10 per cent of income and these receipts were signed by respectable and trustworthy persons. In spite of that, without further ado, a petty dictator, an official of the Department of National Revenue decides that those people have lied and deducts and more or less steals part of their income. Well, the hon. member for Lapointe had the right word, yesterday, for someone who takes away what belongs to another person. And to those who said last night that members of the house should not avail themselves of their privileges to attack the absent, I must point out that those privileges have been granted to us better to protect the interests of the people. That is what the hon. member for Lapointe did yesterday and he deserves to be commended for it.
It is suggested that income tax officials are unable to defend themselves when they are attacked by members in the house. But the taxpayer is even less able to defend himself when an income tax official tries to take his property away from him.
On the other hand, could the minister tell us whether the expense accounts of income tax inspectors are scrutinized by income tax officials as arbitrarily as are receipts for
[Mr. Belanger.l
charitable donations? The minister should inquire about this.
That is why, before closing, I shall take the liberty of suggesting to the Minister of National Revenue to think about revising that act, in order to put an end to this tyranny which can be found only in the province of Quebec.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In taking part in the debate today I might perhaps begin by reminding hon. members that we are spending now approximately $7 billion a year; the government is asking for supply amounting to approximately that sum. I believe the exact sum they are asking for today is $469 million, and in these circumstances I would have hoped-and I think most of us would have hoped-that more members on the other side of the house would have taken the opportunity to be present.
I see two ministers in their places. I have something very important to say about the C.B.C. and about certain of the remarks made by the Prime Minister with reference to this now famous film. I would have thought that the right hon. gentleman and others of his colleagues on the treasury benches would have been interested in being present. I have not counted the number of members who are in the chamber, but in the light of the amount of money we are spending, and when we realize the height taxation has reached in Canada today, and when we know that it is still increasing and will continue to increase, I would have thought more hon. members would have realized the importance of this situation.
Before I proceed to matters affecting the C.B.C., perhaps I could say a word or two about these immigration cases. I have had nothing to say about them so far, except for some questions directed to the minister of immigration whom I am happy to see present in the chamber. Probably his great mistake- and to date he has been criticized by the press, not by me-is that he has tried to protect his department even though he knows the department has been wrong. I would have thought, irrespective of what the regulations say, and irrespective of what the facts are in reference to a person, as the hon. member for Royal said the other evening a decision should have been made in respect of any man who was held for 90 days. I have had a question on the order paper since June 3; the Speaker asked me to put it on the order paper-


René Tremblay: You will have your answer tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am to have my answer tomorrow. It is like Alice in Wonderland- never jam today; always jam tomorrow. Anyhow, I have not received my answer. I would have liked to know how many times Mr. Hooper was brought before the bar of justice. How many times was he remanded? Was it every eight days according to the Criminal Code or the Immigration Act? Did he get an opportunity to consult counsel? And what about the 16 or 17 other people who were in jail at the same time? What happened to them? Surely the people who come to this land, even if they do slip into Canada illegally, come here sometimes because they wish to create a new life for themselves; because they want to leave a land which has been devastated by war, or the effects of war, or similar reasons. Many of us could give instances of such things happening.
I do not think the minister should have to take all the blame. The house leader was the former minister and what did he do about the situation? The present minister has taken the whole responsibility, the whole shot in the arm. The house leader is played up as the next prime minister if the Liberals succeed in retaining office; but there is a question mark about that, of course. They may need him quicker than they think they do right now. But the fact is that he must take some responsibility for the situation.
I say to the present minister: Clean up the mess. If the department will not co-operate with him, do something about it. If the regulations are not being interpreted properly, then let us see they are interpreted and make sure the Canadian Bill of Rights really functions in this country.
I now turn to the main subject I wish to discuss this afternoon, namely the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In my introductory remarks I should like to say that there has been much criticism in the newspapers, and perhaps justly so, about the state of parliament and how it functions. I do not believe parliament will ever function properly or efficiently if ministers of the crown do not give information properly and honestly when they are asked questions. We have the fact that a film, "Mr. Pearson", was made at a cost of $35,000. We know how the C.B.C. gets money from the taxpayers; but while the fact that the film cost $35,000 is not unimportant it may not be very important.
Interim Supply
However, arising out of this film certain fundamental weaknesses of the government have been exposed. Let us look at them. I charge the government, whose members are almost all absent, with failing to disclose proper information to parliament; and this, in light of the fact that supply of $7 billion is involved, is a very serious matter.
I want to place on the record as I did yesterday the facts of the matter because the question of privilege I raised then involved something very important. The Prime Minister of our country is not so much important as a person as he is because of the fact that he holds a very important position. Anyone who rises to that position has a hard row to hoe from the time he enters the House of Commons, and I am sure all Canadians respect the position of prime minister. The Prime Minister holds this important position with which is associated not only dignity of office but also responsibility of the highest, because he holds the highest position in parliament and the highest position in the land.
But when we tried to ascertain what really took place with regard to this film red herrings were drawn across the trail. The government has continually referred to another film, "The Chief", depicting the Leader of the Opposition, and have talked about the censoring of that film. The film I am dealing with now is the one that has been censored. What has the government to hide in this regard? Why has it been so like pulling teeth to get information and why, to put it mildly, has information been given dishonestly?
Just the other day a respected member of parliament, the former minister of agriculture, was removed from the house because he charged the Prime Minister with not telling the complete truth. Let us look at the record. I want to refer once again to Hansard of May 21, 1964, page 3429, where certain simple and complete questions were directed to the Prime Minister with reference to the action of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in respect of this film. At that time the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he has had a private preview of the film?
The answer of the Prime Minister was simple and direct. I continue the quotation:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh? What were you doing it for?

Interim Supply


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend should not get so excited.


John George Diefenbaker: Did you find it a horror film?
The Prime Minister went on to say that he saw the film. I charge that the Prime Minister was right when he said that he saw the film. But let us see what he said on another occasion. I refer to Friday, June 19, the day that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, the former minister of agriculture, was removed from the house because he said that the Prime Minister of this country had only partly told the facts. I suggest that the Prime Minister did not tell the truth because one statement must be wrong. They cannot both be correct. This is what he said, as found on page 4490 of Hansard for that day:
Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak for anybody else but I propose to say that I was telling the truth, the total truth, and I ask the hon. gentleman to accept that. He says, in throwing doubt on my word, that two hon. members have seen this film.


John George Diefenbaker: I said one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: One hon. member has seen this film. The hon. member may have seen this film. I have not.


John George Diefenbaker: You did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not seen this film.
On May 21, 1964, the Prime Minister of this country came into the House of Commons and said that he had seen a preview of the film in question. Then he came into the house on June 19 and said that he had not seen the film. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very serious charge indeed, and I accept the responsibility for making it. I am going to quote some other things to show how much misinformation the house has been given, and I say given deliberately.
I am going to suggest that it matters not what the facts are about which a member of the government or any other member of parliament tells an untruth. If we believe in the parliamentary system, the same system Great Britain has, and if it is proven in the House of Commons that the Prime Minister did not tell the truth, because the two statements cannot stand together, then he has a responsibility.
When speaking on the budget after the Liberal government was first formed I pointed out that they had got outside help, that there was a suggestion that there had been leakages with respect to the budget and that the minister had a responsibility, which was to resign. I say to the Prime Minister, not only because he is Prime Minister but because he is a member of the house and leads the larg-

est group of members in the house, that he must either make an explanation or resign.


Mr. Mcllraith:: I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


George James McIlraith: In view of the fact he is making direct charges of a rather serious nature regarding the leader of the government, has he followed the usual practice of notifying the member against whom the charges are being made to be present while they are being made?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that when I started my remarks I pointed out I intended to discuss the C.B.C. I also pointed out what kind of facts I was going to discuss with reference to the C.B.C. I noticed that the minister himself, and I do not say this by way of criticism, wandered into the house after I started to make my remarks. I am glad to see him here.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Chairman, I think I should correct that statement. I was in the house when the hon. gentleman started his remarks. I asked him a question having to do with the practice of the house, and I think that as an honourable member he would wish to observe the practice in a serious matter like this. All I want to know is whether or not he sent the usual notice. If by any reason he inadvertently omitted doing so I will be glad to send the usual notice for him now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My answer is that yesterday I rose on a question of privilege, raised the same points then and the Prime Minister of Canada remained silent. I say that by his silence he convicted himself. What better notice could he have had?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, my remarks were merely addressed to the point of order having to do with the practice of the house and had nothing to do at this stage with the substance of what the hon. member is saying. I draw the omission on his part to his attention because in my opinion and that of other hon. members, I think, it would be a reflection on himself if he did not observe the practice. It may be a pure oversight. I make nothing of the fact if it is an oversight, but I am simply calling it to his attention so he can let us know.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My time is always limited; of course, I can speak again on interim supply. I will say that I have not written the Prime

Minister a letter. The reason I did not write him a letter is that I raised a point of privilege yesterday and brought to his attention these two statements, in fact three. He said once that he did not see the film; those words are clear. In his next statement he said he did see the film. There are two contradictory statements concerning the same film. When the question was raised yesterday the Prime Minister remained silent. He did not reply. I hope the Prime Minister is in the building, and I hope he comes in to the house because I have several things I wish to raise.
I say that the respect of parliament is at stake. I will go farther. I say there is a responsibility on the Prime Minister, as a member of parliament, to resign and hand over the tools of office to someone else. Since my hon. friend has raised this question, I should like to quote no less an authority than the present Prime Minister when he spoke on another subject. However, the analogy will be perfect. Speaking on October 1, 1962, as reported at page 53 of Hansard-I brought this along because I thought this very question may be raised, the question of my right to speak on this subject this afternoon. This was in reference to a question of whether the same man, the hon. member who was expelled from this house, had broken a cabinet confidence during the election campaign when he stated he was not concerned about whether the dollar was pegged at 95 cents or 90 cents because it would be good for Canada. The present Prime Minister said at that time:
One of the reasons for the acceleration of this crisis, not the cause of it but the acceleration of it, was the minister's own incredible gaff when he calmly announced during the election in Vancouver that he did not like the 92.5 cent dollar of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the minister of finance at that time were so proud. They had been telling the Canadian people what a master stroke of policy that was. Then, the Minister of Agriculture gets up some ten days before the election and says he does not like it. Talk about cabinet secrets and the inviolability of cabinet discussion. What would have happened to a British cabinet minister in Westminster if he had made this kind of public gaff?
The minister of agriculture would have had to resign. Not so long ago we witnessed a situation in Great Britain-I am not going into these facts in which a British minister of the crown said no when he should have said yes. We have no once and then yes again. What did that cabinet minister do? He resigned because he felt responsible to the house. He had misinformed the house and he resigned to keep the respectability of the House of Commons and to keep the parlia-
Interim Supply
mentary system alive. I say therefore that the Prime Minister today, if he accepts his responsibility seriously, should resign. I say again that the fact he would not answer yesterday convicted him; he was convicted by his silence. He knew there was no answer. There is no explanation. What makes it far worse, what makes it very sad indeed, is the fact that another member of the privy council was expelled from this House of Commons because he dared tell the Prime Minister, who on two occasions had said two different things as recorded in Hansard, that he was not telling the complete truth.


The Chairman:: I am sure the hon. member knows that he cannot reflect upon a vote of the house. I am not saying that the whole substance of his speech is out of order, but certainly when he refers to a particular incident on which a vote of the house was taken I would think that he is reflecting on that vote. This is the suggestion I make. The hon. member, I know, will want to take that into consideration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would want to take cognizance of your ruling and stay within your ruling. I want to say this: I was not reflecting on any vote of the house. I was reflecting on certain circumstances which took place before the vote.
However, I will move along now because I do not want to have a red herring drawn over my speech. I want to lay down the facts and bring them before the members of this house. In my opinion, as a member of this house, the Prime Minister has misled the house. I have read two statements and I want to read another. I quote from page 3836 of Hansard for June 2, 1964, and the reference is to this same subject. The Prime Minister was asked by the hon. member for Yukon, a certain question and this was his reply:
I did not see it in my office. I saw it in Toronto at a studio, and it was shown in an office in the east block. I saw part of it there but the sound track was so bad I left after a few minutes because it could not be understood.
Then the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue asked a supplementary question as follows:
I have a question supplementary to the previous question asked of the Prime Minister. I was wondering if, as a sophisticated critic of art, he would tell us what he thought of the film "Mr. Pearson" when he saw it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I found it exceedingly interesting, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Revealing?

Interim Supply
It is revealing; it is revealing that they will not come forward and tell the facts in this house when they are asked for the facts.
Let us consider another story, an independent story for a few moments. I should like now to turn to another set of facts that took place on June 15, 1964. I emphasize again that if we, as members of parliament, irrespective of the side of the house on which we sit, endorse what is going on now on the front benches of this government, parliament will come into such disrespect it will take years for parliament to regain its importance in our land.


An hon. Member:: What about five or six years ago?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend is inquiring about six years ago; he left out two years, and I suppose he is talking about the pipe line debate. It is still haunting him.
Let me go back to the facts. I should like to quote from page 4329 of Hansard for June 15, 1964, a speech by the Leader of the Opposition:
When the Prime Minister indulged in quotations he did not think of bringing to the attention of the house the letter he received from the various intellectuals who signed that message on May 27.
In order that the record will be clear, I should say that the letter was from a group of intellectuals in this country with reference to the flag. The Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, X received no such letter.
I am going to lay the groundwork for the statement that again the Prime Minister did not tell the facts and the truth in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know; I feel the same way. On May 27, there was a letter written and signed by various intellectuals in this country. One of those intellectuals was Denis Smith, assistant to the president and assistant professor of politics, Trent University, Peterborough. This letter was dated May 27, 1964.
I am now going to read from page 4330 of Hansard. Why does the Prime Minister want to hide these things? What is he afraid of? Why is he afraid of this film? Is he afraid because of the fake build-up of images in another land? Is he afraid because he has been told images have proven to be very important in political life? Well, if this image crosses the land then the people of Canada will find out what goes on in this government, and particularly what comes from the mouth of the Prime Minister.

At page 4330 he is recorded as saying that he would not like to mislead the house.
I received no such letter but I did get a letter on my desk. It was addressed "Dear Mr. ..." blank, and there was no signature to it, but it had that body.
I suggest that the Prime Minister did receive a letter dated May 27, 1964, and that it was not addressed to his blank office, because his office is not blank at the moment. It was addressed "The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, P.C., M.P., Prime Minister of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario" and it began "Dear Mr. Prime Minister". The letter had on it the names of various people, one of whom was the assistant to the president and assistant professor of political science at Trent University, Peterborough, a Mr. Denis Smith.
Why did the Prime Minister say it was not directed to him? Why did he say it was addressed "Dear Mr. . . ." blank? Did he want to tell the house that he had not received a letter from the intellectuals criticizing the flag which his government is bringing in, and which the hon. member for Royal said last night is a manufactured issue to cover up the irresponsibility, inadequacy and inefficiency of the government?
Those are the two points I want to make and I have made them. First of all the facts in reference to the questions on the film were not true, and he has not told us the facts in reference to the flag.
I could bring up another matter, but I do not have time to quote upon it. When this house first met after October of 1963, I asked the Prime Minister about the winter games in Banff. He said that the Department of External Affairs sent officials and one important minister to a conference; but later, when I placed the question on the order paper, I got a written reply stating there were no officials sent and the answer from the minister, which was different from that by the Prime Minister, was to the effect that it was against the law to send them; that it was not a conference but a committee. And so the Prime Minister sneaked out the back door instead of the front door in discussing that problem.
I say this, respecting the office of the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister who gave that answer knew no officials of the Department of External Affairs were at that winter games meeting, whether it was a conference, a committee or whatever it was.
Having gone that far, and certainly I have gone far, I would say to him that he should take and reread something that should haunt the government and himself because of these discrepancies which I have set out, and on

which he sat silently and failed to speak on a most important point of privilege. I may add there were many shocked people on the government back benches yesterday, as there were on this side of the house, when the Prime Minister remained silent and refused to answer. But what he should do is reread what he said in this chamber on February 4, 1963, when he wanted an election, when the Liberals were hungry for power. This is what he said in reference to our leader:
We face emergencies and problems in this country at this time. We need a government that will make decisions-
Then he went on:
He must have felt very sad-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You can clap now as much as you like, but when I come to the section you don't like you won't be clapping.
He must have felt very sad in making the kind of speech he had to make, but at that time he said, quoting the immortal words of Cromwell when he went into the Long Parliament:
"You have sat here too long for the little good that you have been doing.
Then, after some interruption, he finished the quotation:
Depart, I say, and let's have done with you. In God's name, go."
I say to the Prime Minister, who is not here now, what he said to the former prime minister, "in God's name, go."


Maurice Lamontagne: That is not what they said yesterday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say this, according to the natural law, according to the law of wisdom, according to the divine law, the law of God, this Prime Minister should leave because he is misinforming and misrepresenting facts in this House of Commons; and if he knows his responsibility he will leave.
I can only believe, when someone said he was steeped in the fine arts, that he might have been steeped in the fine arts of diplomacy. I believe most people will accept that, but maybe he read too seriously and got his two positions he has held mixed up, because I quote from page 452 of Plato's work, "The Republic", where the author discusses diplomacy:
The rulers of the state are the only ones who should have the privilege of lying, either at home or abroad; they may be allowed to lie for the good of the state.
We know what Plato meant, when you are dealing with external affairs; but when we are dealing with the business of the House 20220-294
Interim Supply
of Commons and the business of the Canadian people then I say to you, Mr. Chairman, it is a different situation.
The Prime Minister remains silent. The words were read while he was here in the chamber and they showed he said, '1 did not see that film." Then he said, "I did see that film," and then he said, "I saw a part of that film." If he had been allowed to answer again we would probably have received another version; but I must not digress because it is important. He now has a responsibility to come into the chamber and say, "I misinformed the house. I have done so. I know my responsibility. Someone else is taking over as the leader of the Liberals." That is the charge I make against the Prime Minister. I say it is a serious charge and I have documented the statements I have made. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up any more time of the committee.


Mr. Pugh:: As I listened to the hon. member for Bow River certain things struck me very strongly. A serious charge was made against the Prime Minister, which was a reiteration of a point of privilege brought up yesterday. At the outset the hon. member said he wished the Prime Minister were in his seat. I counted the house at that time and there were eight Liberals over there sitting and yawning, and talking away-


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the hon. member's statement. I counted the opposition benches and there were 13 members there. Let us have the record straight.


David Vaughan Pugh: There were only eight Liberals. This was before the hon. member came in.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


David Vaughan Pugh: Sit down. I am talking on a point of order.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I have been in the chamber all afternoon and I heard every speech made.
I think the hon. member should look straight before he makes comments. I ask him to count the members on the opposition benches, and not on those opposite him.


David Vaughan Pugh: There were eight Liberals in the chamber at the time the hon. member-


Mr. Dupuis:: That is entirely wrong.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think the committee would be well advised to get along with the resolution in hand.

Interim Supply


David Vaughan Pugh: Well now, Mr. Chairman, I counted the chamber and there were eight Liberals present. What I cannot understand is how the Liberals can be so silly as to try and hide the facts that have been brought forward. Why does not one of them stand up and say something about them? These are charges which should ring right across Canada, misstatements-one, two, three, four, any number of them have been made. And not only were there misstatements but questions were asked and sloughed off. We have heard a lot on the business of the house and the flag issue, but it seems to go on, and on and on, and I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. member for Bow River, and also the hon. member for Royal, who said the government will bring up any controversial issue but that it will not bring on any important business before the house for determination. I thing it is high time it did.
There is another point which is very germane, and that is all this laughing which is going on, on the Liberal side. I and many people across Canada think they are well equipped to sit down and laugh but they cannot get up and talk any sense.
There is another matter I would like to mention-that the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle was expelled from this house-that is the only word I can use-as a result of statements which he made as to the facts which the Prime Minister of this country had put before the house.
He doubted those things and said that the Prime Minister intended to mislead the house. This was all dealt with in the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Bow River. In that question of privilege the very words were documented. Out of that documentation, the thing I cannot understand is how the Prime Minister can sit in his seat and say nothing. All he did was get red in the face-and I am reminded of an old expression that arose out of the French revolution, "See, the blood of Danton chokes him".


Mr. Deschatelets:: What a contribution.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with a subject which interests more particularly the farmers of the province of Quebec. A large number of farmers including pipe, cigar and cigarette tobacco growers,
[The Deputy Chairman.]
are concerned at the present time because they have no protection against crop damage by hail or frost.
The federal government has drawn up a bill which should be very beneficial to farmers if, of course, the interested provinces will sign an agreement with Ottawa to avail themselves of such benefits.
In 1961, I wrote to the provincial minister of agriculture, Hon. Alcide Courcy, to ask him what were the intentions of the provincial government in this regard, so that the government could decide whether or not to take advantage of this crop insurance legislation.
I am happy to read to the house part of the reply dated July 24, 1961, from the provincial minister of agriculture:
Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of June 14,
I can assure you that the provincial government intends, in principle, to take advantage of the federal Crop Insurance Act to the extent that the people primarily interested, that is the agricultural producers, will want to take advantage of it.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that farmers who go in for special crops need the protection offered by the Crop Insurance Act.
Recently again, in Joliette, a storm swept through several farms where cigarette tobacco is grown. Losses amounted to thousands of dollars. If, in 1961, the Quebec government had signed an agreement with Ottawa, the owners of those farms would have been protected and could have received the money needed to recoup their losses.
Again I ask the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), who unfortunately is not in the house, as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and a great number of ministers-


Maurice Lamontagne: You should know that he is in hospital.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I take this opportunity to ask the Secretary of State, who gets along so well with the authorities of the province of Quebec-


Maurice Lamontagne: That is true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -including Mr. Rene Levesque, to urge the Quebec government to sign an agreement so as to protect the farmers of that province, especially those who go in for special farming, such as the tobacco growers.
The average income of eastern farmers, that is, of Quebec farmers, is approximately $1,200 a year. I know, Mr. Chairman, that a few provinces have already entered into an agreement with the federal government so as to benefit from the Crop Insurance Act. It would be essential, in my opinion, that the Quebec

Interim Supply
government should sign this agreement without delay and start by extending this act to tobacco growers, and then to fruit and vegetable growers, in order to cover eventually all Quebec farmers.
Mr. Chairman, this is what I had to say and I hope that the federal government and the Minister of Agriculture, as well as the Minister of Forestry, who is unfortunately absent from the house, will do their best in this connection.
I hope that some other minister will tell them to meet with Hon. Alcide Courcy- we all know that the federal Minister of Agriculture is on excellent terms with the provincial minister of agriculture-to ask him to co-operate as soon as possible with Ottawa in the best interests of Quebec agriculture.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, during the next few minutes, I should like to express the views of the average worker in Quebec and throughout Canada concerning the way the government of the day is handling the affairs of our country.
May I say that workers, who are commonly called average citizens, have lost all confidence in the present Liberal administration. Considering the numerous promises which were made during the 1962 and 1963 election campaigns, they had a right to expect that things would be a lot better than they are at present. After having trusted the Liberal party, they now realize that they have been deceived, and they deeply regret the defeat of the government which was in office from 1957 to 1962.
Mr. Chairman, you will certainly recall that during the 1962 and the 1963 election campaigns, workers were promised a pension scheme without taxation.
That promise was made in all the provinces and it brought votes to the Liberal party. Since the present government has been in power, not only has it introduced a pension plan only to withdraw it later, but it has brought in another scheme, and there is now some talk about a third one.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wonder how the Liberal party could promise a pension plan during the 1962 and 1963 election campaigns and how it could honestly expect to carry out its pledges.
I have before me a booklet published by the Liberal party during the election campaign, prior to the election held on June 18, 1962. It reads in part:
20220-294J

$140 a month for today's retired couple.
Up to $295 a month when you retire.

And further on, dealing with contributions, it reads as follows:

The Liberal plan will add a contributory pension to the existing old age pension. The addition will be paid for entirely by contributions, not by taxes.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the rate of tax on income has been moved from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. This was to cope with the increase in pension to $75 a month for the old age pensioners. You will also recall, Mr. Chairman, that this increase of $10 a month which was paid to the old age pensioners was implemented only after the official opposition had forced the government to fulfil its promise. Had it not been for the Conservative opposition, as sure as anything the old age pensioners would still be on the $65 a month pension as they were before.

But I would like to prove to the house that the Liberal promises made during the two election campaigns have become dead letters and that those who were supposed to bring such prosperity to the average worker are now unable to fulfil their promises.
I would refer to the two deduction tables with regard to income tax, and particularly forms 101 and 101 A, as well as the one which was introduced in January 1963. If we take as deduction basis a salary of $65 a week, we shall see, for instance, that, for an unmarried person earning $65 a week, the income tax shows a 40 cents increase per week, whereas the married man without dependants, is paying 25 cents a week over and above the amount paid at the time we were in power; the head of a family with two dependant children is paying 50 cents more than under the Conservatives; and a person with four dependant children, 5 cents more a week.
This government made many other promises, which remained just promises. For instance, I wonder why the government is waiting to carry out its promise to create an industrial council. Moreover, during the election campaign, those who are now supporting the government had promised Canadian citizens a special compensation to workers struck by illness. With regard to unemployment insurance, the Liberal party promised, during those elections, to extend

Interim Supply
its benefits to farm workers and, more than a year after the Liberal, have come into power, there is still no sign that farm workers will, in the near future, be covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Another promise which has certainly not been fulfilled is the one I find in the Liberal program of March 1963, and I quote according to this booklet:

The Liberals' objectives for the future are designed to ensure a square deal for labour.
In one of the promises hereafter enunciated we see that a Liberal government would institute a federal labour code, including a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour, a maximum work week of 40 hours, two weeks' vacation and seven statutory holidays. We are still waiting for this.


An hon. Member:: We are getting close to shore.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member says we are getting close to shore. We are closer to the end of the world than we have ever been before. The promise leaves us a long way from the shore, just as much as we are a long way from the day when the promise will be fulfilled.
I also see in this pamphlet that the Liberals' policy of economic expansion will restore the unemployment insurance fund and return it to its proper function. It was only a couple of months ago that the fund was drained to the bottom, and if it had not been for some emergency measures the workers of this country would have been deprived of their weekly benefits. Would the hon. member for Levis repeat his remark? I heard what he said though I will not repeat it; but I would have something to tell him if he did repeat it.

All this goes to say that the Canadian people lost confidence in this government long ago.
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, the 1962 election campaign opposed the dollar devaluation. They insisted that such a measure would be detrimental to the Canadian people. According to certain Liberal speakers, a Conservative administration would mean that the Canadian people would head straight for disaster. But, once in power, they forgot to re-establish the dollar parity and carried on where the Conservative party had left off. They even tried to get credit for measures introduced by the Conservative government.

This is not the only thing they had promised. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that they had promised to give Canada a balanced budget. Goodness knows how the budget has been balanced since they are in power. Not only has the budget been in a worse state than ever before, but from one year to the next, we are going from one catastrophe to another, and deficits are piling up.
The Liberals have nevertheless thought they would cure all ills by establishing new taxes. You know as well as I do, Mr. Chairman, that the 11 per cent tax is not extremely popular. It has not been of much help in developing our country. It has momentarily brought money to the government and had it not been for that extra revenue, I wonder what the government would have done.
Not only was 11 per cent tax increased, in addition to the 3 and 4 per cent on income tax, but there was also an increase in postal rates. As you know, the Postmaster General still has a resolution on the order paper to further increase postal rates.
I continually meet middle class people in my riding and I realize that, as a general rule, the people, the ordinary workers, have lost faith in the present Liberal government. I cannot repeat it too often for it is precisely what is happening, and people are anxious to have another opportunity to show their discontent to those who had promised them the moon and stars if they ever came back into power.
We have often been blamed for doing nothing or almost nothing to help the working class. Well, allow me to remind you of some measures which we took when our government was in power and which favoured more particularly what is commonly known as the average citizen.
As soon as we came into office, we amended the Unemployment Insurance Act to make it more consistent with present requirements. For example, we gave married women a status equal to that of the ordinary worker. In 1957, 250,000 workers drew for the first time benefits amounting to $13 million. We changed the periods of seasonal benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act and extended them from 16 to 24 weeks and, in 1958, we extended to 30 weeks the benefits which a worker can draw under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
This favoured 200,000 workers who shared among them an amount of $14 million and, in 1959, we increased the number of weeks for regular unemployment insurance benefits

from 36 to 52 weeks a year. This enabled
80,000	more Canadians to benefit thereby.
What single step did this government take in order to help the working class? It merely continued what the previous Conservative government had established, for which the Liberals are now trying to take credit.
You remember that when the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), who was at that time minister of labour, introduced in the house the legislation intended to help municipalities and the measure concerning winter works, those proposals were greeted with mockery by Liberal members who were then in opposition and who even tried to ridicule them. Those people contended at the time that those measures would not give any practical results. However, if you listen now to their speeches, you realize that they are trying to make us believe that those programs were initiated by them and that they are giving very interesting results.
It is a fact that the results are very interesting and the municipalities are happy to take advantage thereof, but they know however, to whom credit belongs.
For instance, you have the measure concerning sewage treatment plants. Several municipalities have availed themselves of that measure and the results have been excellent and continue to improve constantly, since all the municipalities go on taking advantage of this act, as drinking water supplies are decreasing all the time.
Now, I cannot resume my seat without making a few comparisons in a particular field which concerns more especially the constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I want to show that this government did not do very much in order to reduce unemployment, especially in the province of Quebec, where we have the sad honour of the greatest number of unemployed in all the provinces of the country.
In the province of Quebec, 112,000 unemployed are looking for jobs. If we refer more especially to the burning speeches made by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), we see that the unemployed, who do not now have a job and are deprived of a salary to support their families, are certainly entitled to expect more from a team which had promised so much, especially in their first 60 days in office.
Indeed, if I refer to a speech made in the house by the hon. member for Essex East, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, where he promised that the Liberal party would pass a whole series of measures
Interim Supply
if elected, I see that not one of them-except perhaps a half measure-has been implemented to stem unemployment.
Well, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to read his past speeches over again. I regret he is not in the house, because I would be very happy to remind him of his statements. However, I would ask his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) or the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) to advise the Secretary of State for External Affairs to read over the speech he made on September 20, 1961, and to convey to his colleague, the Minister of Labour, the information he said he had, so that the latter may take the necessary steps to give work to the unemployed in the province of Quebec.
For over a year, the unemployed in the province of Quebec have been hoping something would be done for them. When we were in power, we were blamed for not doing enough for unemployed workers. If it was wrong at that time to have unemployed people, it is no better now, especially in view of the fact that the province of Quebec alone has at least from 110,000 to 112,000 jobless people. I am asking Liberal hon. members from Quebec who are now in the house to bring pressure to bear on the minister, to discuss the matter in their caucus, in short, to speak for the unemployed. As a matter of fact, it is just as sad to see a man out of work in 1964 as it was in 1962 or 1963.
However, Mr. Chairman, you will recognize that we do not take advantage of human distress as the government members used to do when they were in opposition. In fact, when we were in power, almost not a day went by that the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) or some other Liberal members took the floor to try and make capital out of human distress and to paint a gloomy picture of the lot of Canadian workers.
If government members and more particularly those from Quebec wish to give evidence of honesty, they should work relentlessly on the unemployment problem and discuss it with the Minister of Labour as often as they did when they were in opposition. Only then shall we realize that they were sincere at that time. If they do not follow that course in 1964, it would become clear that their only object was blackmail and that they were not the least interested in the welfare of the Canadian people.

Interim Supply


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Lessard) should rise a little more often.


Mr. Guay:: If he did rise, it would not be to talk nonsense, like you.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I said a while ago that I wished to put on the record some statistics concerning my riding more specifically. I have in my hand some official figures supplied to me by the St. Hyacinthe unemployment insurance office and if I compare the statistics for January, February, March, April and May for the years 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964, I find that this government did not really try very hard to give employment to unemployed people in Canada.
Thus, in January 1961 at the St. Hyacinthe unemployment insurance office, there were 3,578 unemployed applicants; 2,528 in 1962; 2,543 in 1963 and in 1964, under a Liberal administration, 2,344.


An hon. Member:: It is falling off.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, 1 realize that the figures are decreasing, but it is due to the measures passed by the former Conservative government and which today are bringing results. In fact, I feel compelled to ask, once more, the members of the government to name one single measure taken by this government in order to alleviate unemployment, because I notice that this government continues to apply measures which were all put into effect by the previous government.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I should like to answer the hon. member who just quoted some figures; I would tell him that in my riding, in Bonaventure-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that this point of order is well taken.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has asked for figures and I am prepared to oblige him.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It might be difficult for the Chair to make a ruling before the hon. member for Bonaventure has stated his point of order, but judging by his first words, I do not think that there is any point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I am going to complete my remarks and then the hon. member for Bonaventure will have all the necessary time to make a speech, if he wishes. He will be then in a position to refute my arguments if he believes that I am wrong.
IMr. Ricard.]
Indeed, I would very much like to see the Liberal members, especially those from Quebec, insist on rising as much as they did when they were in opposition.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Including the hon. member for St. Henry.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And I say again that the fact that they do not will prove that they were totally insincere at the time. Indeed, I want to show it beyond any doubt. If my hon. friends opposite feel that the comments I have just made are not in keeping with the facts, let them try and prove it.
In February, 1961, there were 3,919 claimants registered at the St. Hyacinthe unemployment insurance office; 2,613 in February, 1962; 2,700 in February, 1963, and 2,470 in February, 1964.
Now if we look at the number of placements effected during the same period, we note that there were 188 in 1961, 162 in 1962, 208 in 1963 and 231 in 1964. The situation is not too much different from that which prevailed when we were in office. There has been some improvement which, I repeat, is due to the steps we took.
As for the month of February, 139 placements were made in 1961, 177 in 1962, 196 in 1963 and 185 in 1964. There also, there is an advance, but in the opposite direction. I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote) to this fact, to spare him the trouble of making rapid calculations.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have time to read the whole table I have here, but it does show rather well what is happening. Far from experiencing, under a Liberal regime, a prosperity beyond compare, Quebec's unemployed are still waiting for something to be done for them, and it is on their behalf that I ask the present government, which had promised full employment, to implement its program.
Mr. Chairman, as I have said, the unemployed in the province of Quebec have been waiting for a solution from this government for more than a year. Surely they will get tired of waiting. Poverty will continue to increase and the blame will lie with the present government which will not have taken necessary steps to prevent that disaster.
Members of the government, set to work. Your turn has come. You have criticized us long enough. Now, it is up to you to show some leadership and to do something for those in need.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make only a few remarks in this debate, which I would say has been a very fine one. Members' contributions to the debate have been useful and helpful. However, if I may say so there were many exaggerations and statements by various members of the opposition which were not entirely in accordance with the facts. It also appears that in this debate members are primarily concerned with the deportation proceedings in regard to individuals who have illegally entered the country. However, it should be understood that the deportation laws have been approved by parliament and are for the protection of the Canadian people. They are administered by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and that department is charged with the responsibility of upholding the laws of this country. I believe that no hon. member would treat lightly the matter of illegal entry into the country. As pointed out by the minister in his statement, he has given an explanation of the elaborate precautions taken to protect the legal and human rights of those who are to be deported. The department goes to great lengths, I might say, to insure that every deportee is furnished with an interpreter whenever necessary, in order to insure reasonable protection for the individuals concerned.
Several instances were brought to my attention in which the minister had personally intervened on the eve of a scheduled deportation and instructed the officials of the department to postpone the deportation to allow further consideration of a case. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has been charged with the responsibility of increasing Canada's population through immigration, so that we may expand our domestic markets for our agriculture and manufactured products, stimulate economic activity and by providing new skills and ideas to support a higher level of cultural development and cultural independence.
I am sure it is unnecessary for me to remind hon. members of the tremendous responsibilities which the minister and the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration are facing in carrying out this task. Since the end of world war II, more than two and a half million persons have immigrated to this country. Immigrants today comprise approximately 8.3 per cent of our total population and 12.25 per cent of our labour force. The minister referred also to
Interim Supply
the 30 million visitors, tourists and businessmen who cross our borders each year. The importance of these non-immigrants, in terms of good will or economic value to this country, cannot be overemphasized.
This tremendous volume of traffic has been handled efficiently by immigration officers without fuss, without fanfare and with very few complaints. I think they should be congratulated on the job they have done. I repeat these important points only to indicate to hon. members the extent to which the criticisms of some members of this house, in the course of the past few weeks, have reflected in a disproportionate way on the performance of a highly dedicated, hard working group of people. I must confess, and I am sure many hon. members will share my feeling, that I found this regrettable.
Although the number of persons involved in deportations is small in relation to the total number dealt with by immigration officers, the operation of elaborate procedures, the time and effort necessary to deal with them and to protect their human and legal rights are well worth while, as the outline given by the minister has indicated. Parliament has imposed upon the Department of Citizenship and Immigration the responsibility to protect Canada and the people of this country from invasion, if you like, by unsuitable and undesirable elements. The government is anxious that this difficult task should be carried out fairly, with due regard for the protection of the rights of the individual, as well as humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
It is difficult, sometimes, to make generalizations in matters of this kind. However, hon. members can be certain that there is no desire on the part of the minister or the department to act in an arbitrary or tyrannical manner, as suggested by one hon. member this afternoon. I believe it was the hon. member for Bow River who made that assertion. At the same time parliament has placed on the minister and this department the responsibility of exercising a discretion in the granting of admissions. This is not an exercise which the minister takes lightly. While it may not be in the public interest to give an explanation in detail in all situations, as the hon. member for Greenwood has been emphasizing the department should, nevertheless hon. members may take it as a matter of record that a very exhaustive examination of the circumstances is undertaken before a decision is reached.

Interim Supply
Apart from deportations, another very important side to this general problem which hon. members might bear in mind is that illegal entrants are not infrequently prohibited persons under the Immigration Act and would be refused a Canadian visa if they applied from another country. By entering Canada illegally as ship deserters, stowaways and non-immigrants, they attempt to obtain priority consideration for their cases, ahead of other more desirable immigrants who follow authorized procedures. They attempt also to obtain priority over the relatives of Canadians who are anxious to be reunited with their families in Canada.
Having said that, I honestly believe that in the light of present day conditions the act, as it now stands, as pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton West, is inadequate. I hope that when legislation is brought before this house we shall be able to enact some improvements.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona made statements this afternoon about inefficiency and a lack of due regard for the rights of individuals held in custody for illegal entry. I suggest to him that he should read the various exhaustive statements made by the minister in this house, and he will immediately realize that the minister has been more than fair, and any implication to the contrary is not in accordance with the facts.
The hon. member for Royal referred to Greek nationals who enter illegally but who have lived here for four or five years, some of whom have married and have jobs. I might say in this connection that the minister has been lenient in some of these cases and has been instrumental in seeing that landed immigrant status was granted to them.
This I am sure should prove that he is not blind to the humanitarian instincts, and does not hesitate to exercise discretion, giving to many of those who may or may not qualify the benefit of the doubt.
I want to assure the hon. member that this government has not forgotten its promises, nor the intent to gradually develop a progressive immigration policy to fit the times. I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman, that the members of this committee will bear with the minister and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to the end that we, in the not too long distant future, will bring about regulations and changes in the act that will be beneficial to the country. I say so because there seems to be some impatience, and I quite understand that. I have also

been impatient for the past six years, advocating a more progressive immigration policy. But now that I know a little more about the difficulties, about the problems involved, I want to tell members of the committee something which may not be general knowledge, that we are also short of staff in our department. Our minister has perhaps been a little reluctant in demanding greater consideration from treasury board. We need more money to employ more qualified persons to aid in the work of the department. Our minister is working hard at this. I think he has been able to get the ear of the President of the Privy Council and of the rest of the cabinet, so that we will be able to get sufficient funds to enable this department to be developed to the point where we will be able to introduce and develop a policy which will be consistent with the great potentials of this great country of Canada.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, I was motivated to participate in this debate by the very vicious and unwarranted attack made by the hon. member for Bow River on the Prime Minister. I think it was a prostitution of the obvious talent of that hon. member that, by using question period statements out of context, he was thus able to turn around and attack a man as great as our Prime Minister.
There are people in this chamber such as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition who have served the country and the House of Commons well, and I think it is a tragedy in this day and age that people of that stature should be subjected to that type of unwarranted attack, rendered all the more vicious by the fact that the Prime Minister was not present in the chamber at the time.


Mr. Graffley:: Read Cardin's speech.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It was pointed out with some accuracy by most hon. members in front of me that it is traditional when making this type of unwarranted attack at least to have the courtesy to notify the person in question about the subject matter in order that he be entitled to refute and answer it. That opportunity was denied the Prime Minister this afternoon.


Mr. Smith:: Check with your Associate Minister of National Defence.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You may make your speech later. I think there is something reverent about leaders of parties, about the positions they fill, and I think that a prime minister

of a country as great as Canada should be free of this type of unwarranted attack, which disgusted most of us here. The Prime Minister has served his country well in war, like many others in this chamber. Later he served this country very well as one of its senior civil servants, and his record as the Canadian delegate to the United Nations is second to none. As the leader of our opposition he did an excellent job.
I know this is a house debate. I know at times the argument gets charged and there are moments when things we say are of a spontaneous nature, but the unfortunate aspect of the attack by the hon. member for Bow River was that it was coldly calculated, and it is little wonder most hon. members on this side feel it was more than a coincidence that this attack on the person of the Prime Minister took place when he was not here to defend himself. I leave it up to hon. members of the committee to say whether or not our Prime Minister has to satisfy hon. members such as the hon. member for Bow River.
People who lie are motivated by fear, and the Prime Minister of Canada has nothing to fear from anybody in this chamber. He has nothing to fear from the film "Mr. Pearson" which I think has occupied a little too much of the time of this house. If the reason the film is being discussed is because of interference with the C.B.C. then I say continue to discuss that matter, because the C.B.C. should not be interfered with by this government or any government, past or future.
But this is not what is happening in our debate. This was not the attack made by the hon. member for Bow River. He was simply using the opportunity, like a jackal chasing deer through the forest, to discredit a man like our Prime Minister; and this is a despicable thing.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lucien Lamoureux: Before I call it six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the committee that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Kent, (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth), imposition of countervailing duty on imports of Canadian cars and parts by the United States government; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), segregation of Indian children from other students attending school at Fort William.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
23, 1964	4627
Interim Supply AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, before supper 1 was motivated to participate in this debate as the result of what I thought to be a rather vicious, unwarranted and fully premeditated attack both on the Prime Minister as a person and on the high office that he represents. I realize from the interjections that came my way in the few minutes that I had the floor that my remarks were not too well received by opposition members.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nobody complained.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: But it is significant to me that these hon. members in rebuttal-from their seats, I may add-pointed out that similar attacks had been waged on the then prime minister, the present right hon. Leader of the Opposition. Let me say this, that one of the advantages of being a relatively new member in the house is that I do not have a vast store of insults and attacks launched three years ago, five years ago or ten years ago, at my disposal. Frankly, this house suffers too much from the elephantine memory of many of the members of the House of Commons.
I am not afraid of a good, bitter debate; I have participated in a few of them in my time in civic politics. In fact I sometimes relish them. But I think there is a vast difference between debate and the type of unwarranted and unnecessary attack that was made on the Prime Minister this afternoon. And I am rather disappointed that the attack should come from the hon. member for Bow River, whom I happen to like more than perhaps most acquaintances I have met since I have been here. I am afraid he may have an affinity for this type of attack, because en editorial appearing in the Calgary Herald of March 12, 1962, entitled "The wrong kind of politics", had this to say:
When a man is elected to the House of Commons, he accepts a public trust which places upon him, among other things, a certain burden of moderation including moderation in speech.
This point seemed to escape Mr. Eldon Woolliams, Conservative member from Bow River, when he addressed a recent meeting in Edmonton and said the Liberal party-

Interim Supply


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest that the hon. member is out of order in referring to the hon. member by name. It is better that he should refer to hon. members by the constituencies they represent.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is proof, Mr. Chairman, of my relative newness to this house, and I apologize for my mistake.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member, before he reads the editorial, would permit one simple question. I did not hear all his remarks just before six o'clock because I had an appointment, but I certainly came here to hear him tonight. I wonder if he would explain-because no doubt he has had some conversation in this regard-how it was that the Prime Minister was able to absolutely contradict himself on at least two occasions; and there were many other occasions to which I could refer. If he can throw some enlightenment on that point, for the benefit of the house, I would be most grateful. I do not call that a vicious attack.


Miss Jewett:: You don't like the editorial.


An hon. Member:: Hark who's talking.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't mind the editorial. It is a Liberal newspaper.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, among the other talents that the hon. member has, of course, I must now add patience, because I certainly intend to get to that point. The member from Bow River is an honourable member who usually, while making his point forcibly, stays within the bounds of decency-*


Mr. Churchill:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member reading from an editorial? The hon. member is apparently being critical of one of the members of this house. I think, Mr. Chairman, you will find he is out of order. Let the hon. member make his own assessment of other hon. members in this house and not rely on outside people for it.


Lucien Lamoureux: I did not understand that the hon. member, at least at this point, was reading an editorial.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He certainly was.


Lucien Lamoureux: If he was, perhaps the hon. member would say so.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I can assure the committee, Mr. Chairman, that this was written in the Calgary Herald on March 12, 1962; but I will not go any further with it except to assure the hon. gentleman who just interrupted that 
this is a very authentic document-and I am sure he understands what I mean.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The fundamental point that the hon. member for Bow River should have emphasized in the debate revolving around the Pearson film is, not whether the Prime Minister and his advisers had seen it once, twice or 50 times but whether, having seen it, they passed judgment on it and were then able to influence the C.B.C. not to show it. The basic principle that this parliament should not interfere with the C.B.C. programming is one that every member of this house should endorse, whether he is a government or an opposition member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am already on record in this regard; so are, for that matter, most members of this house, if we look back far enough, including the hon. member for Bow River.
But where is the consistency in this regard, if the same members who stress the sanctity of the C.B.C. in the field of programming now ask the government to interfere, intervene and order the C.B.C., through the good offices of the Secretary of State, to show the film. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bow River suggests that the government in this debate or during the question period-and I have not the blues and I apologize if I am quoting incorrectly-made reference to the film "The Chief". It is possible that an individual member on the government side may have made reference across the floor of the house, and if so I apologize for that; but I cannot find any references in Hansard of the government so doing. To show my own high regard, not only for the Prime Minister's office and the office of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and, of course, for the fine men who occupy these positions, let me say that I personally sent a note of congratulation to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition the night I saw "The Chief". I said then, and I repeat it now, that he is a great Canadian, and I am not ashamed of this fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I say that attacks on the personalities of men of this stature, our great figures, can only result in the further deterioration of parliament and its great traditions. However, since the hon. member for Bow River has questioned the answers given

-off the cuff, by the way-by the Prime Minister during the question period-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -and has tried to infer that they are contradictory, let me give this explanation, which I hope members will accept in the light of the fact that the Prime Minister is an honourable gentleman-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let the Prime Minister answer for himself. Why doesn't he?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bow River, with his courtroom experience, is not going to let a simple novice like myself get under his skin. I am sure he will have enough patience to listen to me without interruption. The facts are as follows. Although the Prime Minister made these facts, as he thought, as clear as possible to the house it is obvious that the hon. member for Bow River did not understand or perhaps did not choose to understand. He is the only man who knows that. But the basic fact is that the Prime Minister has not seen the Pearson film as it has now been shown to the press-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -and as it now exists in the hands of the producer.


An hon. Member:: You are splitting hairs.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Surely everyone realizes that making a film in many ways resembles the preparation of a speech; it must go through several drafts if the finished product is to be worth while. The Prime Minister, as was his privilege since he was the subject matter of the film, saw the first draft, and that is what he told the house in his answer. Later when he had the opportunity he saw a slightly revised draft; but he again told the house that the sound on the second occasion was so bad that he left the showing before it was finished and has never seen it since. He repeated time and time again that he had not seen the "Mr. Pearson" film, as the press have, and hon. members have asked to have shown on the C.B.C. I do not know whether all hon. members believe him, but I for my part am quite happy to accept the Prime Minister's statement as the statement of a gentleman.
Another point brought up today by the hon. member for Bow River was the supposed shots of a cabinet meeting. Now, I think that this is a trap which I might have fallen into had I been on the other side, but this charge was prompted by a picture which
Interim Supply
appeared in several newspapers, supposedly taken from the actual film itself. But again the Prime Minister and my hon. friend who sits just in front of me but whose constituency escapes me for the moment, has testified that the picture appearing in the morning newspaper does not appear in the finished film. Again I appeal to hon. members to accept the veracity of the statement of the people who made it.


Mr. Bigg:: A lie is a lie.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, some of us can recognize lies more easily than others. I cannot, and perhaps I am unfortunate in that respect. But I do honestly and sincerely believe in the premise that we are all honourable gentlemen and that if we make a statement in this house it should be believed by everyone, and no hon. member of the House of Commons should take advantage of that fact and deliberately lie, and least of all the Prime Minister of Canada.
Another point is this, and it concerns the supposed meeting of the cabinet committee. The opposition is full of members of former cabinets and they know what a committee meeting of the cabinet is, that it has an agenda, that minutes are taken, and so forth. In actuality the film simply photographed- and this might be poetic licence, if you like- a meeting of several ministers in the Prime Minister's office for a conference. Is this so unusual? This has been done before to accommodate news photographers, and I trust the opposition will accept this statement as true without requiring my source of information.
Second, my hon. friend from Bow River, gathering steam as is customary when he really gets going, became a little indignant about a letter from some so-called intellectuals, who I think lived up to their reputation as absentminded professors because they actually forgot to sign the letter. In fact, the Prime Minister did not get one version but two versions of the letter, neither of which was signed, and one of them was not even addressed to him as the Prime Minister of Canada. That is hardly the conduct of intellectuals.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He got one letter addressed to him though, did he?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Does the hon. member for Bow River really think that the Prime Minister was misleading the house in his answers? I submit he cannot be serious.

Interim Supply


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The fourth and final charge to this house in this terrible indictment of the Prime Minister concerned the Olympic games, a matter of national concern. Everyone knows that the minister of health and welfare did attend the winter Olympic games, and the Prime Minister as well as the hon. lady herself so answered when questioned in the house. The confusion, if any exists, lies in the definition as to whether or not we presented a brief on behalf of Banff for the 1968 games. What purpose could the Prime Minister have in misinforming the house on this subject? The facts are very simple. Under the Olympic rules the government could not officially-and I emphasize officially-make representations for the next winter Olympic games since they are awarded to cities, not countries. Whether or not the minister and other officials made unofficial representations on behalf of Banff or on behalf of the country is left for hon. members to decide.
The hon. member for Bow River has made many friends on this side of the house by his very impartial conduct in the privileges and elections committee recently, where he fought hard but fair and square and honestly, and we appreciated his efforts. His aggressiveness remained fair and unsullied, and we would not want to see his reputation tarnished in this house by his unwarranted and unsubstantiated attack on the Prime Minister this afternoon. On reflecting a little I am sure that he, like all hon. members in the house, would not like to take political advantage of a man who has the complete respect of all Canadians. Perhaps the hon. member this afternoon was carried away by the power of his words. He invoked the law of God to strengthen his belief-and these are his words as I saw them later this afternoon-that the Prime Minister should resign. Certainly all hon. members would need not only the law of God but the law of wisdom, the divine law and even the natural law-and he invoked them all-to convince them that the Prime Minister is other than what all hon. members of the house know to be the fact, namely a great Prime Minister, a great Canadian, and a simple, honest, true citizen of Canada.


Michael Starr: That was a nice job of whitewash.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I was one of those who were initially interested in this matter of the C.B.C. suppression which this government brought on in respect to the film

"Mr. Pearson", and I have remained interested' in it throughout. I followed the debate on the film and the various questions which were asked, and not only do I think that the hon. member for Bow River was justified in making the remarks he did, which I wholly endorse, but I intend to go further than he did.
After reading Friday's proceedings when hon. members opposite were so thin-skinned as to move a motion to expel the hon. member for Qu'Appelle from the house, I thought to myself that this is a very strange change indeed from the days when the four horsemen of the apocalypse were sitting on this side of the house and charging the then prime minister, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, with gross deceit and other similar epithets to which no objection was raised on the government side at that time.
I am not going to say that the Prime Minister lied; but when reading page 3429 of Hansard we find this answer of the Prime Minister to a question:
-We do not censor films on this side of the house.
I say, sir, that that is a lie, because that is precisely what happened, as I intend to show tonight.
I say too that at page 3430 of Hansard we find a reply of the Prime Minister which is reported as follows:
The circumstances were perfectly proper. The initiative was taken by the producer of the film, and no question of censorship arises.
I also say that that statement is a lie, and I intend to back up my assertions this evening by facts, not by diversionary tactics and flights of fancy such as that embarked upon a moment ago by the hon. member for Verdun.
I submit that all of this points up a pattern which has been forming over the past several months where the government has been using the C.B.C. as a tool for their own propaganda purposes. This has shown itself in a speech which the Minister of Transport made in Quebec city in February of this year; and the Secretary of State, the notable "minister of culture" in this house, has made similar remarks with respect to public communications media. This episode of the film "Mr. Pearson" produced for the C.B.C. at a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $35,000 is just the culmination of this whole pattern of control which the government is attempting to exercise over the C.B.C. They may have control over the management of the C.B.C. I think, too, this switch from Mr. Dunton to Mr. Oui-met is significant in this regard; it was brought

about shortly after the government now sitting on the treasury benches took office. But while they control the management of the C.B.C., many of the personnel of the corporation's public affairs division do not like this transpiring of events at all. The public affairs personnel I am sure are endeavouring to do a job as impartially as they can and when they receive instructions from top management which in turn receives instructions from cabinet ministers, the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's secretary and the supreme brain truster of the Prime Minister's office, what can they do? He has a $40,000 a year salary to lose and the other management officials have careers to lose as well. I say that pressures were brought to bear on the C.B.C. in this case and I suggest the facts point indisputably to that conclusion.
I was disappointed in the hon. member for Verdun. I thought he was perhaps overwhelmed by his own press releases which appeared after his contribution to the debate on the flag issue in this house. He almost had us in tears. If it were not for the crocodile nature of his own tears just before supper time he might have made more of an impression on the sensibilities of members of the committee. But, as he said, he is a new member and he was not sitting over here when his party was in opposition, and listening to new lows in the calibre of debate such as that which was exemplified by the Associate Minister of National Defence on one occasion when he made an unpardonable and absolutely rotten attack on the prime minister of Canada. Search as the hon. member for Verdun will, he will not find in any public speech on any public occasion an instance where the leader of the official opposition has had the degrading things to say about the present Prime Minister that the Prime Minister of today had to say about the Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister of this country. A more degrading exhibition of distortion of the truth which the present Prime Minister was guilty of when he was leader of the opposition could not be found anywhere, and all for the purpose of gaining power, and all for the purpose of deception. If any deception, and to use the present Prime Minister's own words, if any gross deception, existed at that time it existed in the utterances he made at that time with respect to the activity of the then prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition.
What are the circumstances which have led to an examination of the film "Mr. Pearson"? I believe that pressures were not only brought
Interim Supply
to bear by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-that appears to be quite evident- and by the Secretary of State, to whom I am more prone to refer as the minister of culture, since he is in control of every government-controlled medium of information in this country, as well as by the Prime Minister himself, but also by Mr. O'Hagan, the Prime Minister's secretary, and by the supreme brain truster, Mr. Kent, who works in the Prime Minister's office. All these people had a word to say about the cutting and snipping which went on in the film "Mr. Pearson". Yet the Prime Minister has the gall to stand and say: We do not stand for censorship.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Erik Nielsen: Absolute nonsense and deception, I say, because apart from the hairsplitting tactics which all the cabinet ministers including the Prime Minister have adopted in respect to the covering up of their snipping and cutting of this film, and their suppression of it and their censorship of it, one fact here emerges: The film was made at a cost of $35,000 to the Canadian taxpayer by a body which is supposed to be independent of any political pressure and yet, mysteriously, for the sole reason, the C.B.C. says, of technical inadequacies, the film is not shown. I have a fairly high regard for the capability of C.B.C. technicians and, surely, the management of the C.B.C. is not so naive as to retain a producer of films- Intervideo Productions-if they do not have sufficient regard for the technical ability of that firm as being likely to meet C.B.C. standards. So this reason, it seems to me, is very shallow indeed. Both the Prime Minister's office and the C.B.C. have denied that political pressure was a factor in shelving this show. But the account I intend to put on the record now-an account of the backstage manoeuvring which culminated in a decision to shelve the film-was made public in the Toronto Globe and Mail on June 16 last. The hon. member for Verdun has the naivete to say that the pictures which were published, pictures taken inside the cabinet chamber, were not part of the production of the C.B.C. film "Mr. Pearson". Yet in this issue of the Globe and Mail there appeared, obviously clipped out of the film-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: At no time did I say they were not in it. I said they did not appear in the film as presently-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.

Interim Supply


Erik Nielsen: At least the hon. member for Verdun has the honesty to rise now and say that there has been clipping and snipping of this film which amounts to censorship, and twist and squirm as hon. members opposite would like, they cannot get around that fact. There is only one member opposite I can think of who could squirm and quiver his way around that fact, and he is the Secretary of State for External Affairs whose fine hand was very prominently displayed in the snipping and cutting which went on.
I asked the Prime Minister on May 21 if the film had been viewed in his office. Instead of being as devious as he was in his replies on that day, he could have said: No, it was not viewed in my office, but I did see it in Toronto. Instead of that he chose not to say anything. He said: It was not seen in my office. Subsequently, under pressure from questioning, he said he had in fact seen it in Toronto. Then, under further pressure, he said he had also seen it in his office in the east block. I asked him if he had seen it five times.
It now transpires that it was viewed on no less than 12 occasions by members of the Prime Minister's cabinet and staff. I believe what I read in the Globe and Mail in this regard. Mr. Braithwaite has obviously made a very careful investigation into these facts. Nobody has denied it. Nobody has denied it over there. The danger exists here that if they viewed it once, if any one of the cabinet ministers or the Prime Minister viewed it once with a view to censoring or snipping any part of it, it was wrong and they know it. What they have done in this whole episode is to prostitute the integrity of the C.B.C. The C.B.C. has no alternative now but to refuse to produce the film. If they do produce it, it will be subject to the pressures brought about by the political connivances of the government, and if they do not produce it the result will be the same. It seems to me that the government is on a very sticky wicket indeed.
What about this right of censorship? When the Prime Minister got back to Toronto from New York where he had a meeting with Mr. Ballentine, Mr. O'Hagan, Mr. Pennebaker and others, the producer drafted a letter to the Prime Minister setting out the conditions he had discussed with the Prime Minister personally. This letter, which Ross McLean of the C.B.C. helped to rewrite into its final version, was an extraordinary document that practically gave the Prime Minister full right

of censorship over the proposed film. At one point it stated:
The finished film will be yours to judge and approve before it is made public and thus will contain nothing to which you object.


Mitchell William Sharp: Is this objectionable?


Erik Nielsen: In reply to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I say that I think it is very objectionable. Surely such a reasonable man, such an intelligent man as the Minister of Trade and Commerce will agree with me-


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I do not.


Erik Nielsen: -that any letter which would subject any production of the C.B.C. to the right of review is wrong.


Mitchell William Sharp: If they took a picture of me I would demand it.


Erik Nielsen: This film was contracted to be produced for the C.B.C. with the Canadian taxpayers bearing the cost, and here is Mr. McLean of the C.B.C. agreeing with a state of affairs which became rather uncomfortable for him later on, as I will point out when I have the opportunity. He is agreeing with a policy whereby the producer writes to the Prime Minister and says: You have the right to review the film and anything you wish to object to will be cut out.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perfectly proper.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, if that is the
minister's conception of what is proper, then I think we have no hope for any further independent action on the part of the C.B.C. The minister absolutely astounds me when he says that sort of conduct is perfectly proper. Surely if we are to maintain the integrity of the C.B.C., its actions with regard to what it will produce and what it will not produce cannot be subjected to any action which would in effect constitute a censorship board, whether it be by an individual or by a group such as the cabinet. Surely this is very wrong. The letter did not stop there because Mr. Ballentine agreed to shut off the camera whenever requested to do so. It seems to me that this is going a little bit far if any integrity of independent action on behalf of the C.B.C. is to be maintained.
Finally, he stated he would like to be regarded as a biographer ''as official or unofficial as you desire".
At a later time when the project came under Mr. McLean's control he is reported as having said with regard to the letter:

"We just can't pretend it doesn't exist."... Public affairs supervisor Reeves Haggan wrote to the Prime Minister withdrawing the Ballentine concessions-


Mr. Francis:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would he himself as a member of the house be prepared to let the C.B.C. do a film on a day in the life of the hon. member for Yukon under the conditions he has now indicated are proper?


Erik Nielsen: I can see no reason why I would not agree completely to the C.B.C. hiring an independent producer like Intervideo Productions to make a film concerning the activities of a day or a month, if they could keep up with me, without any concessions made to me as to what would be kept in that film and what would be taken out of it. There is the nub of the thing. The Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers have had very positive things to say about what will stay in the film and what will be cut out of it, and this is what we on this side say is censorship. This is what is wrong. Belatedly they realized this very thing, because after the letter granting the Prime Minister these concessions had been perused and given a second hard look by the C.B.C. they then repudiated the letter, and after they repudiated it the cutting and snipping still carried on. This is even more astonishing if the minister has been following the events that have transpired because of this fact:
Reeves Haggan wrote to the Prime Minister withdrawing the Ballentine concessions and stating the film would be made according to normal practice, which would be to give the Prime Minister the right to raise certain objections but not permit him to control the film's entire contents.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs apparently came away from the viewing with a long list of objections. Similarly, the Minister of Finance came away from his first viewing of the film with a long list of objections, as did other cabinet ministers. The Secretary of State for External Affairs looks puzzled, so I think I will take him now to the list of objections he raised, in the event that he may want to leave early.
At the screening on January 6, with McLean, Ballentine, O'Hagan and Hal Dornan of the Prime Minister's staff attending, Mr. O'Hagan requested the following sequences be deleted:
A remark by O'Hagan involving Canadian Press.
A remark by the P.M. about a former press secretary of opposition leader Diefenbaker.
Interim Supply
An unguarded comment by labour minister Mac-Eachen.
A facetious remark by Mrs. Pearson.
I can remember another facetious remark by Mrs. Pearson that was published in Maclean's magazine just after the last election about the dirty dogs on the prairies.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The prairies will never forget it.


Erik Nielsen: I continue:
Comments by a government chauffeur. One ''Lord'' and two "Gods" by the P.M. (One "heU", one "damn" and one other "God" to be retained.)
Then there is reference to what has come to be familiarly known as the Coutts car sequence. The article continues:
-and some remarks by Gordon Robertson, clerk of the privy council, were discussed, but finally it was agreed the latter would remain. At the conclusion Mr. O'Hagan expressed the opinion that the film was a good one.
What have they left after all these snips and cuts? Usually the Secretary of State for External Affairs is more prominently displayed in the press, but I cannot seem to find him at the moment.


Mr. Fairwealher:: They cut out God.


Erik Nielsen: Here we have the reference to the prominent Secretary of State for External Affairs:
By April 5 all was settled and Mr. Ballentine screened the finished film for Reeves Haggan. On April 30 he took the print to Ottawa for what was to be the final screening for the Pearson people. This event which took place at the east block office at the fashionable hour of 8 p.m. had some trappings of a major movie opening.
On hand were such luminaries as Keith Davey, president of the National Liberal Federation; Trade Minister Mitchell Sharp; External Affairs Minister Paul Martin (whose comments were to be a highlight) : Tom Kent, supreme brain truster to the Prime Minister; O'Hagan, Reagen, Coutts, Haggan, Ballentine, Dornan and a number of wives and secretaries to the principals. Labour Minister Mac-Eachen arrived about half way through the screening. The Prime Minister wasn't there.
At the final fadeout, Mitchell Sharp described the picture as an "astounding document." Mr. Haggan asked Mr. O'Hagan-
There are a lot of Irish in this.
-if the cut-down Coutts car sequence was okay. Mr. O'Hagan said it was. Paul Martin, who had made notes during the showing, now read these to the happy first night audience, noting his reservations as he went along.
I can just imagine that the reservations of the hon. minister must have been as long as the film itself.

Interim Supply
He objected to a portrait of Sir John A. Macdonald in the Prime Minister's office being shown twice while the one of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was never shown.
He objected to the Prime Minister (in the film) referring to Hailie Selassie as the last emperor in the world, since Japan still had an emperor.
As a Roman Catholic, Mr. Martin did not object to the cuss words, but was afraid Presbyterians and Methodists would.
The next bit is understandable, knowing the hon. minister for even the short space of seven years as I have.
Mr. Martin would have gone on, but Mr. O'Hagan suggested that they all go into his office to discuss the film privately, leaving Mr. Ballen-tine outside with Mr. Haggan. Mr. MacEachen stayed with them and they screened for him the part he had missed. He found it highly amusing, as the press gallery reporters would when they saw it much later.
In about half an hour, Mr. Ballentine and Mr. Haggan were called to Mr. O'Hagan's office, where they were told that everyone thought highly of the film. Tom Kent called it brilliant. However, it must be understood that there was some concern about it from a publicity and political point of view.
Mr. Haggan said he thought it was sympathetic to the Prime Minister. But some of the Liberals were afraid it might not be understood by the public, that it might too confusing. Anyhow, Mr. O'Hagan said, there could be no decision right then because the matter had to be discussed with the Prime Minister.
Possibly it is reasonable, sir, to wonder whether Mr. Ballentine's offer to the C.B.C. over the film rights had not coloured his attitude considering the almost incredible concessions he made to the Prime Minister in his letter of September 23. It is almost inconceivable that such concessions could be made which would so prostitute a government crown corporation charged with the responsibility of independently and impartially disseminating public information. To have made such a concession, I think, is gross control and, in fact, censorship. The main point of the C.B.C. was to conduct a private screening for the Prime Minister and his aides of the film that was later to be shown to the public as a candid documentary, independently made and not an official government or Liberal party film.
Here, I would suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce is the distinction between his assertion that these concessions were perfectly proper, the distinction between that sort of attitude which, in effect, I suggest to him amounts to absolute censorship of a production by the C.B.C., something to which the C.B.C. should not be subjected to at all, and the situation where the Liberal party may have had a film made which they could review, snip and cut to their hearts' content. However, in this situation, the propriety of the

corporation's accommodating attitude and action is open to question.
I say it is open to question, and this is one of the reasons that the government is in such a dilemma now. If the C.B.C. does submit to the pressures that are brought and continues to refuse to show the film, then you have a situation where the government is, in effect, controlling broadcasting. On the other hand, the integrity of the C.B.C. management cannot be the same at all because if they do show the film the only reason they will change or alter their decision will be the political implications that have arisen out of the fumbling and bumbling of the government in its handling of this whole issue. What we have in this situation is a crown corporation responsible to a political party, the Liberal party. What we have in this situation is a crown corporation, which is supposed to be independent and which has been subjected to political control, censorship and political pressure by the government in office.
I well remember how the present Minister of Transport, when he was on this side of the house, rose in his righteous wrath and indignation at the time of the suspension of the production "Capital Report". I can still hear him waxing eloquently on the independence of the C.B.C. Where has that independence gone today? It has been completely suppressed by the actions of the government.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, I regret that I have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the committee has had, I think, far too much of the Pearson film. I think the responsibility, in the main, rests on the fact that the whole matter has been bungled, I will not say by the government, but obviously by the coterie within the Prime Minister's office. On the whole, I think they have been less than candid.
I should like to begin my remarks with what is, in effect, an apology. In looking at Hansard I see the Prime Minister challenged me during the question period to indicate whether I had any evidence to prove there was actually a formal cabinet meeting or a formal meeting of the subcommittee of cabinet for the film, since I had seen the film. I had hoped that I had not tried to give that impression. Certainly, I was aware that this was a meeting of cabinet ministers. It was obvious that there was not an official there from the privy council office to give it any official sanction.
However, I should like to make one particular point in connection with this matter.

The real power, as is so often the case in a Canadian situation, is in the shadow or ceremonial imprimatur that cloaks reality and is a myth not in things such as an official cabinet meeting, a subcommittee of the cabinet, and so on. The reality is that we were given in that film something a little more racey than a subcommittee meeting. We were actually seeing an ad hoc group of ministers meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss an issue of the day. It is obviously not an official cabinet meeting nor an official subcommittee meeting of the cabinet, but I would suggest it is not semantic to argue that the impression of the real reality was that this was an important meeting.
I do not know whether these things should have been exposed to film or not, but I just want to present that as a bit of an addendum to the discussion which took place here when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was named. There is a hypothesis I want to put before the committee. I do not think we will ever get the true and exact story of what took place. I have spoken at length to the official spokesman of the C.B.C. about this and questioned him about it. I refer to Ron Fraser, vice president of the C.B.C.
I have known Mr. Ballentine for some years and have been acquainted with his whole position, and I believe Dennis Braithwaite of the Globe and Mail was almost completely indebted for the details in this column, that was read by the hon. member for Yukon, to Mr. Ballentine. Also, like many other members around here I have other contacts through which information comes to me and I think I can reconstruct almost everything that took place. There is very little that took place that is not in the Braithwaite story, but the whole key of the issue is: Was there political interference?
My hypothesis-and of course it depends how you look at it-is that there was. I honestly believe that at this meeting where the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce buttered up Mr. Ballentine a little bit after seeing the film, and then withdrew into their private discussions-I honestly believe that the decision was taken there that this film should not run. I honestly believe that from what I know, and my hypothesis is that the vote was overwhelmingly that the film should not run.
I also believe that Mr. Haggan was privy to this decision at this very point, and I think Mr. Haggan, from the views set out in Mr. Braithwaite's article, was prepared
Interim Supply
to fight against this, but I think in honesty to his own superiors I should point out and remind hon. members that here is the director of the public affairs programming of C.B.C. television, repeatedly in on these discussions. In other words he recognized this was a very important and difficult film, and he had close contact throughout. I am convinced, and I advance it as my hypothesis, that Mr. Haggan was aware, either through Mr. Richard O'Hagan, the press secretary, or through some closer contact with the people who took the vote, that it was the feeling of the government that this film should not be shown, and it is my hypothesis that he submitted this opinion to his superiors; but I think he wanted to show it despite what they felt.
But I think once that view was given to his superiors about the way the cabinet ministers, and the particular little coterie that hangs around the Prime Minister's office and assists as his advisers on things like that, felt-once that happened, this led the officials to make their decision. Obviously the idea of the Prime Minister picking up the phone and calling Mr. Ouimet or Mr. Fraser and saying, "We don't want that to run" did not happen. I think it is nonsense to suggest that.
I am not suggesting there was anything particularly devious or dirty about what took place, but certainly that vote of the Liberals against the film somehow got to the senior people of the C.B.C. and I think this influenced their judgment, along with the fact that some of them were against what they called the technical shortcomings of the film. That is my hypothesis and I do not know where we go from here.
I suggest one of the reasons this situation developed is because typically this government and this Prime Minister continue to be less than candid with the House of Commons and with the people. I am not suggesting the members of the government are deliberately dishonest, but they are managerial. They are trying to manipulate, and I want to offer evidence of this. A lot of hon. members have not seen the film but I want to mention two incidents in the film which indicate the kind of managerial approach I am talking about.
There is a little discussion in the film, at least in the film I saw down at Crawleys, about a telecast the Prime Minister is going to do the next day, and it is very entertaining to watch the sort of Uriah Heap-ish mothering that Tom Kent gives him. He is going to make sure he has everything lined up for the telecast, but in that discussion that takes place, with Mr. Kent's unction flowing

Interim Supply
around the scene, there is a suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition would demand equal time. The Prime Minister says, "We are not going to have any of that," or words to that effect. It is right there in the film itself but no one has picked it out and selected it as an indication of the approach I am talking about. There is the suggestion, "No, we are going to handle this thing so that the Leader of the Opposition is not going to have a go."
It illustrates something it is hard for me to understand-the inordinate fear the Prime Minister has of the former prime minister; but it also indicates the approach, "We are going to manage things so that we are going to have things our way. We are going to have the image, not them."
The other point is also a compelling one. The Minister of Labour is interviewed by Mr. Harnett of CFRB, a radio man here on parliament hill. The minister gets into a predicament in this scene and I sympathize with him because I have encountered it myself on occasion. He gets into this predicament and says too much about the fact that it may be necessary to call troops in on the Montreal dockers' strike. Then he starts up the stairs- a beautiful scene-then turns back and says, "I would appreciate it very much if you did not run that little bit," and the reporter, Mr. Harnett, says, "You want it cut out"? and the minister says, "I would really appreciate it." Well, a minister of the crown asks you to do something like that. Fine. There is nothing really wicked, but I suggest to you it is part of the managerial approach-"we know how to govern; we know how to manage things," and one of the great problems of the government across the way is that this approach is really their downfall.
They think they are the administrative geniuses. They think they know how to handle things, but ever since they got in they flubbed on point after point. These people are manipulators. They think they can manage and think they can do things, and though I do not feel sorry I do feel sympathy for a lot of the government backbenchers who have to sit there and watch the finicky perambulations along the front bench, as they watch one minister after another getting into trouble, right from the budget of last year down to this last and silliest of things.
Can you imagine the amount of time parliament has taken up with this ruddy television film? Yes, I have helped to bring that about because it is a classic example of the approach of this government. They don't like criticism. They cannot stand it. They have not got the

skin for it. When they were over here we used to call them the four horsemen of the apocalypse. You could not stop them; they were in there knifing. But once they got into power they wanted to get back to those pre-1957 days, warm, with Blair Fraser putting out the honeyed phrases about this greatest collection of talent in Canadian history. Haw, haw, haw.
Here we have a situation that could have been cleared up right off by a candid, complete statement of about 200 words by the Prime Minister. But instead, what happened- they backed away and backed away, and the terrible thing is that one television man's reputation, Mr. Ballentine's reputation, could have been ruined. Maybe it is ruined over this incident, but not one of the ministers in this particular case was prepared to come to the rescue.
What does the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us? He rebuffed me and there was this big laugh. This was his private life; why should anybody interfere with his private life? He told this producer he was pretty good. Tom Kent thought this was a brilliant documentary. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, what was his approach-"an astounding documentary". He told this producer he had done a good job. Yet where were they when it came to standing up for this man who had been insulted by the C.B.C.? This is the kind of thing I think is important. Where is your heart, I say to them, when someone's whole career is put in jeopardy? Where are you? You saw the film; you did not like it; you handed out a bit of blarney, and then you turned around and let the fellow sink. This is one of the tragic things about it, this managerial nonsense about the crew.
This is an excellent television film and it would not do the Prime Minister one bit of harm. As a matter of fact, I think it would show him to a great many people in this country in a sympathetic light. But they are so smart-alecky, so managerial, so much the image-makers that they just could not let it go through; they could not take the chance. This is a government that, as a result of one tawdry little incident, have lost sight of the fact that they have blighted one man's reputation and have put the C.B.C.'s integrity in jeopardy. Yet the Prime Minister the other day told us, "Wait till interim supply and I will have a statement". What do we get? I mean no insult to the hon. member for Verdun, but that hon. member comes in, in reply to an attack made by the hon. member for Bow River, and reads a speech that I

suggest he must have had some advice on from certain quarters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not object to that.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I am sure that the hon. member, who was not in the house when the hon. member for Verdun first rose, would not want to mislead the committee. The hon. member for Verdun was here and started to speak immediately he had the opportunity.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am not a sensitive soul like the crew over there or the crew here; I am not making an accusation. If the hon. member for Verdun thinks this Prime Minister is a great Prime Minister and he has been unfairly attacked, more power to him in getting up and defending him. But where is the Prime Minister? He undertook last week that he would be here. I am not suggesting that he can be here all the time, but he should have come here on interim supply and given us the full story, because it appears that his spokesman on radio and television matters, the Secretary of State, knows nothing about it in fact; he knows nothing about this story because he was excluded, really, from the developments.


Harold Warren Danforth: The quiet man.


Maurice Lamontagne: Quieter than you, anyway.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am not trying to be unfair to him; but the whole point is that there was this small group centred in the Prime Minister's office who wanted to turn out something that would be really terrific, and when they found out it was not really terrific, then we get the squeeze, then we get the pressure, then we get the clamp.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this house should forget about this incident in any detail as soon as we get a statement from the Prime Minister or someone who is authorized to speak for him, and who can set out the thing from the beginning to the end from the government's point of view. Then let us have some kind of solution initiated by the government, about which I am sure spokesmen for the parties in the house are prepared to agree, and have indicated to the C.B.C. that this film must and will be shown. I want to suggest to hon. members that when the film is shown everyone will wonder what all the panic was about. This is to my mind, despite what the hon. member for York-Humber said about it, a rather brilliant film. I think the conception of starting with a radio broadcast
Interim Supply
in the morning and ending with the national news at night, with the voice of Earl Cameron blending all the way through, is a very good idea. There is the deliberate denial of a great deal of editing or pushing by any announcer to tell you what is going on. This is part of the success of the film. But this is a matter of individual judgment.
One of the things I find it hard to forgive the C.B.C. for is the excuse that this film had technical shortcomings and was not up to normal standard. This really hurt me, because I was on a C.B.C. program last year that, frankly, was a turkey; it was one of the real lousy stinkers the C.B.C. has turned out. It was an hour program. I can still remember it when they talk of technical shortcomings. For about two minutes there was the voice of John Deutsch, the head of the economic council, I think, over the film with the view of the Ottawa river sparkling in the sunlight. This is what you get when you talk about the technical standards of some of the C.B.C. programs. There was another long shot in the program. I remember that the band was playing "Chicago, Chicago" and we had a view of some skyscrapers silhouetted against the sky. And it was supposed to be a program on university education. I saw this three times while waiting for the show to go on, and I could not figure out what it was doing there. But this is in reference to the C.B.C.'s idea of technical excellence.
I would like to suggest to the minister who answers for the C.B.C. that we have had a little bit too much of this technical shortcomings aspect of the matter. We had the film about the advertising agency and the beauty product by Kelly that was withdrawn because it did not come up to technical standards. We have had a film on "Toronto File" of a young lady who had some unfortunate adventures, and that has not been shown because supposedly it is not technically good enough. This technical difficulty may be an indication of the high standards of the C.B.C., but I would like to suggest they would be much better giving us some more direct and thorough answer and reasons, particularly in connection with the "Mr. Pearson" film.
The last point I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Pearson film returns to this whole question of the managerial approach this government seems to have to news, news management and to its image. This terrible sensitivity of the government to criticism is a complete denial of the tactics that government members themselves used when they were in opposition. Surely they

Interim Supply
do not think they can go back to the good old pre-pipe line days when the sun shone in the sky, C. D. Howe was right with the world and the Liberals were wonderful. They cannot go back to that, and it is about time they faced up to the fact that maybe some of the criticism that is coming their way is merited and worth while. I cannot think of a better challenge to government backbenchers than to read what the hon. member for Bow River said in his indictment. Not that I support it all the way down the line. They should read it to see the number of times and the indications of prevarication, half truth or just a part of the truth. I do not say it is lying, Mr. Chairman, but I do say there is so much of it; so many of these inconsistencies.
I think of the comment of Charles Lynch of Southam News Services the other day about the capacity of the government. One of the things he had to say about the Diefen-baker government was, "They were never really clever or sharp enough to cover up their mistakes". He said about the present government, "It is using all its cleverness and sharpness to cover up its mistakes". I suggest this is the perfect incident that symbolizes the effect that has become so apparent in this government. I would like to suggest it is about time the Prime Minister or those who have some influence with him began to seize upon some opportunities to be honest and direct in all the dealings they have with this house and with the country.


Erik Nielsen: Hear, hear; it's about time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Let us put the challenge to this government that has so much conceit and has done so little to deserve its own conceit, that from now on in their dealings with the House of Commons and with the country they stop speaking either out of only one side of their mouth or telling only one part of the truth. As someone in my own constituency said after the Prime Minister appeared on one of his television interviews a few months ago, "One thing you have to say about him, he will admit his mistakes". I am not suggesting that we have the whole confessional here, but I would suggest that the cabinet and the Prime Minister had better be a little more candid and deal a little more quickly with their mistakes. Then perhaps they will have some effect in this country and in this house and will begin to move toward all the claims which hon. members are making for them.


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Chairman, in the last speeches made in this house by the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Port Arthur, and earlier today by the hon. member for Bow River, serious charges have been made. There has been documentation of deceit resembling half truths and deviousness of the worst kind. Thus we have come at this hour to suggest to the Prime Minister and to the members of the government that it would not be enough to come to the house and admit their error or to apologize. I think it has gone far beyond that. We require one thing and one thing only, and that is that if these charges are correct-and they have not been denied; the documentation is so complete that they could not be denied-we must have some resignations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stuart A. Fleming: We
have had documentation of half truths, incomplete explanations, devious explanations, false explanations, no explanation. What is the tradition of parliament if we do not demand resignations? When a government is found guilty of these things, as this government has been, there must follow the resignations of those who are responsible; and if the backbench members of the government understand their position and the situation the government is in, they will demand the resignation of those who have led them into such a situation.
What is involved here, and let there be no mistake about it, is censorship; the total and complete control of the major public communications medium in this country. It is possible to become emotionally involved in this, and perhaps I am speaking with heat, but I have the right to do so. I have sat in this house this afternoon and again this evening listening to hon. members making charges against the government more serious than those which were made of any government since the Liberal government of 1956. Yet there has been total silence and no defence. There can be no defence possible of an indefensible position.
What has been the consequence of this? The Canadian people have made their judgment on that, and perhaps the last court of appeal will again be the Canadian people. But there ought to be in the party which now forms the government, a party with a great tradition behind it, sufficient strength among its backbenchers to demand the truth, not

just for parliament but for the people of Canada, about the censorship of the principal medium of communication in Canada. This is no time for playing or for making lighthearted decisions. We have been altogether too kind on this side of the house in asking for some kind of explanation from the Prime Minister. It is too late for explanations. It is too late even now for the truth from the Prime Minister, the complete and total truth, the whole story. This has had to be dragged out, not here on the floor of the house but by newspaper articles which are undenied, and from other sources of information unchallenged. We on the opposition side of the house challenge the government side that we not only require the total truth but we also require the resignations of those who have misled this house and given the house less than the truth in the last several weeks. There is no other answer to the charge. If there is, let anyone who can suggest it get up and challenge me now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And let them not hide outside this house.


Stuart A. Fleming: I have said, Mr. Chairman, if there is anyone on the government side who wishes to challenge my position now, I will yield him the floor.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They haven't got the guts.


Stuart A. Fleming: But
they do not. Our position is that we have read the story in the Globe and Mail. We have heard the accusations which have been made by a number of speakers on this side of the house. It seems quite apparent that this film was subjected to scrutiny both by the cabinet and by the government. It was never shown. I do not think there has ever been an occasion since the founding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation where a film of this kind was made ostensibly for the members of the cabinet of the government of the day, and then withdrawn and refused to the public of Canada. There is no question that, whether or not it was a deliberate censorship, it was censorship in fact, because the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and many other senior ministers expressed dissatisfaction with, or less than enthusiasm for, the film. This became very apparent to those who headed this public corporation, which is supposed to come under the jurisdiction of parliament but which in fact has now been debased and comes under the influence of the government itself. There is no
Interim Supply
precedent for this in Canada. There is no justification for what has taken place. Therefore my suggestion to the government is that those who are responsible for this censorship must resign, and they must resign at once.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, it seems a shame that no one on the front benches of the government will rise in his place and defend the Prime Minister of the day.


Erik Nielsen: They cannot do it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And defend the cabinet ministers who saw the preview of the film. It is a shame, and once again I am thankful that I do not belong to a party which is so gutless that they allow three or four speakers in a row to accuse them of lying, accuse them of deviation, of half truths, and not one of them will rise in his place to defend the cabinet members or the Prime Minister. I call them "gutless wonders", and that includes the cabinet and the gutless bunch of backbenchers over there.
I sat in my seat and gave these people time to rise and defend themselves. But shame on them; they would not.


Erik Nielsen: They cannot.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I only accept their silence as an admission that they are guilty. The hon. member for Yukon, the hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Bow River, who spoke this afternoon, laid the facts bare and there was no defence or denial.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No answer, nothing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Trade and Commerce was in the house and made some halfhearted attempts to answer the hon. member for Yukon when he was speaking. He said that censorship was all right when it concerned the Prime Minister; at least that is what I understood him to say. I am sure Castro would agree with him. I am sure Khrushchev would agree with him. But why did he not remain in the house and set the record straight? Why did he not rise in his place when the hon. member for Yukon had finished and say: "I never saw the film and I deny I voted either for or against it". He left the house because he knew that if he remained in his seat he would have to rise and make some sort of an attempt to answer the accusations made. In fact, when I look at the front benches now I see very few of the ministers who were in on the 12 previews. Why are not some of them in

Interim Supply
the chamber-some of those who saw the film? It is because they do not want to answer the charges which have been made tonight. That is the nub of it, as far as I can see.


Mr. Munro:: May I ask a question? Does the hon. member not think that the reason these ministers are not in the house may be that they have judged the calibre of the back benches of the opposition parties who are making these filthy smear charges?


William Heward Grafftey: You are learning arrogance quickly.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have ripped up and down the cabinet and the back benches and finally provoked a weak effort to smear me and fellow members who have spoken on this side of the house. But there has been no defence-no answer to the accusations which have been made. There has only been this weak attempt to smear previous speakers by those who feel they rule by divine right, as the hon. member for Port Arthur said- by those who feel that through proper management they can create and project an image which will never be forgotten by the Canadian people and which will keep them in their places forever and a day.
The Canadian people are not so gullible. They will not stand for a minister who has jurisdiction over the C.B.C but who fails to rise to defend the C.B.C. when charges are made. He does not care. I have never seen a minister in this house fail to come to the defence of his department or of the civil servants for whom he is responsible. I have never seen that happen before in my six years in parliament. But tonight accusations have been made and the minister has failed to defend the people involved.


Maurice Lamontagne: Heads will roll.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Perhaps Ballentine's head will roll all right; there is no question about it. This is the very threat they hold over the C.B.C. This is the threat they hold over Mr. Ouimet. They increased his salary to $40,000, and now they say: This is what you do, and heads will roll if you don't do it. "Heads will roll". That will go down in history as a statement by the minister in charge of the C.B.C. In western Canada we have a few sayings we like to remember in political history. One is "heads will roll". Another is the famous saying of Mr. Howe- "What's a million?". Another favourite saying we remember is "dirty dogs". We will remember that. We will also remember "heads will 
roll" which the minister in charge of the C.B.C.-


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has forgotten the famous statement made by representatives of the previous government: "Heads will roll".
That is the only thing I wanted to remind the hon. member tonight. In doing so, I had no intention of referring to the C.B.C., since I have defended the corporation.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has stated on several occasions that it has taken a free decision concerning the film.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, it is nice to be able to recall prime ministers of other days, present or past-how far past, no one really knows. It is nice to be able to say: He said this once upon a time. I would not be surprised if somebody sat in the seat from which I am speaking and said what I am saying now.


Maurice Lamontagne: Read the record.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now they say "Read the record". That is a way of getting out of a statement which the minister made. Now he is trying to backtrack. He said "Heads will roll" and I accept this.


Mr. Moreau:: Speaking of famous sayings in the west, I wonder if the hon. member recalls the saying "Bennett buggies"?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, it is nice to hear from backbenchers who do most of their speaking in other places. It is nice to hear from fellows who should wield great influence in other places. One cannot really blame them for trying to wield some influence in this place once in a while.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Blow on your earphone.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have heard some of their recent contributions to this debate. They are great. They are coming from the gutless wonders on the back benches, but there have been none by the ministers who saw this film and were responsible for interfering with the C.B.C.-those who said: Don't show it; we have decided we want to create the right image for the Canadian people; we do not want to see Mr. Coutt's face too often-he might be tempted to enter the political arena. I may say I do not know

exactly why they should take exception to seeing him, he is a nice young fellow.
Mr. Sharp who, no doubt, was very sharp the night he saw the film-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member knows he should refer to members by their constituencies, not by their names.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, the Minister of Trade and Commerce no doubt was quite sharp the night he saw the film and took part in this private discussion among those cabinet ministers who left Mr. Ballentine and the Minister of Labour out of the office in which they held their caucus, one might say, in the inner sanctum to see whether or not the film would create the right image. This is what I gather took place. There is no question about it, the hon. member for Eglin-ton was at his sharpest that night and did a lot of clipping.
I think that we have had in this parliament a cabinet which has gone from one blunder to another, as the hon. member for Port Arthur said-a cabinet which has thought it could override all these blunders. It is interesting to find the member for Port Arthur accusing the cabinet of being so blunderous because he is, after all, a journalist, and journalists as a rule have been extremely kind with regard to all the blunders committed by this government and to the weakness of so many of the cabinet ministers. I do not know what they are saying, or will say, about this particular debate tonight, but there is no question about this: As far back in the history of parliament as I can go there has never been an occasion on which a government has been so forthrightly accused of lying, dishonesty and putting out half truths. Never before has a government so accused failed so completely to defend itself as has been the case this evening. Hon. gentlemen opposite have failed to rise, and one can only take this as an admission of guilt. Their silence means there is no defence to the charges which have been made. This is the only interpretation I can take from it.
I had no intention of entering the debate, but on noting their silence I accepted that they were guilty, that they had betrayed the house and the people of Canada by interfering with Canada's national broadcasting network. This is a charge against which a defence certainly should be mustered. They have failed to offer any defence. I opened
Interim Supply
my remarks by saying that this was a shameful action on the part of the cabinet and even shameful on the part of the backbenchers, who at other times so stoutly defend the Prime Minister and leader of their party. I can only accept that they are guilty and ashamed of it.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, may I intervene in this debate for a short while to deal with a subject which I think is a wider issue and a much higher cause than the question of some film.


An hon. Member:: A red herring.


Lawrence T. Pennell: It seems to me that one of the most important and significant announcements made in the house for some time was made by the Prime Minister on April 30 when he announced that there was going to be established a scientific secretariat to assemble and analyse information about the government's scientific programs and their interrelations with other scientific activities throughout the country.


Erik Nielsen: How did they talk you into that?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is an incontrovertible fact that the progress of this nation will be no swifter than her progress in scientific endeavours. The battle for supremacy in world markets is going to be fought and will be either won or lost in the scientific laboratories and institutes of this nation, both in universities and in private industry.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May we have order in the committee, please.


Lawrence T. Pennell: It has become abundantly clear that we are facing two very urgent problems, the necessity for more industrial research and an increase in the numbers of scientists, technicians and technologists. It is a sad commentary, Mr. Chairman, that it is much easier to find a politician than it is to find a first class technician.


Erik Nielsen: There are lots of film makers.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The question of what we sometimes refer to as the brain exodus is becoming increasingly important. The problem in this regard is, of course, twofold. We must have more scientific research laboratories if we are to keep the finest brains of the nation in this country. Twenty five per cent of all the scientists emigrating to the United States are coming from this country and this can rightly be termed a brain giveaway, for our finest brains, the greatest re-

Interim Supply
source of this country, trained at tremendous expense to the Canadian taxpayer, are now being given away to the United States.
May I also say I do not wish to get into the field of education in its entirety because as we all know it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. But it seems to me that if we are going to deal adequately with this problem we will have to wipe out any previous intellectual bias we have had toward graduates of technical institutes and schools of technology because, after all, our scientific research and development will be useless unless we have the technicians to carry out the application of these activities in our industries.
So far as I have been able to determine, the total amount of money spent for scientific activities in 1963 approximated $510 million, and the reason I have had great difficulty in determining the precise figure is that this nation has not paid sufficient attention to this very critical and crucial problem. It might seem that $510 million was not an unreasonable sum, but let me measure this figure in other terms. In the United States they are today spending 3.1 per cent of their gross national product for scientific activities. In the United Kingdom they are spending 2.8 per cent while in Canada the figure is scarcely more than 1 per cent. If I may express it in other words, in Great Britain they are spending $36.50 per person on research and scientific activities while in Canada we lag behind at approximately $27.50 per person. So the problem and the challenge are clearly before us.


David Orlikow: What is the government doing about it?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The hon. member for Winnipeg North asks what we are doing about it. We at least have taken the initiative and the Prime Minister made the first really concrete suggestion when he set up the scientific secretariat on the 30th of April this year.


David Orlikow: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the committee appointed by the national research council to look into this precise question has recommended that the grants by the research council for research in universities, which this year amounted to $9 million, should be increased next year to $19 million? I wonder whether the hon. member can tell us what the government proposes to do about that and how the scientific secretariat will add even $1 to scientific research in the next year?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, may I say I appreciate the very important question posed to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I also want to commend him for the interest he has shown in this subject because I have followed very closely the questions he has placed on the order paper. So I think we have a common interest in this matter. As I say, the secretariat is the first definite approach. Let me point this out to the house and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North who has been here for a number of years. In my research I found that the dominion bureau of statistics had not been able to compile any figures beyond 1961 as to the amount of money being spent on industrial research in this country. That in itself is an indictment of the interest that was being shown in this country prior to the present administration.
I feel that our deficit in international payments alone ought to have provided the incentive to spur us on in this very critical area. This is a problem of long standing, of course, and I do not attempt to allocate it to any particular administration; but as the house well knows we have been running a deficit of close to a billion dollars a year for the past ten years and, as I say, that in itself ought to be an incentive.
We hear members of the house talk about putting on export drives as if it were simply a matter of stepping up mass production, but it is now abundantly clear that we are not going to break into foreign markets unless we have new ideas, new techniques, new inventions, all of which, Mr. Chairman, are the end results of scientific research and development.
As I have said, the most recent figures I have been able to compile go back to 1961 and they show that at that time there was a total of $1462 million being spent on industrial research in this country. I realize that in what we call a free economy there is a distinct role both for government and industry, and in the past industry has had to carry the major portion of this responsibility. But it seems to me that the government must assume a greater responsibility in this allimportant area.
May I say that there are approximately
37,000	manufacturing plants in Canada and of that number over 31,000 have 50 employees or less. So it is obvious that factories with 50 employees or less cannot undertake the tremendous load of carrying on scientific research, and it may be necessary to set up

a system of co-operative pooling between various industries in order to have proper industrial research developed. I know there has been considerable comment on and criticism of United States ownership of Canadian industry. This is not the time nor the occasion for me to attempt to discuss the inherent weaknesses and dangers of this system. But I do say, Mr. Chairman, that many of the Canadian subsidiaries have been able to maintain a reasonably adequate position in this matter of providing scientific ideas and techniques because we have had the benefit of the outlay of millions of dollars by their United States principals.
In concluding my few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I desire to commend the Prime Minister for setting up the scientific secretariat and I would urge that this house give full attention to this very vital problem.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to make two speeches today but I was attacked by the hon. member for Verdun. In opening my remarks I might say that since the hon. member for Verdun has been in the House of Commons we have become very close friends. I want to assure him, through you, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to remain friends, too, even in the heat of debate. I want to preface my remarks by saying that during the time he was at the United Nations serving his country I paired with him. When I was away sick, he paired with me, and on other occasions when I have not been sick he has paired with me. I just want to assure him, through you Mr. Chairman, that we will remain friends. As Mr. Truman said, if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I want to assure him that what he said during this debate did not in any way erode our friendship.
However, I do want to say that I feel sorry for him that he should, as a backbencher of the Liberal party that many Canadians used to know, be used as a tool of the frontbenchers to come in here and answer for the Prime Minister who will not answer for himself. His henchmen on the treasury benches could be known tonight, and I will coin a phrase, as the silent men.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I rise on a point of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; the hon. member for Verdun is rising on a point of privilege.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If I might digress for a moment, I want to thank the hon. member for his friendly remarks. I also have to voice my disapproval of his terminology. What the 20220-295
Interim Supply
frontbenchers do in the Liberal party is the business of the frontbenchers. We are not relegated to the backbenches. If I spoke out tonight-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; if the hon. member has a question of privilege, perhaps he might state it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I object to the word "tool" being used in this sense. I entered this debate and I can assure the hon. member for Bow River it was a spontaneous gesture motivated by my sincere appreciation of and affection for the right hon. Prime Minister who I am sure, as well as anybody in this house, can protect himself when he has the opportunity of knowing beforehand what he can expect and the type of attack that is going to be made upon him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know whether or not that was a question of privilege. I am certainly not going to get into an argument with the hon. member for Verdun. He objected to the word "tool". It seemed to me-I could be wrong and I have not had a chance to discuss it with him nor have I heard any rumours on this side of the house in that regard-that by the silence of the members of the treasury benches, he at least appeared to be their instrument. More than that, I cannot say.
I would say this to the hon. member for Verdun, when he suggests that I did not give notice to the Prime Minister that I was going to attack him in these remarks. The fact is that yesterday on orders of the day, when the house is generally filled, I rose on a point of privilege and referred to certain pages in Hansard. I showed the Prime Minister's statements with regard to this film. It is not a question of a $35,000 film we are considering tonight. This has not engendered the heat of debate. The opposition has an important function, the same as the government. Our job is to find out the facts for the people of Canada. The experienced members of the cabinet, when they were on this side of the house, questioned the former government, and properly so. This is the function of the government and the function of the opposition.
Then I come back to the point. When I rose on a question of privilege I stated, and I stated fairly I believe if you read my remarks, that there should be respect not only for the position of the prime minister of Canada, but respect for the man himself. The Prime Minister was there; he faced me. I saw, as the members of the press saw, the people on this side saw, and his colleagues saw, a man

Interim Supply
whose face was as red as a beet. I saw him embarrassed. None of us saw him rise in his place, Mr. Chairman, to answer the charge that he had misinformed the house. These are the charges that have been levelled against the Prime Minister. There is nothing personal about it. We see in the record of the debates of the House of Commons his answer: I have not seen that film. Then, on another day he said: I have seen that film. The question was clear and the answer was very clear. We have one in the negative and one in the affirmative.
When the Prime Minister was faced with this situation, he only had to get up and say, I made a mistake, we are all human. The only people who seem to be superhuman around here are the Liberals. He made a mistake. If that is his explanation, I say this, and this is the point I want to make now- I want to make it quickly before time expires-that by his silence he convicted himself. These tactics tonight-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have listened to the hon. member, and because the Prime Minister is preoccupied with very important matters concerning the interests of this country, and at this moment is not in the house, the hon. gentleman is not warranted in making statements which are clearly contrary to the rules. The hon. gentleman has said, in effect, that the Prime Minister has not stated the facts in this situation. There is another series of phrases that could be used to describe the language of the hon. gentleman, but the hon. gentleman [DOT] cannot under the rules of this house be allowed to go unchallenged when he suggests that the Prime Minister has misinformed this house, because the effect of that is to say that the Prime Minister has not told the truth.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman may continue his arguments, but under the rules of this house, that is an unparliamentary statement and the hon. gentleman ought to be asked to withdraw it. What the hon. gentleman has done has been to take a particular film and say that the Prime Minister said, with regard to that, that he had not seen it. The Prime Minister, quite frankly, told this house that he had seen the film and he did not like it.
Now, when you relate those two statements with what the hon. gentleman has said, it is clear there is no basis whatever for the allegation. However, that is not the point of order. The point of order is, whether or
[Mr. Woolliams.l
not that is true, the Prime Minister never misinformed this house. He stated that he had not misinformed this house. Under the rules of our house, the hon. gentleman must accept that. To go on with this language and this form of argument is to prostitute the rules of this house. I would ask you to ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw an indictment he has made against a man who, whatever one may say about him, can never be said to be guilty of deliberately stating something that is not in accord with the facts. I ask the hon. member to consider seriously what he has said. He has charged the Prime Minister of this country, the head of the government of this country, with something that he has no right to charge, and I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement, to make his argument if he will-because this is a free parliament-but not to indulge in rules that are contrary to our procedures.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Secretary of State was sitting here throughout all of the speech I made. I quoted from page 3429 of Hansard and page 3430 of Hansard, where the Prime Minister categorically said those on that side of the house do not censor. I quote his words again:
We do not censor films on this side of the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Erik Nielsen: According to the rules-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have raised a point-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. My understanding is that the hon. member for Yukon is speaking on the point of order which has been raised by the minister.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: With the greatest respect, I have raised a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. May we have some order. Order, please. May I suggest that if the hon. member for Yukon or other hon. members want to speak on the point of order they should limit or confine their remarks to the point of order which has actually been raised by the minister.


Erik Nielsen: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has had his say on the point of order, and I am endeavouring to do that right now, and if he would just-


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is-

Interim Supply


Erik Nielsen: There cannot be a point of Mr. Martin (Essex East): My point of order order within a point of order.	is__


Paul Joseph James Martin: My point of order has to do-


Erik Nielsen: I am on a point of order-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I am just wondering whether the Chair could not be given an opportunity to hear the point which the hon. member for Yukon wishes to make. I am not saying whether he is on the point of order or not, but I have not had the opportunity to hear what he has to say.


Erik Nielsen: The point of order I am speaking to was raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and if he would contain himself in patience he would hear-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order-


Erik Nielsen: I am on the point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I state my point of order. I was complaining-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. I recognize or I suspect what the minister has in mind, and I understand his suggestion is that the hon. member for Yukon is now reverting to a previous proceeding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Lucien Lamoureux: But, as I said, I have not really had an opportunity to hear what the point is.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister should be quiet.


Erik Nielsen: If the minister will stop his attempts at closure I will complete my point of order. I said, sir, concerning those words I quoted, that they were lies and I maintain they were lies-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: -and I was not interrupted at that time on a point of order, and there was no point of order to the words uttered by the hon. member for Bow River-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise-


Erik Nielsen: We have a smokescreen
raised-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order-


Lucien Lamoureux: As the hon. member for Yukon, I understand, has spoken to the point of order, the minister is rising on another point of order.
20220-295J


Erik Nielsen: I am still on the point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring-[DOT]


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would hon. members kindly co-operate with the Chair. I appreciate that much heat has been generated in the course of the evening about this debate, and perhaps at this point I might read to hon. members the relevant citations in Beauchesne. I believe it is the duty of the Chair to bring the relevant citations to the attention of hon. members, but without going into the details I would refer hon. members to citations 140 and 141 of Beauchesne's, which might take a little time to read. I will not read them at this moment, but if hon. members are familiar with the substance of these two citations I feel they should bear them in mind in the course of this debate.


Erik Nielsen: I was going to conclude very quickly-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order-


Erik Nielsen: -on the point of order raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise-


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please. I do feel that the hon. member for Yukon, whether he is right or not in the position he is taking now, should be given an opportunity to complete his remarks, to complete the point he is making.


Erik Nielsen: I was simply going-


Lucien Lamoureux: Provided, of course, he limits himself to the point of order which has been raised by the minister, which refers to statements made by the hon. member for Bow River, and not statements made by the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: I was simply going to conclude -and I could have done so five minutes ago if not for the intervention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-by saying that this is a typical breach of the rules of the house by the typical deviousness of the minister himself who rises on spurious points of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has not, of course, addressed himself to the point of order. I ask you, sir, to ask the hon.

Interim Supply
gentleman who spoke just before the hon. member for Yukon to withdraw what he said about the statement made by the Prime Minister, and the hon. member for Yukon a moment ago has violated our rules when he referred to statements made by the Prime Minister as lies. That is contrary to the rules of the house-


Erik Nielsen: I backed them up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and I would ask you, in accordance with the rules, to ask both hon. gentlemen to withdraw imputations which they have made against the Prime Minister of this country. The rules you have referred to in Beauchesne are clear. No hon. gentleman has the right, under our rules, to refer to anything said by an hon. member of this house using the language of condemnation which has just been used by the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member who preceded him.
This is contrary to the rules of the house, particularly when addressed to the head of the government of this country. Hon. gentlemen should know that that rule should be observed with great strictness and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call this to the attention of hon. members.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I might finish my remarks.


Lucien Lamoureux: Well, of course, there is a point of order which has been raised by the minister and I suppose we should have some views expressed by the Chair in that connection, unless what the hon. member has to say is by way of explanation of the suggestion made by the minister that he has used unparliamentary language. If this is his intention certainly I think the committee would like to hear him.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have to state specifically the unparliamentary expressions that he says were used. He has not done that. He has discussed this in general terms, as he has always done, without coming to the point, and we have absolutely nothing in front of us on the point of order he raised.


David Vaughan Pugh: On a point of order-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Before we adjourn .-and it is practically ten o'clock-with the indulgence of hon. members I would like to read into the record the citations which I have just referred to a moment ago, citations
fMr. Martin (Essex East).]
140 and 141, and I may say I do not intend to make a decision now. Citation 140 reads:
(1)	The rule relating to personal reflections occurring in debate, may be stated thus, namely: that it is doubly disorderly for any member, in speaking, to digress from the question before the house, and to attack any other member, by means of opprobrious language, applied to his person and character, or to his conduct, either in general, or on some particular occasion, and tending to bring him into ridicule, contempt, or hatred, with his fellow members, or to create ill blood in the house.
(2)	The whole law of parliament on this subject is admirably summed up and expressed in the following standing order of the Lords: "To prevent misunderstanding, and for avoiding offensive speeches, when matters are debating, either in the house, or at committees, it is for honour's sake thought fit, and so ordered, that all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborne; and whoever answereth another man's speech shall apply his answer to the matter without wrong to the person; and as nothing offensive is to be spoken, so nothing is to be ill taken, if the party that speaks it shall presently make a fair exposition, or clear denial, of the words that might bear any ill construction; and if any offence be given in that kind, as the house itself will be very sensible thereof, so it will sharply censure the offender, and give the party offended a fit reparation, and full satisfaction."
There is also citation 141 (1), but I think the committee has been indulgent enough to allow me to read citation 140, and perhaps at their leisure hon. members might read citation 141 also. Perhaps in the light of these words we might be in a position to make some progress tomorrow.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader about the business for tomorrow. I judge it will be interim supply, but is there something that will come ahead of that?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there will be agreement at the beginning of the sitting tomorrow to dispose of item 55 by consent, and to refer the matter recited therein to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. Then we will continue with the debate on interim supply. When the debate on interim supply is completed, we will continue the debate on the flag resolution.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:

Harold Warren Danforth: 
Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, the automotive program introduced on November 1, 1963 was designed to bring about a rationalization, to some extent, of the automobile and parts industries and to encourage efficient production. These measures provide for the conditional removal of import duties on automobiles and parts and do not involve a grant or bounty.
It is public knowledge that at least six months ago and probably longer the United States treasury department received a petition from the Modine Manufacturing Company of the United States in respect of radiators shipped from Canada to the United States. Under the terms of section 303 of the United States tariff act the U.S. treasury has referred this for investigation, as they must do, to the bureau of customs.
The Canadian government has made representations to the United States in connection with this whole matter and has pointed out that we attach the greatest possible importance to this policy, which is designed not only to provide jobs all through this country in our manufacturing industries, and is doing it, but is designed to increase our exports to the United States and in this way reduce our balance of payments. I think I can say we expect great things from this policy and I can assure the hon. member that we have been bringing and will continue to bring the strongest pressure on our American friends to make sure it is not interfered with. In this connection we have had conversations with the United States government both in Washington and here, and last week end I also had the opportunity of a discussion with Secretary Dillon in Paris. This matter is being pressed 

by the government most energetically and I can assure the hon. member that we consider, as he does, that it is a very urgent matter and one which is most important for the future of this country.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


David Orlikow: This afternoon I directed a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration having to do with news items which appeared in the press a week or more ago to the effect that, in a school in Fort William, Indian students were being segregated from the rest of the students.
People all across Canada and members of all parties have been and are concerned about the plight of the Indian population of Canada and the steps taken to improve their condition. One of the most important of these steps in the long run was the decision of the department that whenever possible Indian children attending school should have the opportunity to attend the regular school attended by students drawn from the population as a whole. It was therefore disturbing to read reports of a conference held in Kenora, Ontario, a couple of weeks ago sponsored by the Indian-Eskimo association and attended by representatives of government and various agencies interested in the problems and rights of the Indians at which it was alleged that Indians from a reserve attending one school in Fort William were segregated. There was subsequent report that there is no segregation of the students in classes. Then it was suggested there was some segregation in the play facilities. Later it was explained that there was segregation in the lunch room.
I will be the first to recognize the fact that there may be difficulties. If, for example, certain students are slow learners, then whether they be Indians or anybody else, if the education authorities think that they can best be educated in special classes, then I for one would have no objection. Similarly I would have no objection to people who were physically handicapped, for instance, having their own play facilities. But I think it would be completely wrong if Indian students attending a school in Fort William or anywhere else had to eat their lunches completely separated from the other students. If it is suggested, for example, that the students are rowdy or difficult, maybe that is a legitimate reason for some kind of separation, but let it include all students who are rowdy

or difficult to handle. I would hope that the department would not countenance segregation in total or in part.
That is all I wanted to inquire about this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the minister's representative will be able to assure me and the house that the department does not and will not countenance any type of segregation against any minority group, whether it be Indians or anybody else.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the Indian affairs branch, on seeing the newspaper articles referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), got in touch with the school authorities in question and have received assurances from them that there is no segregation. I want to assure the hon. member that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, which has jurisdiction over Indian affairs, is in full agree-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ment with total integration and we certainly do not countenance segregation at any time.
The allegation made at a meeting in Ken-ora, Ontario, referred to by the hon. member, was to the effect that Indians were taught in the same building as white children but ate in separate rooms and were not integrated on the playground. I understand that a meeting called by the separate school board of Fort William, will be held for the purpose of investigating these allegations. As soon as we receive information as to the result of the meeting I will communicate the information to the hon. member.
Again I want to assure him and all other hon. members that there is no intention on the part of the Indian affairs branch to countenance anything having to do with segregation. We believe in integration, particularly of the children in our public schools.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Wednesday, June 24, 1964