1964-07-31

LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat to the Minister of Labour the question I addressed to him yesterday, possibly in a different form. Is he now in a position to say whether the board of maritime trustees have been consulted and whether they will acquiesce-that is possibly the word I should use- in the general feeling expressed in this house that they should be made available for examination regarding their tenure of duty?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I stated yesterday. I expect to receive very soon from the chairman the final word of the board with respect to the request made as to an appearance before a parliamentary committee. As I stated yesterday, I am hopeful that a satisfactory arrangement can be worked out to deal with this particular question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs made reference to a letter from Archbishop Makarios to the secretary general of the United Nations. I hope the minister will table that letter. In view of the fact that this letter is a complete denial of section 32 of the agreement on status of the United Nations force in Cyprus, I would like to ask the minister what action the government intends to take with regard to this matter in order that the United Nations force may have restored to it the rights which were guaranteed under this agreement when they agreed to undertake a peace keeping operation in Cyprus.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad
to table the letter. I have already indicated that the government took strong exception to the position taken, as reported, by the head of the government of Cyprus, and that our attitude was being supported by other participating countries in the force and by the United Nations. The secretary general will be in New York some time this afternoon, and has indicated that he will be making a report to the security council.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A letter has been received by the secretary general from the government of Greece undertaking not to continue any shipments of men or materials to Cyprus. Could I ask the minister if he knows whether the secretary general has yet received any similar letter from the government of Turkey.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The president of Turkey wrote to the secretary general about a week ago. With regard to the letter of Archbishop Makarios, he also indicates that the United Nations should undertake to supervise not only ports in Cyprus but ports outside that might be considered a source of such shipments. Our view is that there is some merit in this proposal.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can give the house any idea of the nature of the letter from the Turkish government.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, the government of Turkey denies that there was any clandestine operation on its part, as had been indicated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It gave no guarantee not to participate in any such clandestine shipment of troops or material?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: No guarantee, but I should think the letter itself would indicate an understanding attitude on the part of that government.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question

Inquiries of the Ministry to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I wonder whether an investigation is being made into a report that Indian delegates to the conference of the national Indian council of Canada at Sault Ste. Marie have been evicted from a hotel under rather distressing circumstances.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to report that an investigation is already under way and that the minister will be able to report on Monday.



INQUIRY AS TO HOLIDAY FOR STAFF ON AUGUST 3

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether the parliamentary staff, secretaries and other, will have a holiday next Monday, which is a civic holiday?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons will be meeting on Monday, and subject to the requirements of the House of Commons I am sure Mr. Speaker and those concerned would wish to give other employees as much time off as possible.



BIRTHDAY CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. SPEAKER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I hope Your Honour will allow me to extend belated good wishes on your birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of a newspaper story in this morning's Globe and Mail involving the situation at the Toronto international airport and the ground transportation provided there. I wonder whether the minister would comment on this article-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Maurice John Moreau: -which indicates that some taxicab drivers were arrested and convicted, and that the R.C.M.P. have been used in what appears to be very much a private dispute.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the standing orders questions should not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are correct.


Maurice John Moreau: Then may I have this question referred for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the representations that have been made by many persons including, I believe, some cabinet ministers, may I ask the minister if he intends to continue to give Air Terminal Transport Company Limited a complete monopoly on the soliciting of passengers at the Toronto international airport?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, since this question is very similar to the one which Your Honour felt the hon. member for York-Scarborough should not ask, perhaps the hon. member would also put this question down for debate on Monday evening and I could answer both of them at that time.


Mr. Winkler:: That was a different question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member on that side of the house who raised the matter asked the minister to comment. I am not asking him to comment. I am asking a very simple question of the kind with regard to which a certain hon. member to my right would say "Answer yes or no". Is it the intention of the minister's department to continue the monopoly which now permits only one company to solicit passengers at the Toronto international airport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those simple questions that does not admit of a simple answer. I will try to deal with it on Monday evening when I deal with the question asked by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, because it does need to be dealt with at some length.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to refer to an editorial

which appeared yesterday in one of the Ottawa newspapers which refers to the failure of the majority of the deputy ministers concerned-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: -to accede to the request of the Auditor General. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would tell us what action he contemplates in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it would surely be improper for me to comment on a newspaper editorial.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I had planned to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence and the absence of his parliamentary secretary I will direct it to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Churchill:: Where are all the ministers?


Richard Russell Southam: On July 10 I inquired from the minister what action the government was taking with respect to the application of the benefits of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to those areas in western Canada presently suffering from the effects of serious drought, with specific reference to authorization to farmers to cut grain crops where necessary for livestock forage and qualify for prairie farm assistance payments. Can the Prime Minister say what action has been taken in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss this matter with the Minister of Agriculture, who will be reporting to the hon. member on Monday or Tuesday.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who I consider the fount of all information concerning affairs external. Has the minister any information he can give the house with respect to reports that President Johnson of the United States has recommended a bill to 20220-394
Inquiries of the Ministry congress that will provide some $700 million for the construction of transmission lines from the Columbia basin to California for the delivery to that state of Canadian downstream benefits from the Columbia?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, maybe I did not fully understand the question. My hon. friend has stated what President Johnson has done, but he has not asked any question about it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I sent the minister notice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would you repeat
the question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would like to know whether the minister has any information he could give the house with respect to this announcement and what it means.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that involves the internal affairs of the United States. It is consequential upon the wise decision of this parliament in respect of the Columbia treaty, a project in which my hon. friend, I know, had more than an academic interest.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State but in his absence perhaps someone else can answer. Has the minister succeeded yet in getting Jack MacBeth of truth squad fame appointed as C.B.C. representative at the United Nations?


Mr. Speaker:: Well, really; although the question is highly stimulating and interesting, I do not think it is in order.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Postmaster General whether he has pressed the Minister of Public Works to take immediate action concerning working conditions in the Winnipeg post office.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: I shall have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
6220	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. I had hoped that the Postmaster General would have had his attention drawn to this question yesterday. Is he aware of the complaints concerning bad working conditions in the Winnipeg post office, resulting in the illness of some employees due to the lack of effective ventilation or lack of air conditioning in that post office?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My attention was drawn to this in a question asked yesterday and I asked that an investigation be made immediately. If I had known there would be further questions I would have pressed for an early report. I have not received the report I requested yesterday morning, but I hope to answer yesterday's question promptly.



APPLES-STEPS TO INCREASE EXPORTS TO U.K.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: tTranslation]
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since Great Britain removed its import quotas on apples and their by-products, could he tell the house whether his department officials have taken steps to enable Canadian apple growers, especially those of eastern Canada, to take advantage of this market, by providing them with an export assistance?


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



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I directed a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and in his absence that day the acting minister said he would bring it to his attention. I wonder whether the minister has now some information to give the house in relation to my question of last Tuesday.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Would the hon. member repeat the question?


Robert Simpson: The question was:
In view of the continuing rapid increase in the cost of living in Canada during the past 15 months,


will the minister consider rescinding the directive that has been issued which will result in drastic reductions in the amount of northern allowances paid to civil servants in our northern communities?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the adjustments that have been made in northern allowances are the result of a review based on the cost of living. In some places there have been increases, a great number of positions have remained the same, and there have been some reductions. But the adjustments are related to a study based on the cost of living and the effect of the cost of living upon the incomes of the people there.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the directive apparently was issued some months ago and the reductions in northern allowances were set at that time; and in view of the fact that since that time the cost of living has increased in many of these areas, will the minister consider a review of this situation?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly have a look at it, but these adjustments are made from time to time over a period of several months. I repeat that there were actually some increases made at the time and some decreases did occur, but it seems to me the effect of the changes made was that the allowances in the case of the preponderance of our employees remained the same.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask him to report to the house as to the progress, if any, that has been made in connection with the discussions between the city of Vancouver and the C.B.C. relative to the Kit-silano property.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, we are still awaiting definitive concrete proposals, within the two month delay, from the city of Vancouver. To date the city of Vancouver has produced no new proposals.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been no correspondence from the city of Vancouver setting out alternative suggestions, or no correspondence at all in the past two weeks from that city corporation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the serious complaints against the 11 per cent tax on building materials, is it the intention of the government to withdraw this tax?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might reply to this question. As my hon. friend may or may not have heard, present forecasts of construction expenditures and investment generally, which were announced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the beginning of the week, show an increase of 16 per cent over last year-


John George Diefenbaker: Does that include the 8 per cent tax?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -the largest increase since 1956. In the circumstances perhaps my hon. friend and the Leader of the Opposition, who seemed to wish to interrupt a moment ago, may finally get it through their heads that the tax to which they refer has not slowed things up to the extent that I believe they hoped it would.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: I am sure the the minister-well, I will put it in a form of a question. Does the minister not agree that the majority of this increase has been caused by the threat of a further increase in the tax still to come?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that home builders have asked the government and the minister to withdraw this tax, because it causes many bankruptcies, is the minister of the opinion that this tax is one of the causes for increased bankruptcies in Canada?
Yes or no?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-
20220-394i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the standing orders ministers are not obliged to answer, and the hon. member must know that. There is no purpose in rising on a point of order every time he does not get an answer, because that depends on the minister concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: It is the only way in which a member can at least impress the nature of his question upon a minister. However, Your Honour is entirely right, if we rose on a point of order every time this government refused to answer questions, we would be up all the time.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Ba-got):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the outstanding success of his tax, is it his intention then to raise it to 15 per cent?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I never believe you should push a good thing too far.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question. Can he explain to the house how it happens that the number of bankruptcies increases constantly, particularly among the builders?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Far be if from me, Mr. Speaker, to get involved in a debate on a question which is not quite in order. However, I might say to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that, first of all, I do not accept the first part of his question and that the latest I have heard about construction was only the day before yesterday, when my wife and I were inquiring about a place to live in Ottawa from a builder of some two thousand dwelling units. We were told then that the building industry had never been so prosperous as under the present government.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. He said he looked everywhere in Ottawa, but did he cross over to Hull, where there are plenty of places available?



COURAGEOUS ACTION OF SWITCH- BOARD OPERATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roseiown-Biggar):: I do not know whether I am in order, Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Interim Supply
Speaker, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister if this government would give recognition to Mrs. McCormick, who remained at her switchboard in the tragic fire yesterday in Ottawa in order to save lives?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it was a very courageous act, a sacrificial act indeed. I am sure the house would like to go on record as expressing its own recognition of this courage. I will be glad to look into this matter. I have a particular interest in it, because her daughter in law works in my office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 30, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $696,010,791.01, being the aggregate of-
(a)	two twelfths of the total of all of the Items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1965, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $658,598,418.50;
(b)	an additional three twelfths of the amount of transport items 15 and 25, (schedule A) of the said main estimates, $7,044,425;
(c)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of agriculture item 60, fisheries item 20, justice item 1, legislation item 20, mines and technical surveys items 10, 15, 25, 45 and 60, national film board item 1, national health and welfare item 15, northern affairs and national resources items 15 and 35, privy council item 25, transport item 1, loans, investments and advances item L10 (schedule B) of the said main estimates, $9,525,758.34;
(d)	two twelfths of all the items to be voted in the supplementary estimates (A) laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, except national defence item 56a, loans, investments and advances items L17a and L37a, for which no proportion will be granted, $20,840,372.50;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount of justice item 12a (schedule C) of the said supplementary estimates (A), $1,806.67;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1965.
['Then discontinue voting with them.']
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This might be a good time for the Minister of Transport-he is leaving the house; if we could get him back in-


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It would be a good opportunity for the Minister of Transport to deal with the matter I raised on orders of the day rather than leave it to Monday evening, when he is allowed by the rules of the house only about three minutes in which to

explain what is happening at Toronto international airport.
The Globe and Mail of this morning states that some four drivers who participated in a demonstration protesting against a monopoly which has been granted to Air Terminal Transport Limited to solicit passengers at the airport have been fined, and that the R.C.M.P. at the airport have taken the names of more than 100 drivers who have picked up fares there. This is not a matter of earth shaking importance and I do not wish to delay the committee, but it seems to me that some statement should be forthcoming from the minister. I do not think the practice followed at Malton is the practice at other airports; if it is, it certainly ought to be reviewed. Why should we grant one company a monopoly to solicit passengers at an airport while all other taxi drivers are not only barred but, as can be seen from this report, are actually arrested-


John George Diefenbaker: Arrested?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and fined for soliciting passengers at the airport.


John George Diefenbaker: Have they been taken
into custody?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No. I assume they were picked up by the police, that their names were taken and that they appeared before the courts. But these four who were fined would appear to be only the vanguard of a much larger number. If the report is correct, the R.C.M.P. have taken the names of a hundred other taxi drivers who participated in this demonstration and were soliciting customers.
I think the minister should indicate whether it is his intention to discontinue this monopoly. It seems to me it is contrary to the general practice that a building erected from public funds, or rather the traffic generated by such a building, should be made the exclusive monopoly of one company and that other persons in the business of transporting the general public should be denied the opportunity to solicit passengers there. It is true that other taxi drivers can bring passengers to the airport and unload them, but they are not allowed to pick them up; and the reports in this morning's newspapers indicate that some 500 taxi drivers have stated their intention of defying this rule next week and challenging the validity of this franchise by actually picking up fares at the airport. If this happens the minister will be kept busy prosecuting taxi drivers. In the circumstances I think the committee should be given some explanation by the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very happy to give an explanation. If I seemed discourteous to the hon. gentleman I certainly did not intend to be, but the situation is far too complicated to be answered in the naive fashion in which the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm seems to think all questions can be answered.
It is apparent that a monopoly in this situation, especially a private monopoly, is distasteful to most of us, and I do not blame anyone for expressing a reaction similar to that which has been expressed today by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. But there are certain circumstances which should be considered.
In the first place, let me say this is the practice not only in Toronto but at all the major airports of Canada. The reason it exists-and it has been going on for years; there is nothing new about it-is to ensure that there will be an adequate supply of taxis available to carry passengers who wish to use them throughout the whole of the period when aircraft are using the airport. In return for this monopoly the company has to pay a percentage of its take to the government. In other words the taxpayers do get reimbursed by the company-and they are not too badly reimbursed, either, I may say-in return for granting this exclusive privilege. So the exclusive privilege is not a free gift to the company; it is a right for which rent is paid to the taxpayers.
After representations had been made to me by most of the members from Toronto some two or three weeks ago, I asked the head of this company to come to see me here in Ottawa. I questioned him about some of the allegations of public dissatisfaction which had been made here in the house and which had come to my attention through the press. I suggested to him that there were taxis which went out to the airport, and naturally they did not want to go back empty; they wished, if they could, to pick up fares.
One does not blame the drivers for that. That is how they earn their living. I had had some correspondence with the metropolitan Toronto taxi council-I think that is the name of the organization; I am speaking from memory-and I said "Why not make an offer to these people, or let them make an offer to you, to have a certain number of places made available to them in return for which they can contribute in exactly the same way you do, so they would have a chance to pick up fares before going back"? I added that it would not be expected that they would get this privilege free, but we would not impose
Interim Supply
conditions on them, as we do on you, to have cars available 24 hours a day. I stated that if they could make an amicable arrangement among themselves which was fair both to the taxpayers and to the users of the service so that this grievance would be ended I could assure them that the Department of Transport would approve. I might add that in my assessment of the priorities, both the taxpayers and the air passengers deserve to be considered before either of these carriers.
The head of the company which has the monopoly told me he had never been approached by this taxi council. That did not surprise me particularly. I wrote to the council myself and suggested they approach the company to see if they could not work out some amicable arrangement of the kind I am suggesting, and indicated that I would be very happy if some such agreement could be reached. But as far as I am able to learn there is only one taxi company, not the whole council, engaged in this particular demonstration at the moment, and certain of the activities of this company-I do not wish to go into it now, though I could at some time when there is greater opportunity-suggest to me that perhaps it does not reflect a very large popular feeling, but mainly a desire on its part to skim a little of the cream off this traffic without assuming any responsibilities whatever.
I would say, in summary, that I believe the passengers who travel by air to great airports such as Malton are entitled, as far as it can be arranged, to have a taxi service available to them when they arrive; that this cannot be done on a hit or miss basis by simply allowing the kind of undiluted free enterprise that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is such a strong advocate of; that there has to be some measure of organization and regulation to ensure that on the whole-though there are some genuine grievances about this matter, and I think any person providing a monopoly service must be watched very carefully all the time, no matter who he is- an adequate service is provided. I think the only practical way of assuring sufficient transport at the hours of the day when there is not much business is to give to the people who provide that service an assurance that they will get such traffic as is offered. That is the problem.
I do not think we are going to have mass arrests at all. At the present time I am told this particular company has a number of taxis that just keep driving at a slow pace around the airport, which is quite contrary to the law; they are simply trying to take the law

Interim Supply
into their own hands. I do not think anyone in the house would argue that this should be tolerated for any length of time; but one does not like to see the drivers of the cars penalized because of the policy of the head of the company.
I am giving very careful consideration to the most effective way of dealing with this problem, but I do believe the suggestion I made, that the taxi council should get in touch with this company that has the monopoly and see if they can work out some arrangement along the lines I suggested, is the most practical way. If, however, a more practical method could be suggested, I am not wedded to the particular system that is there now. But I think everybody who has had much experience of travelling does know that the ordinary traveller arriving at Malton is able to get a cab without much delay, and that the rates are substantially the same as those charged by other similar public carriers. I think this is the prime consideration, and it must be kept in the front of our minds while we endeavour to settle this matter as justly and as fairly as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the minister's description of me as being in favour of undiluted free enterprise, I am even more opposed to private monopolies, particularly when these private monopolies are selected by a government on some basis which has never been explained; that is, why a particular company is selected and given a concession to operate a monopoly in transporting people from airports. This concession may have been given to them by tender publicly called for, with regard to which other companies had an opportunity to bid and a chance to rent the concession. If that is true, of course there can be less objection to it.
However, Mr. Chairman, I want to make just two points to the minister. The first is that the newspaper reports on this matter- and this is the only information I have-would seem to indicate that this question involves more than one company. The statement in this morning's paper would seem to indicate that almost the entire Toronto taxi council, I think it is called, are incensed about this monopoly and the fact that their members have been denied the right to solicit fares at the airport.
I wanted to ask the minister at how many airports across Canada this policy is followed. If I recall correctly, I have been at airports at which a number of different taxis were picking up fares. I agree with the minister that there has to be some orderly arrangement in this matter. There is little value in having
[Mr. PickersgiH.1
100 taxis at the airport at one hour and no taxis at all at another hour; there has to be some orderly arrangement-so that people arriving at the airport at very unusual hours can be sure there will be transportation available. This is particular true in the early hours of the morning: people do not want to wait while they phone for a taxi, particularly when the airport is as far out from the centre of the city as is the Malton airport. I can understand the minister has to have some arrangement that will serve the passengers to the best possible advantage.
I would like to ask the minister if this is a general policy which he intends to follow, and whether it is not possible to work out some arrangement by which a number of companies could rent parking places, with the understanding that they would pay a rent; that they would have taxis there at all times, or at certain specified times, to pick up passengers so this business could be spread around rather than appearing to place what constitutes a private monopoly solely in the hands of one firm. While the minister is answering, Mr. Chairman, he might also tell me whether this concession was given to this company and to other companies in other places on the basis of public tender.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I will first of all deal with the first question, as to whether this is a general policy. I cannot say for sure just how many airports are involved in this practice. It applies in Ottawa, I know; it applies in Montreal, I know; it applies in St. John's, Newfoundland; it even applies at Gander, and I would think it applied in Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. I do not really know where else it would apply, but I do think it has been almost universal at airports where there is any considerable traffic.
With regard to the company that now has the monopoly in Toronto, I was not the minister concerned with this matter, and the present government was not in office when the contract was made. By saying that I am not imputing any blame to anybody at all; all I am saying is that the present company was given this contract three or four years ago-I think, four. I do not believe there were public tenders called, but there are some difficulties about calling public tenders because the only people who can operate this kind of service are those who are properly licensed under another authority than ours. That is to say, we do not have the right and this parliament does not have the jurisdiction, as I understand it, to license taxi companies

and companies of that sort unless perchance they are in interprovincial service, and none of these are. Therefore any competition there might be would have to be limited to those people who are unable to get a provincial, or in some cases perhaps a municipal licence. That is just another of the complications.
Whether it would be possible to divide this business up, I am not quite sure. I am told that most taxi companies would not find it very attractive if they had to meet the conditions that apply. No doubt some of them would like to come in on this business-particularly this Yellow Cab company-when it suits them and when they know there are going to be enough passengers to pick up at the airport. After all, I have made a suggestion to the metropolitan council which, it seems to me, is exactly along the line suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I believe that the right way for these people to act is in a lawful manner, instead of attempting to flout the law, which I do not think any government can be expected to condone.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Transport a couple of questions concerning this matter. As I understand it the minister has suggested a private arrangement whereby these people would work this matter out for themselves. In view of the ten year contract which was granted in 1960, I think this might be an acceptable solution. I suggest that Air Terminal Transport, which has the monopoly, should be required to give the service, perhaps in return for allowing other taxicabs to pick up there although perhaps not 24 hours a day. They have a starter there and they could extract a fee for every pick-up made by another cab company. Perhaps that sort of arrangement would work. However, I did not quite understand the minister's suggestion, and I do not know whether that is what he had in mind; perhaps he could confirm it.
The other question I wanted to ask concerns the service which is given. Has the minister anything to add on the question of providing service to the whole of metropolitan Toronto, not just a bus service from Toronto international airport to the Royal York hotel? It is my view, and I certainly find general acceptance of this view, that metropolitan Toronto is a very large municipality indeed, and merely obtaining bus service to the Royal York hotel does not really help me or my constituents one iota. No service at all is given to the 350,000 people who live in the northern and eastern parts of
Interim Supply
Toronto. I am sure the same thing applies to people who live at the other extremity, although they are much closer to the airport and do not run into the same sort of cab fare.
I should like to ask the minister whether there has been any further development concerning this matter with Air Terminal Transport and whether they will offer any service particularly to the northern and eastern parts of Toronto. I might say right now that I am not prepared to accept the excuse that the construction presently under way on highway 401 would prevent such a service from being implemented. We all know that highway 401 is very crowded. Nevertheless, in spite of the construction, the department of highways of the Ontario government has continuously maintained four paved lanes during the construction, so I do not think this is sufficient reason for not giving us this sort of service. If Air Terminal Transport take the position that they will not give bus service to the northern and eastern parts of Toronto until highway 401 is completed, then I think the discussion is somewhat academic because their contract would undoubtedly expire before the construction is completed in 1970. I wonder whether the minister would have anything to say about that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman has anticipated most of what I would have to say on this subject. I did talk to the company about giving service to an area with a population at least as great as that of the city of Hamilton, which has such a service, and they said they were contemplating doing that as soon as highway 401 was reasonably passable. Not having travelled on highway 401 recently I was not able from personal experience to refute this argument. However, I did mention it to the hon. member and to certain other hon. members who, although they are not political supporters of the Ontario government, in this particular matter seemed to defend the Ontario department of highways by suggesting that highway 401 is perfectly passable even though once in a while it was rather congested with traffic, like a lot of other roads.
I intend to make further representations to the company on this particular point, and I also thought I would suggest to them that the first time I was in Toronto they might drive me over highway 401 in one of their cars and let me judge for myself whether the highway was hopelessly congested. Perhaps I can also arrange for one or two other members who might be going to Toronto to have

Interim Supply
that experience themselves. I think the company is aware of the fact that practically all the members from metropolitan Toronto, from whatever part of the house, feel rather keenly about this matter, and the company is in a frame of mind where they would be anxious to do anything which would seem reasonable.


Maurice John Moreau: I might say to the minister that they have no objection to travelling on highway 401 for $9.75 a trip.


The Chairman:: Order. I think we should try to proceed in an orderly fashion. This is developing into a debate between two members. I think everyone should be given the chance to participate in the debate at this time.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a question or two in regard to this general problem. The discussion so far has been limited to airports; at least what I have heard of it has been. Does not this same principle apply to railway stations, or to certain railway stations, in Canada? I do not know whether it applies to railway stations operated by the railway companies themselves, but I think it does apply to some railway stations which are operated by terminal companies.
While the minister is looking into this question with regard to airports perhaps he would also inform the house what is the jurisdiction, if any, and the supervision, if any, of the Department of Transport with regard to monopolies of this sort which operate at railway stations. I have had the experience at certain railway stations where a cab would drive up and unload passengers, and then when I proceeded to ask the cab to take me somewhere I was curtly told that the driver could not pick up passengers at that point. I have been told to get out of the cab and take a taxi belonging to the right company in order to go to my destination.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I can deal with that matter very quickly. The government has no jurisdiction in this field. We do not operate any railway stations, and the cabs would be under provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Smith:: Perhaps the minister might make available to the members of the committee some of the services these contracting companies are required to provide. I do not mean what they are paid in terms of dollars and cents, but the services they are required

to provide at each airport. That might give us a better understanding of the problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very happy to make those documents available. I think the simplest thing would be to table them, and I will try to do that on Monday; or in view of a certain engagement I have, if I did it on Tuesday perhaps I would be forgiven.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I might point out for the information of hon. members that we in Edmonton are now back to the happy situation, we think, of one standard contractor in this respect. For a number of years there was always a problem with dual contractors, either once a week or once a month. The minister can consult his files, but I am sure he knows that Edmonton international airport may be engraved on the hearts of certain officials of his department as a result of certain concessions which were made. When they die I am sure it will be engraved on their hearts, because it gave them nothing but trouble.
I would point out to hon. members that the conditions of these contracts are very stringent. The department does get a substantial return, which is part compensation for the facilities which are provided at international airports by the crown of Canada. In addition to that, are the so-called non-privileged taxi companies prepared to put up the equivalent of automobile insurance for the protection of passengers, as is required of the contractor under his contract with the crown? Are the drivers to be uniformed? Again, are they to be there at all hours? After all, a private individual in a taxi business for himself will go after the traffic wherever it is, whatever the hour of the day. Is the contractor going to make sure there are cars available during all hours of the night when there is little traffic and yet there is a requirement for taxis. All a passenger who is unable to obtain taxi service has to do is complain to the air line; then there follows a quick reaction on the part of the taxi contractor.
I can assure hon. members that this business of unlimited pick-up service at an international airport can lead to grief. I have heard of slashed tires and sugar cubes in gas tanks. Competition gets a little rugged at times. I am not suggesting the people involved in this dispute are resorting to that sort of thing, but it certainly has been the experience in many places that when you have this rather keen competition for passengers times do get rough. It is far better for the department, the air lines and the passengers to have the

facilities handled under one reputable contractor who, after all, originally got his contract on the basis of a tender.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the many remarks passed on the Toronto Malton airport during the past hour. I hope I will not be threshing old straw when I also refer to the situation, but as a member from metropolitan Toronto and one who uses the Malton airport considerably I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he could not arrange to have the R.C.M.P. officer, who chases passengers from taxicab to taxicab, garbed in one of those brilliant red uniforms during the summer season, as I understand tourists get more enjoyment seeing red-coated Mounties chasing passengers from taxicab to taxicab than is the case when they have those buff coloured uniforms which they were wearing last Friday when I arrived and stepped into a Yellow cab.
This business of the airport has got to the position. I also congratulate him on the the Minister of Transport for returning to the chamber, as suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam a few moments ago, and I admire him for his statement this morning that he is not wedded to this monopoly position. I also congratulate him on the statement he made some weeks ago in which he said he is an old time Liberal and does not believe in monopolies. I would ask him to put his beliefs and convictions on that score into effect in the immediate future.
The situation I want to draw to the committee's attention, and which has not been referred to this morning, is that some months ago the Toronto transit commission, which is a publicly owned municipal service in metropolitan Toronto, began to operate a bus out to Malton airport. It runs along Dixon road to the town of Weston and connections are made there throughout metropolitan Toronto.
There were a number of raised eyebrows in Toronto over the fact that the R.C.M.P., in either red coats or buff coloured coats, had not been sent down to get hold of Ralph Day, chairman of the Toronto transit commission, to advise him he was trespassing on a private monopoly of Air Terminal Transport, but there was some oversight so that they were not sent out after the Toronto transit commission in the way they are sent out after private taxis which pick up fares at the airport.
However, the Department of Transport apparently has another way of choking off competition for Air Terminal Transport, as this letter which I will read shows. This
Interim Supply
bus was run into the air terminal in order to pick up passengers seeking bus transfer into the metropolitan centre, and on Wednesday of this week I received a letter written by Mr. Clarence C. Downey, a former chairman of the Toronto transit commission and still a member of the commission, a former reeve of the village of Swansea and former warden of the county of York, a very experienced gentleman. He has written to me as follows:
As you probably know, I am an ex-chairman and am presently a commissioner with the Toronto transit commission. As such, I was greatly interested in our newspaper reports of the discussion initiated by you in parliament of the exclusive franchise for transportation at our international airport (Toronto) granted in 1960 to Air Terminal Transport Limited.
I became interested in this matter some months ago on visiting the airport when I saw one of our T.T.C. buses sitting outside the terminal proper-some one third of a mile from the actual entrance and with a very substantial incline up to such entrance from the bus.
I took up the matter with our officials and T.C.A. officials-we even had the bus driven into the airport proper to see if it could negotiate the turns and found it could do so.
I may say in passing that I had heard the bus could not make the turns in between the cement columns, but Mr. Clarence Downey points out that he proved it can be driven into the airport and negotiate these turns.
I was then hopeful that our public transportation vehicle, to serve the airport employees and the public generally, would be permitted to enter the terminal. After all this negotiation and demonstration, however, we were advised that due to the prior commitment our request could not at present be granted.
It seems to me ridiculous that public transportation should not be provided at a nationally owned airport for those employees and the public generally who cannot afford the fares which Air Terminal Transport charges and who also are not being served throughout the metropolitan area. This limited company cannot hope nor can it be expected to provide metro-wide services as can be provided by the T.T.C.
I feel that the exclusive, monopolistic transportation franchise granted to Air Terminal Transport Limited should not exclude public transportation services that the T.T.C. can provide.
I appreciate the fact that it might become a straight legal problem but I feel that sufficient pressure in parliament might induce Air Terminal Transport Limited to favourably consider allowing public transportation vehicles to provide a service which it cannot provide.
I would appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely,
C. C. Downey,
Commissioner.
Now we have the interesting situation of a federally owned piece of property, the air terminal, having given an exclusive franchise

Interim Supply
to Air Terminal Transport Limited, a funeral coach limousine service, by which they are holding up the publicly owned Toronto transportation commission when it seeks to give service to the people using that public service, the air terminal.
Why should there be a toll gate between the federal government and the municipal government on this matter, and why should there be a toll gate between the Department of Transport and privately owned taxicab companies. A moment or two ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked whether the contract to provide transport service to the air terminal in Toronto had been put up for tender. I can assure him quite definitely that it was not put up for tender. I have in my hand a copy of a letter dated November 25, 1963, from the former minister of transport to Mr. Vernon Singer, M.P.P. of Toronto, in which the third last paragraph reads:
When the agreement with Air Terminal Transport Limited was up for renewal in 1960, a tender call was considered but it was not possible to proceed on this basis because of the position taken by the provincial department of transport in respect to franchises.
I make the statement in this house without any fear of successful contradiction that that statement is absolutely false, even though it appears in a letter written on government stationery. If the federal government, through the Department of Transport, should grant a franchise to any company to operate a passenger conveyance service out of the Mal-ton airport, you can rest assured that the Ontario department of transport would issue the necessary permit. I have taken that matter up with officials of the Ontario government and have been assured that if such a contract were negotiated there would be no hold-up provincially.
This is a specious argument advanced by whoever wrote that letter. I am certain that the minister who signed the letter did not write it. There are so many fallacies in it that it would be a disgrace to put it on the record, but that is the answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
I have protested in the house before, and on this motion for interim supply I wish to protest again against the federal government signing an indenture for a passenger conveyance service which nine times in seven pages refers to a taxi station, taxi service, taxi operation, taxi this, taxi that; yet the company with which they have the agreement does not have a taxi licence. How in

the name of heaven can you make an agreement with a steam railroad unless you are dealing with a steam railroad? You do not sign a contract with electric radial cars and specify what the steam railroad service is to be once the contract is signed.
Here we have an agreement signed by the hon. member for Three Rivers, the former minister of transport, in 1961 granting Air Terminal Transport Limited a taxi service. Yet Air Terminal Transport Limited does not operate a single taxi, has not got a taxi licence in the city of Toronto and has not got a taxi licence in the township of Toronto.
To me the agreement is palpably false because it calls for services that are not being rendered. The company is providing what I prefer to call a funeral coach service using long black Pontiacs, and this is supposed to add status to those people who are forced to travel economy class on T.C.A. because that is the only class of ticket made available to members of parliament.
In this letter of the Department of Transport dated November 25, 1963 the statement is made in several places that it is necessary that there be conveyances available at the airport when air travellers arrive. Why does the Department of Transport not show the same solicitude for people who arrive in Toronto by bus or people who arrive in Toronto by railway or people who arrive in Toronto by cars that break down at the city limits? No; it is only those persons travelling by air for whom the government appears to be extremely solicitous and for whom the government wants to make arrangements that there shall be transportation available at every moment.
In the letter to which 1 have referred the writer has this to say with regard to the situation in New York city:
At IdlewUd airport in New York the understanding of the situation there is that the former arrangement whereby taxicabs waited in a taxi rank and paid a fee of 25 cents per trip to the airport has been cancelled because it was found unworkable. The New York airport, by virtue of the tremendous numbers of passengers handled, does permit the free operation of taxis, provided they park in the designated taxi stand. But again, because of the nature of the New York operation, these taxis do not offer any serious competition to the air line bus service which operates point to point between the city terminal and the airport.
The Department of Transport admits that taxis are free to operate out of Idlewild airport in New York city, the biggest airport of its kind on the North American continent. Are we so special that we cannot follow the

example set by the biggest airport on the continent and give the same service to the public as air travellers enjoy in New York?
I have arrived at Idlewild airport in New York in the middle of a rainstorm and have had to wait 40 minutes before I could get any transportation downtown because every available vehicle was in operation. I have arrived at Logan airport in Boston at two o'clock in the morning and there was no public transportation available. My wife and I sat in the airport until a taxi came from the centre of Boston, picked us up and took us down to our hotel. I have arrived at Kansas City airport in the middle of the night, and as there was no taxi service available and no such service provided by the air lines I walked with other travellers from the airport. Hon. members may recall that the former airport used to be at the bow in the river and it was only a matter of eight or nine blocks for me to walk to the Muehlbach hotel.
There is no requirement that an airport must provide service at every hour of the day or night. In fact in this indenture, which as I have mentioned before I was unable to obtain from the previous government when I sat in opposition but which I received with ease from the former minister of transport, Mr. Mcllraith, last year, there is the following requirement:
-the lessee shall maintain at the said airport a sufficient number of buses, limousines and taxis, 24 hours each day, to accommodate passenger traffic to and from the said airport.
The president of the company told me to my face in the Seaway Towers hotel on the 15th of June that he does not operate any buses on Saturday or Sunday because there are not enough passengers travelling to and from the airport. But the agreement says he shall operate buses, limousines and taxis 24 hours each day. I have already shown that he does not operate taxis because he has not got a taxi licence. Here we have a requirement to operate a sufficient number of buses, limousines and taxis 24 hours each day, and I draw attention to the fact that he does not operate taxis, and he admits that on Saturdays and Sundays he does not operate buses. This is quite an agreement; yet people stand up and say it should be enforced.
With regard to the statement that has been made that only one taxi company seems concerned about this matter, I would point out that I have sat in on several meetings of the Toronto taxicab conference. The representatives or owners of a great majority of the taxicab companies in Toronto have attended
Interim Supply
these meetings, and we have discussed the contract between the Department of Transport and Air Terminal Transport Limited.
The complaint is not a specific one by one cab company. It is a complaint of all the taxicab operators in the city of Toronto.
I am happy to know that the Minister of Transport is on record in Hansard as having stated that when so many complaints reach his ears from Liberal and N.D.P. members from metropolitan Toronto about the taxicab service out of Malton airport, he realizes there is something wrong and that there must be grounds for complaint or all these members would not be complaining. As a matter of fact, two members of the cabinet from Toronto were in his office when protests were made to him about this unjust and unfair contract which prevents taxicabs from operating out of Malton airport.
A question was raised a while ago about the railway station contract. The union station advertises for tenders for cabs to make exclusive use of the lower level at the union station. The taxicab companies submit tenders and the successful bidder is given the exclusive right to operate taxicabs at the lower level of the union station where the government owned railway and the C.P.R. disembark passengers. The interesting thing about the situation at the union station is that taxicabs are free to pick up all the passengers they wish at any other entrance to the union station. The situation in Toronto is only exclusive in so far as the lower level is concerned, and this does not apply to the entire station. Why there should be an arrangement at Malton airport whereby the company providing limousine service is given exclusive rights over the whole area is beyond my comprehension.
In this morning's Globe and Mail, to which much reference has been made, there is a story about four taxicab operators being fined at Brampton and four being acquitted. I was talking to some of them on the long distance telephone yesterday, but rather than raise questions about the matter yesterday I thought I would speak on interim supply today. However, questions were asked in advance of my remarks. The interesting thing about the story in the Globe and Mail is that here we have a three column headline "Taxis Plan Airport Fight As Four Fined, Four Acquitted". We are told that Malton airport is public property and since the Minister of Transport has entered into a private contract that private contract is enforceable. It

Interim Supply
is private ground, because the Department of Transport has control over it.
Immediately below the story about the taxi operators there is a story about the action of a magistrate in Oakville, Ontario, approximately 20 miles from Brampton. Magistrate Kenneth Langdon freed a youth by the name of Terrance Page who had been accused of trespassing on a shopping centre in Oakville. The magistrate freed the boy on the charge of trespassing on a shopping centre and the story reads in part as follows:
Magistrate Langdon said the petty trespass act was enacted to keep persons from unlawfully trespassing on private property but in the case of commercial places there was an invitation to the public from the stores in the plaza to visit them. The magistrate said the key word in the act was "unlawful", which meant that an offence against the law had to be involved.
I would point out that there are a large number of stores at Malton airport which are seeking public patronage. There are gift shops, newsstands and the like. In their way they constitute a small shopping plaza. Yet on the front page of the Globe and Mail we see that four taxi operators have been fined for parking on property owned by the Department of Transport, while at the same time a magistrate at Oakville in another case says you cannot prosecute a boy for moving about on a privately owned shopping plaza because it is public in every aspect. This is a very interesting conflict of opinion between two magistrates.
I should like to make it a matter of public record that the taxicab operators who were fined in Brampton yesterday speak very highly and very kindly of the magistrate. They said he gave them every possible consideration. They are planning to appeal. They have no feeling against Magistrate Ord, I believe it was, in Brampton.
It was quite interesting to find right below this taxi statement that Magistrate Langdon said you could not be arrested for trespassing on a shopping plaza. If you cannot be arrested for trespassing on a shopping plaza, how can you be arrested for trespassing on Department of Transport property? We do not advertise for tenders for a taxi service here at the parliament buildings. If it is a good thing to let a contract for taxi service at Malton airport and make some money out of it, why is it not a good thing to do the same thing for the parliament buildings? If they say it is highly important to have taxis available at the airport, they could say with equal force that it is highly important to have taxis available 
for members of parliament and visitors at the parliament buildings. It is ridiculous.
I regret spending so much time on Malton when the subject was discussed during the question period, and when such a frank statement was made on the subject by the Minister of Transport. If I have any time left, and if I have not I shall deal with it on another occasion, I should like to make some reference to the statement made by the Minister of Transport a week ago last Wednesday regarding CATV operations in this country. I want to state that as a member of this house and as a Canadian taxpayer, as well as one who believes he knows a little bit more than zero about television and the radio industry, that there is no need for these statements being issued. I really believe there will be a long drawn out controversy over this situation.
On July 22, about a week ago, the Minister of Transport rose in the house and made a statement with regard to a proposed order concerning ownership of CATV operations. Then there was a proposal concerning an item re CATV receiving stations being included in the supplementary estimates. This proposal re CATV receiving stations being dealt with by an item in the supplementary estimates is something that is going to irritate Canadians as a whole when they learn the facts.
CATV is something that is absolutely unknown to the vast majority of Canadians because there is no necessity for such an installation in their areas. However, this does not get around the fact that there are approximately 340 companies holding CATV licences from the Department of Transport. They are quite happy to deal with the Department of Transport. They do not want to be removed from the wings of the Department of Transport. If you now bring the board of broadcast governors into the picture, they of course will impose a form of censorship.
I am using the word "censorship" by choice and as a result of experience in the situation.
Under this proposed item re CATV receiving stations being brought under the board of broadcast governors, you are going to' have the ridiculous situation of the federal government through the board of broadcast governors enforcing censorship over a minority of the people. These approximately 340 licensed CATV companies service about 300,000 viewers in Canada. It is estimated that 5 per cent of the total television viewers in the dominion now have CATV. There are

three types of CATV operation to which I should like to draw your attention.
Apartment house owners put up a CATV system by erecting a high tower on the apartment. Depending on the number of tenants, anywhere from say 40 up to 800 apartment house dwellers will use this service. You have a CATV operation because with one high tower they can get a much better picture for the tenants than if everyone had rabbit ears hanging out the windows. The owners of apartment houses would not want to have rabbit ears sticking out of every apartment house window. The tenants pay an extra charge per month for this television service. There is no complaint because the picture comes in very clearly.
The second type of CATV operation covers real estate subdivisions where, in this day and age of affluence under a Liberal government, we find more posh suburban areas being developed by real estate operators. It seems the public do not want telephone wires or hydro wires hanging in the air or even television antennas. Arrangements are made, therefore, to bury the wire services within the real estate development and underground go the television services and all the rest of them. The picture is received by a tall antenna which does not disfigure the neighbourhood. The picture is received very clearly. The people who buy this service enter into a contract to pay for it.
The third type of CATV, which I have mentioned in this house before and of which I give you a direct example, involves the place near which my summer home is located; Penetang, north of Toronto. If you do not have CATV the only thing you can pick up is the Barrie television station. I have nothing against the Barrie television station personally, and I do not have CATV because I am 11 miles out of Penetang. However, I know many people in the area who are willing to pay for the extra service of CATV in order that they can pick up other programs than the ones that come in from Barrie. They want a choice of programs, and they are willing to pay for that service.
This proposal to put CATV receiving stations ultimately under the board of broadcast governors will not affect the CATV operations in apartment houses. We have the assurance of the minister that he has no intention of having apartment house CATV interfered with in this way. It will not affect CATV operations in real estate subdivisions. It will only affect that one third of CATV installations about which I have been speaking lat-
Interim Supply
terly, and will therefore affect much less than 5 per cent of the television viewers.
If the board of broadcast governors is going to adopt the attitude it has taken in the past- and there is no reason for expecting it to change-it will be telling the applicants for CATV installations that they are going to interfere with the successful operation of some neighbouring television station. This would be a terrible thing, to let free enterprise find its level in this country of ours. The board of broadcast governors claim they must see that television stations have an economically successful life. CATV opposition will mean people will be looking at CATV programs and not looking at a local or nearby television station.
I say it is absolutely not the function of the government to make certain that every television or radio station is able to make a profit. Either we believe in free enterprise or we do not believe in free enterprise. We are not going to impose censorship on about 1 per cent of the television viewers of Canada by intimating that a CATV application by people who wish to get around the local television station shall be dealt with by the board of broadcast governors, when a CATV installation is not opposed for apartment house dwellers and when a CATV installation in a real estate subdivision is not opposed.
In so far as the 95 per cent of Canadians who do not need CATV are concerned, they can pick up any station they want. In Toronto we can pick up Buffalo; we can pick up Hamilton, Toronto and some people can pick up Kitchener. If you happen to be fortunate enough to be in an area where you can make a choice between six or seven television stations, the board of broadcast governors will not interfere with your reception. If you live in a part of Canada in which there is only one local television station available and where CATV will bring you improved service, then the board of broadcasting governors is going to be asked to step in and say whether or not that CATV service will be made available to you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member for York-Humber if he would allow me to interrupt him for just a minute to make an apology to him and to the committee. I have a very urgent and long standing engagement at twelve o'clock. The president of the council is my acting minister when I am not available in the house. He has perforce to stay here anyway, and I am sure he will report anything that is said to me. I do not think at this stage I could add anything to

Interim Supply
what I have already said about the taxi situation, and I do not think I would wish to embark upon a debate at this time on CATV. Perhaps the committee and the hon. member would excuse me. But I wished to explain that I was not walking out on him.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have already thanked the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for returning to the house, and I am ready to repeat those thanks if he did not hear me the first time. I will conclude my remarks by stating it is unfair-


Mr. Fisher:: Would the hon. member mind replying to a question before the minister does leave? We are all interested in the representations he is putting forward, but did not he and his colleagues who share those views put them before the minister before he made this announcement?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am willing to answer questions, but since the minister is here, maybe he might do so. I hear a certain amount of laughter. Might I answer that question then, by asking why do you think I am speaking in the House of Commons today?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I notice, Mr. Chairman, that one or two hon. members have risen in connection with this subject and I would be quite happy to defer to the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Fraser Valley if they would like to continue along these lines. I believe my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm would also like to speak.


Mr. Brewin:: I do not intend to unduly prolong the debate on this matter of the air terminal at Toronto. I see the minister has left. But I do wish to thank the minister for keeping in touch with me, as one of the Toronto members, in regard to this problem and letting me see the correspondence he has had with the taxicab people and with Air Terminal Transport Company.
I suggest to the minister that he look very carefully, if he has not done so, into the legal validity of this monopoly. He might also look carefully into the question raised by the hon. member for York-Humber, namely whether this monopoly has lived up to the terms of its own agreement. If it is not providing the services called for it certainly should not retain the benefits of the monopoly granted to it. I should like whoever is keeping in touch with the minister on this subject, now

that the minister has left, to convey those two suggestions to him as forcefully as he can.
If the commitments undertaken by the company have not been fully honoured, pressure could be brought to bear upon Air Terminal Transport Company to modify its monopoly position with a much greater chance of success than the mere making of a statement that it would be very nice if the company would consider writing to the taxicab conference making suggestions for changes. I think the minister would then be in a strong position to say to the transport company which has the monopoly, "We do not think you are living up to your end of the agreement and we insist on your modifying its terms."
I would point out that this is a matter of great importance to the many hundreds, indeed thousands of cab drivers whose livelihood is concerned, and also that the situation affects the convenience of a vast number of travellers. I think the hon. member for York-Scarborough is perfectly correct in his statement that there is no excuse in the world for not providing service to the east end of Toronto based on the pretext that highway 401 is not passable at the present time. It is passable.


Maurice John Moreau: They do it for $9.75 all the time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I hope the minister will not allow this excuse to be used as a reason for not giving an adequate service to the people who live in Toronto east.


Mr. Cantin:: I undertake to take note of the hon. member's comments and pass them on to the minister.


Alexander Bell Patterson: It had not been my intention to take part in the debate on interim supply, but in view of the fact that the discussion has proceeded for a considerable length of time I intend to beg the indulgence of the committee and discuss a few matters this afternoon.
Some questions have been raised with respect to the length of the debate. I maintain that the pattern as far as interim supply is concerned has been radically changed. It used to be that interim supply would go through in a few minutes or half an hour or half a day. But when the Liberal party was in opposition the pattern was changed and interim supply was debated for days at a time. Now there has been a change in government; we find the Liberals on the government side and the Conservatives are in opposition, and the

official opposition is taking the position that what the Liberals could do they can do better, and they are proceeding on that basis.


Miss LaMarsh:: Perhaps the hon. member would answer a question at this point. I am not sure whether he was in the house at the time, but he may recall that the occasion to which he referred, when the Liberals were in opposition and consideration of interim supply took longer than usual, was the time the government of that day was asking for eleven twelfths of supply with the estimates of no more than two departments opened after almost a year of continuous sitting.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: And refusal to deliver a budget.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The hon. lady has asked whether I remember that particular situation. We do remember that the government was asking for interim supply month by month, and I think the circumstances today are somewhat comparable. Estimates were not brought in back in those days, and estimates are not being brought in at this particular session. I do not think we can make a clear distinction between the two situations. I still say the Conservatives are just paying the Liberals back in their own kind. They know it worked in those days; the government was upset, and no doubt they are hoping that history will repeat itself and that they will be able to upset the government.
However, I do not wish to spend any further time on that matter. I want to call attention to a situation having to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I was speaking to the Secretary of State the other evening and indicated it was my intention to raise some questions concerning the C.B.C. yesterday or today. He advised me that because of prior commitments he would not be able to be present in the committee. However, he knows we will be discussing these matters, and they will be brought to his attention.
We think of the C.B.C. as a publicly owned corporation. It is one which has come under serious fire on many occasions, mainly because those in charge have acted as though it were nobody's business how the corporation is operated, how the taxpayers' money is spent, what kind of programs are shown, or what actually are the policies governing its conduct. We remember, of course, that because of public pressure certain changes were made in programming some time ago and, of course, we give the C.B.C. full credit for acceding to the demands made on those occasions. But
Interim Supply
I believe the attitude which is taken by this publicly owned corporation is highly improper in view of the fact that this agency was established in order to assist the development of a distinctive Canadian culture, and in view of the fact that it is being maintained by funds provided by the taxpayers of this country.
The usual reply of the government to questions about the C.B.C. is that the government does not interfere with the operation of the corporation, and it would be improper for the government to apply any pressure on or endeavour to influence the C.B.C. in any way. I suppose that is basically true, and serious objection would no doubt be taken if the government itself interfered with the operations of this agency. Nevertheless we have to remember that the C.B.C. is responsible to parliament. Unless the C.B.C. recognizes that fact and is willing to conduct its affairs accordingly, then I think some serious consideration will have to be given to the whole matter of the C.B.C. and its operation and activities.
The request has been made many times for a parliamentary committee on broadcasting to be set up to give parliament an opportunity of calling witnesses and examining evidence. But, while the Secretary of State advises us that the C.B.C. is responsible to parliament, he blocks the way by refusing or neglecting to set up a body which could call for an accounting C.B.C. activities. Mr. Chairman, I would just call attention to the question that was asked by the hon. member for Cariboo just a short time ago, to which we have not yet received an answer. He asked if it was the intention of the minister to set up this particular body so that the C.B.C. could be called to account for its stewardship, but up to the present there has not been any reply to that question.
The minister announced, of course, that a committee was being set up, and no doubt has been set up, to go into the question of the C.B.C. and broadcasting activities in general. But may I suggest that this is no substitute for a parliamentary committee. It is true that it will go into all the different problems involved in the operation of this organization and broadcasting in general. No doubt it will study the whole matter from an academic point of view. But this will not take place of a committee of this house that can call for an account, dig into the details and demand answers, and find out just where we are going with regard to the operation of this publicly owned institution.

Interim Supply
I had the opportunity of directing a question to the Secretary of State just a few days ago. It had to do with a particular project in which the C.B.C. is co-operating. I refer to the Couchiching conference. Some days ago, or perhaps several weeks ago, we received a copy of the brochure that was put out by this particular organization, the Canadian institute on public affairs. Right on the front of the brochure it states that the conference this year is being conducted in co-operation with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The subject of this particular study was supposed to be "Order and good government". As I pointed out just a few days ago, there are several representatives from the Progressive Conservative party, several from the New Democratic party and several from the Liberal party at this conference, but for some strange reason or other they completely bypassed the Social Credit movement.
I raised the question-and I raise it again today-how is it that an agency purporting to institute a real study of the problems facing parliamentary government today bypassed an organization that since 1935 has been operating in the Dominion of Canada? Since 1935 they have formed the government in the province of Alberta; since 1952 they have formed the administration in the province of British Columbia; just a short time ago-in 1962, I believe-almost a million Canadians voted in support of Social Credit candidates. I say, Mr. Chairman, that for some strange reason or other this organization saw fit to bypass the Social Credit movement, and then tried to indicate that it was going to make an unbiased study of the problems that face parliamentary administration and parliament today.
The reason for this is the censure we have been under as the House of Commons, the problems we are facing now with our rules and our endeavour to change the rules to bring this institution up to date in its operations. I say that it can hardly give a rounded-out picture of opinion in this particular field when for some reason or other they ignore the existence of a political movement that has played an important part in the development of this country down through the last 30 years or so.
Mr. Chairman, I would call attention to the question I raised on July 10 in this particular connection. In reply the Secretary of State stated:
As far as X am aware the C.B.C. has no direct responsibility for selecting guest speakers at these

meetings. But in case the C.B.C. had something to do with it I will inquire, and report to the management the grievance of the hon. member.
Later on we were advised that this was a true statement, and the C.B.C. did not have anything to do with the appointment of speakers. This is what the minister stated, but I would call attention to the fact that apparently it is hardly accurate. I would like to refer to a remark which Mr. Reeves Haggan of the C.B.C. made to CTV news when this matter was under discussion. He said:
We didn't choose our participants on the basis of political parties.
Just where do we go from here, Mr. Chairman? The minister said the C.B.C. did not have anything to do with the appointment of speakers, and here Mr. Reeves Haggan of the C.B.C. stated that they did not choose their participants on the basis of political parties. I think we ought to get an answer to the question as to who is right and who is wrong. We ought to find out whether the C.B.C. did have anything to do with the selection of these speakers. I say, Mr. Chairman, that if the C.B.C. did have something to do with the selection of speakers, then they are to be censured because they did not insist on a completely rounded-out presentation of political opinion on these issues.
I would like to ask the question, why was the Social Credit movement discriminated against? They say "Oh, it was just an oversight. There was no discrimination at all". I would line to refer to another statement made by Mr. Reeves Haggan of the C.B.C. to CTV news. He stated:
It was the concensus of opinion that the people in the Social Credit party wouldn't contribute anything worth while to the conference.
Since when has the C.B.C. the right to set itself up as God in this country?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: That is a good question.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I am just raising the question in relation to the C.B.C. I know that the Canadian institute on public affairs can do what it wants to do; it is a private organization, I suppose. But if it is working in cooperation with the C.B.C., and the C.B.C. is making a contribution and is having something to do with the operation of it, then I say that the C.B.C. has some answering to do.
We in this movement are not satisfied just to sit back and allow this kind of discrimination to continue. I have a comment here which was made over the CTV national news by Mr. Ab Douglas as to why Social Credit

was bypassed, ignored or discriminated against in the matter of the Couchiching conference. The comment is as follows:
That prestigious forum of public affairs known as the Couchiching conference will have to pull its head out of the sand if it is to continue to make a worth-while contribution to Canadian public life. "Order and good government" is the theme of this year's conference. Political speakers from various parts of the world have gathered on the shores of lake Couchiching, Ontario, to contemplate the problems facing parliamentary government in today's world. The rostrum of speakers is heavily weighted to the left. The Canadian institute of public affairs, the sponsoring organization, has invited a number of Canadian parliamentarians and politicians. Some from the ranks of the New Democrats, a few Liberals and Conservatives, but no representation from the Social Credit party.
Whether we or the eggheads at Couchiching like it or not, this party governs two of our biggest provinces and speaks for a large segment of the Canadian people in Ottawa. The Couchiching committee is being less than honest when it calls this snub an oversight. It was deliberate, based on the notion that small "1" liberalism is the only form of life the world of intellect can support. Without endorsing it, the right wing element is a fact of North American political life. In one way or another it contributes to parliamentary government in many countries. When the people at Couchiching return to the world of reality in a few days, they'll discover that you can ignore something you don't like, but it won't necessarily go away.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in trying to find the answer to why the Social Credit movement was completely ignored and bypassed in this matter, I should like to refer to a statement made by another analyst. This is a newspaper article by the hon. member for Port Arthur entitled "Definition makes room for thought". The hon. member referred to questions which I had raised in the House of Commons as to why Social Credit was being discriminated against in this particular matter, and went on to say:
He did not get an answer but it is easy to give one. The kind of persons who organize and attend Couchiching conferences do not take Social Credit seriously because neither its personalities nor its policies have any kind of intelligence or rational merit, as these people would see it. Thus the bill of politicians for this year includes New Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives. In each case, the politician invited has some reputation for either strong opinions or intellectual competence. Thus we will hear what Stanley Knowles and Pauline Jewett and Gordon Fairweather and George Nowlan have to say about parliamentary reform. Nothing from Bob Thompson and company.
Whether this is fair and just I'd hate to say.
I do not know why he would hate to say.
It is not representative. Without Social Crediters, even if they may be know-nothings and intellectual cretins, the conference hasn't all the facets of our parliamentary jewel.
I do not know where the hon. member obtained his right to pass supreme judgment
Interim Supply
on other people. He may be a self appointed judge; he may be a self styled intellectual. Nevertheless it all fits into the whole pattern, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Reeves Haggan of the C.B.C. gave the reasons. He said "We don't appoint them according to political parties". He also said it was the consensus of opinion that Social Credit would not be able to contribute anything.
I take this to be a direct insult to the people of the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Through the years since 1935 in the case of Alberta and since 1952 in the case of British Columbia the people there have seen fit to re-elect Social Credit administrations. If these eggheads or intellectuals, or whatever they want to call themselves, want to pass judgment on the electorate of Canada in that way, then I suppose we will have to let them go ahead and do it; but I want the people of those provinces to know what is being said.
My main reason for raising this matter today, Mr. Chairman, is to point out that here we have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a publicly owned institution, apparently deliberately discriminating against a sector of the Canadian people, and then purporting to present a full picture of the political views in this great nation of ours. Again I suggest that the taxpayers of the country may have to take another look at dishing out money and giving the C.B.C. a blank cheque if they cannot pull up their socks and begin to treat the people in the way they should be treated, instead of taking the position that they and they alone have the right to dictate what is put out over the air.
In conclusion let me once more call attention to the brochure entitled "Order and good government". On one of its pages appears these words:
It is being said that parliamentary government is in disrepute in Canada, its practitioners ill equipped, its procedures outmoded and the voters uninterested. Similar accusations can be read about the governments of Britain and the United States.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, although you will doubtless say I am biased, that it has been proven that in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia there is good government. Perhaps there is in other provinces as well, but there certainly is in those provinces.


Mr. Barnett:: That is a matter of opinion.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Well, it is the opinion of the great majority of people there, as the hon. member very well knows. I cannot understand why these people try to downgrade

Interim Supply
their provinces all the time and criticize the provincial government's painting the picture as black as they can. I can understand this on the part of the members of the New Democratic party from the province of British Columbia because they almost made it there. They did not because the people repudiated them when Social Credit came along.
I have stated that I believe Social Credit can contribute something in this regard as far as good government is concerned. Therefore I believe there should be a recognition of this fact, and the C.B.C. should have seen to it that recognition was given to this matter. In fairness I should say that two days before the conference started I got an invitation to attend, which was rather short notice. I think the others had possibly several months' notice; I would not guarantee that, but I imagine they had.
For these reasons I think the C.B.C. had better take another look at the situation. If they expect parliament and members of parliament to continue to vote sums of money to support and carry on this work, then they are going to have to recognize the fact that they are responsible to parliament, and not appear to go along on their own hook and do whatever they want to do with the taxpayers' money.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I have only a few remarks to make, but in view of the serious charges brought by the hon. member against the C.B.C. and of the complaints made also by several members of the house, I feel that the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) should convince the government of the need to have the officers of this crown corporation appear before the appropriate committee so that we may ask them questions in the public interest.
I should like to deal now with the problem existing at present in certain Canadian airports with regard to the transportation of passengers, especially at the Dorval air terminal, where the Murray Hill Taxi Company holds an exclusive franchise for the conveyance of passengers. The executive committee of the city of Montreal, the taxi association and Montreal residents have spoken against the Dorval airport monopoly which goes against public interest.
In my opinion, the government should see what is being done in certain countries. Mr. Chairman, a person who lands at Beirut, Brasilia, Moscow and other capitals can take a taxi of his choice, contrary to what happens at Canada's main air terminals.

In view of the serious complaints made by the executive committee of the city of Montreal and the Montreal taxi association, I feel the government should change its policy entirely and accede to the wishes of Montreal residents.
Mr. Chairman, it is most important, since the world fair will be held in Montreal in 1967 and almost 50 million visitors.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I would like to ask the hon.
member if he has a copy of the contract signed by the hon. member for Three Rivers, when he was minister, with the Murray Hill transportation people. In my case I had to get the contract from the former minister, the hon. member for Ottawa West. Have you a copy of the contract the hon. member for Three Rivers signed?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member, I would say that I asked questions on the orders of the day some time ago in order to know what were the conditions of that concession, of that monopoly which was given to the Murray Hill Taxi Company by the Department of Transport. I did not get complete information and I must say that I shall ask soon further questions on the orders of the day so as to have all the necessary information in that respect.
I thank the hon. member for his question. [Text]


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Why not ask Balcer?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I do not know; I have no idea. I will place another question on the order paper to get the full details on this. [Translation]
Since 50 million people from all over the world will be coming to Montreal in 1967 for the world fair, I feel it is important that after reaching agreements with the cities of Montreal and Dorval, the C.N.R. should build a monorail to carry travellers from the Dorval airport to Montreal.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Cantin) has received a suggestion to that effect and if it is now under consideration.
I think that such a development would solve this problem of the transportation of travellers from the Dorval airport to Montreal.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Chairman, this government always appreciates every constructive suggestion. In the present case the hon. member is making his own the suggestions of the executive committee of the city of Montreal and of the Montreal taxi association as well as those made by members on this side of the house.
I have no doubt that following the comments made this morning by the Minister of Transport in connection with this matter, those suggestions will be studied and any possible improvement will be effected.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I had asked for the floor earlier but was most encouraged to see that the debate on interim supply had taken a turn for the better, and I was pleased to see this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: If hon. members opposite will wait I will tell them why. Cabinet ministers and supporters of the government have been sitting in a somewhat non-communicative mood for the last four days and answered no questions whatever, although questions were raised on three separate departments and various other matters. The hon. members to my left, with only one or two exceptions, sat in stony silence for four days when very important subjects relating to the afEairs of Canada were raised.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I wonder is the hon. member referring to me.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, I was not, Mr. Chairman.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I was just wondering to whom he was referring.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I will answer the question.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has the floor, has the hon. member for Fraser Valley obtained permission from him to ask a question?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Could I get permission to ask a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I heard the question and I am prepared to answer.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Have you answered it?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am waiting for you to sit down. The question I was asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley was "Are you referring to me"? I was referring in general to all the other parties in the house except
Interim Supply
the Progressive Conservative opposition. I stated there were one or two members who did speak, but in general both the members on the government side and the members of the third, fourth and fifth parties sat in stony silence. This was the purport of my remarks, and I do not take them back.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to raise another subject which some of my colleagues will wish to pursue. We feel there is a department of government which should be discussed, and that is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. As I say, I was very pleased to defer starting this particular debate because I thought that the pattern which was set today was an excellent one. There was a question raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam; there was a reply by the minister; there were various other remarks, and there were replies. In short, there was debate on the subject, and so I was most pleased to allow others to go ahead and discuss those matters in a debating fashion. Now that the subject of that debate has been discussed we can go on with another one, and I hope there will be no criticism about taking up time.
I am sorry the minister is not here today but I am sure that his parliamentary secretary, who is very faithful in his attendance and who is present, will take note of what is said and transmit it to the minister. The first thing I want to refer to is the general direction of the department. When the minister was first appointed there was a great surge of hope that perhaps he would initiate some new direction into the department, some new policies, particularly on immigration, which is a very difficult subject, and that a real effort would be made to start off in a postive direction on the question of immigration.
The minister has issued quite a number of very interesting press releases, including copies of speeches he has made; and since I have been charged with looking at these on behalf of the official opposition, I have read them. The releases and speeches are very nice and polite, but I have been unable to find any statement of policy, any indication of direction of policy, any statement as to what the minister or the government intends to do about immigration, citizenship or Indian affairs. The direction we are looking for has not been forthcoming, and we have been unable to decide in what direction the minister is going to move.
Therefore my first comment is that we are disappointed that we have nothing to criti-

Interim Supply
cize. It is the duty of the opposition to criticize the actions of the government if they are not what we think they should be, but when there is no policy, no direction, there is very little on which to comment. However, I think I can find a few things to say today about the department, perhaps more by way of criticism of lack of action than criticism of action. I feel that the minister either is saying nothing about his intentions or he has nothing to say. We hope that very shortly he will let us know what he intends to do with regard to his department.
I should like to turn first to what is probably the most critical and most difficult subject in the department, the question of Indian affairs. It is a subject which is not included in the title of the department, but I feel that at the moment it is the one which demands the most attention. In recent times we have seen a real stirring among the Indian people of Canada such as has never happened before. They want the opportunity to share in the development of Canada's future. It is very true that there is uncertainty as to the direction they are following. Many of the traditional chiefs fear that moves that may be made can only be in the wrong direction. This has resulted from the many years of paternalism on the part of the federal government and the Indian agencies. The chiefs in general are often afraid that a step taken will be in the wrong direction rather than forward.
We have heard quite recently of a number of things that have happened which indicate that the Indian people are finally going to make a move toward gaining their independence. There is one very significant factor at this time. I refer to the meeting of the chiefs at Garden River reserve in northern Ontario. There has been a good deal of quarrelling and bickering at this conference, and I suggest that if they quarrel and bicker enough they will qualify to join us here. More than that, Mr. Chairman, I feel that they should have the right to join us here. I suggest that seats should be found in this house for representatives of the Indian people of Canada.
A few years ago the former Conservative government gave the vote to the Indians of Canada. That was a move in the right direction. I think it was appreciated, and in my view the Indian people took advantage of it. However, this merely represents an ability to elect whoever runs within constituencies which already exist and have been established under redistribution. But I believe

for too long we have discussed the affairs of the Indian people in their absence, and I suggest that if they had a representative in the house it would be meaningful and we would be doing something to improve the situation of the Indian people.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Maybe it is a question I was about to answer, but go ahead.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is the hon. member aware of the fact that in the province of British Columbia a native Indian has been elected to the legislature in the same way as all the other members?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am aware of that fact, and I think it is a good indication. I was about to say that an Indian had been elected as a member of a legislative assembly, but not as a representative of the Indian people. What I am suggesting is that the Indian themselves should elect one or more members from the Indian bands, and that those members should sit in the House of Commons as representatives of the Indian bands as a constituency of parliament. I was about to answer a question which might be raised. Why pick out the Indians from among the other racial groups in Canada to have their own representation, when there are so many racial groups in Canada? Any one of them might come along and say "We want to have our member of parliament".
The situation in connection with Indians is very different. In the first place, they are not subject to the same rules that apply to other people in Canada. Indians on reserves are confined to some extent in their activities, and are governed by the Indian Act and a number of other statutes. Their great effort is to be able to do what other ethnic groups in Canada can now do, become a part of the Canadian nation. But before they can do that there must be amendments to the Indian Act, or possibly repeal of the Indian Act.
The difficulty over the years has been that the Indians are in scattered groups. When the white man came to this country he scattered the Indians into small groups of people on small non-productive reserves where they became isolated from other people of their own race. It is only in recent times that conferences of the Indian chiefs have been convened, where they can come together and discuss their problems.
I think this is a tremendously good thing, and I was very pleased to see that the council of Indian chiefs was holding a meeting in

Ontario. My suggestion is that perhaps through this organization they should arrange for an Indian person to represent the Indian people in parliament so as to bring the voice of the Indian people before parliament with specific reference to their problems and the amendments to the act that are required. As I say, they have a different problem because they are governed and ringed about by special acts which apply to no other groups in Canada.
There is another encouraging sign which I am watching with interest, as are all other members. A young lady by the name of Kahn-Tineta Horn is raising her voice against what has been happening to the Indians of Canada over many years. Now, her voice is certainly not the unanimous voice of the Indian people as far as we can tell. Nevertheless I think the fact that she is speaking out and speaking loudly on behalf of the Indian people will serve as a catalyst to bring those people who support her views and those who oppose them to public attention. Perhaps the result will be to unite the Indian people so they can indicate to members of parliament what they really want in Canadian society. I believe we know the ultimate end; it is the methods that have caused so much trouble over the years.
I said a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has not announced any policy. However, he made an announcement which appears on page 5921 of Hansard and which was the subject of a question yesterday by the hon. member for Bruce. In this statement the minister said that under his program for community improvement for the Indians the dissolution of certain Indian reserves would be permitted where they were shown not to be economically feasible or no longer required. This statement is a followup of a statement made by a certain senator a couple of years ago which disturbed the Indian people very much. They thought by order in council or some such action reserves could be dissolved by someone coming to look at them and saying "These people are not doing very much." This really disturbed the Indians. I feel the minister should take the first opportunity to clear up this matter, which is causing real concern.
The other statement, made nearly two years ago, to the effect that reserves would be closed, caused the Indians to wonder if it was a statement of government policy. This particular statement is all the more alarming when we consider it in conjunction with a very little known act of this house which
Interim Supply
relates to reserves in the province of Ontario. I refer to chapter 48 of the statutes of Canada, 14-15 George V, to which royal assent was given on July 19, 1924. This particular act has never been included in the consolidated statutes nor has it been repealed, so it still stands as part of the law of this country. It purported to approve an agreement with the province of Ontario, and under section 1 the superintendent general of Indian affairs is permitted to close any Indian reserve if he declares it to be no longer required for the benefit of the band.
This statute has been turned up quite recently by certain members of the Indian community who made inquiries about provincial jurisdiction. They are concerned about this particular act which stands on the statutes of Canada and which gives power to the superintendent general of Indian affairs, who is the minister, to close any reserve in Canada. I say the minister must clear up this matter immediately so the concern the Indian people have will be settled.
I should like now, Mr. Chairman, to turn for a moment to the question of immigration. The most recent problem concerns people detained by the department under the Immigration Act. Sections 15 and 16 of the act are very alarming because almost any public officer can detain an immigrant. A public officer not only includes the deputy minister and any departmental official but also any constable or peace officer in Canada. There is nothing in the act which says what is to be done after the person is detained. Presumably the minister is to take some action, but the problem seems to be that the minister is not advised. If he is advised, he has done nothing in the circumstances of which we are aware. We suggest that where a person is detained under the Immigration Act the minister should be notified immediately of such detention so he can take the proper action, and so he will not be able to say he did not know of these cases. I understand the Sedgwick inquiry is looking into this problem, and I am sure there will be some answers brought forward.
The second subject is the question of encouraging immigration into Canada. Now that we are in competition with other countries for immigrants, we have to revise our thinking. We are no longer able to say "We have a good country over here and if you want to come, come; if you do not want to come, we do not care". We do want immigrants, and we do need them. If we want to encourage people to come who will be useful to us and who will fill the jobs we cannot fill ourselves,

Interim Supply
then we have to give them some encouragement. We have to up-date our facilities. We have to give better working conditions to our immigration people overseas. I am told the immigration officers overseas are not nearly as well paid or in as good a position as many of the other representatives of Canada from the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Trade and Commerce, and so on. I think it is time for the department to improve our offices and give better working conditions to the officers overseas to make them feel we want them to do a job.
I do not believe there has been too much made public about them, but I do know there is this general feeling in the immigration service that they are expected to do a job without being given proper accommodation or reasonable salaries. How are they going to encourage people under these conditions? I believe also there is a shortage of literature and of publicity to encourage people in other countries to come to Canada. I should like to say a word in defence of the immigration staffs. I am told that in many places they do an exceptionally good job in spite of the circumstances under which they are working. There are exceptions, and some of these exceptions we hear about. I know that office conditions are inadequate, and I know that many are held up by administrative delays; many are held up purposely, and it is very frustrating.
Recently I had a communication from a person who came to Canada through the Quebec reception centre. I was told this person was pleased with the treatment he received. The centre was well run and left the immigrant with a feeling he was glad to be in Canada. This is one report concerning one office, and I hope the others are run in the same way; because in this one particular instance the immigrant with whom I am acquainted gave me this information. I think a good job should be recognized.
I should like to turn now, Mr. Chairman, to the question of citizenship, the third of the branches administered by the minister's department. Of the three branches under the minister this is probably the quietest and causes the least trouble. The other two do have difficult and continuing problems.
There is one other matter I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. It is a real "beef" about the question of citizenship. As a practising lawyer and as a member of parliament I have been absolutely unable, as have many of my colleagues, to figure out the various rules in relation to Canadian citizenship. They have got into a tremendous

mess. I do not blame anybody in particular for this, but there are several categories of people who do not know whether they are Canadians citizens or not. The first is composed of British subjects who are resident in Canada-people born outside Canada who came to live here. Their citizenship depends on the date of their arrival. If they arrived many years ago, they are automatically citizens of Canada and they need to take no further action. British subjects who arrived as immigrants later on did not automatically become Canadian citizens, but have to apply for citizenship.
There are I believe three categories of people having the status of British subjects who do not know with certainty whether they are Canadian citizens or not. There is another class which encounters difficulty. The status of people who were born outside Canada and who marry Canadian citizens is vague and difficult to determine. The same applies to Canadian citizens who marry foreigners. A great deal depends upon the date and place of marriage. I am told it takes up to two years to train a good examiner in the department of citizenship to look at an application and figure out whether a certain person is a Canadian citizen, or whether he or she has the right to apply for citizenship. Since it takes so long to train a person who is dealing with the subject every day, there is surely reason for putting out a consolidation of the rules for the benefit of the general public. Time and again people apply for passports to travel outside Canada. They think they are Canadian citizens, but their applications are returned telling them, for example, that they are not because they arrived in Canada after a certain date. In consequence of this they either have to travel on some other passport or wait until such time as their applications for citizenship have been approved. The rules are complicated and I make a sincere plea to the minister that an effort be made to put out a consolidation so that anyone wishing to do so may be able to find out with accuracy whether or not he or she is a Canadian citizen.
There are many other topics which might be raised in connection with this department. I have tried to cover them in general terms and make a few suggestions. Some of my colleagues also have ideas on this particular subject. In conclusion may I say I hope that in the spirit in which our debate began today, that of dealing seriously with questions which are raised, the parliamentary secretary or some government spokesman will rise to comment on what has been said by members

on this side of the house. If we are going to take a certain amount of time to consider interim supply-and presumably we are spending some time looking into the affairs of departments which we have not had an opportunity of examining previously, and may not have the opportunity of considering again-I think we should take the opportunity to raise the questions which are troubling us, and that representatives of the government should reply. Also perhaps some of the hon. members to my left may consider that the problems involved are serious enough to encourage them to take part in this debate.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I want to say to the hon. member who has just spoken that we are very much interested in the questions involved, but we do not think we shall assist by unreasonably prolonging the debate.


Robert Simpson: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have the opportunity during this discussion in relation to interim supply to bring a few problems confronting the Indian people of Canada to the attention of the committee and to offer them to the treasury benches at the present time.
At the outset I should like to go on record as being heartily in accord with the remarks made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka when he mentioned the possibility of having a person of the Indian race represent the Indian people of Canada in the House of Commons. This matter has been raised before on several occasions and I can assure the committee that the people of northern Manitoba, particularly the treaty Indians and those of Indian descent, are extremely interested in this subject. On many occasions they have brought it to my attention, and I am speaking as one representing a constituency in which there are 17 Indian reserves comprising a population in the neighbourhood of 13,000 treaty Indians. Many times since they have had the privilege of the franchise, which, I might remind the committee, was given to them under the former administration, they have mentioned that it would be a wonderful thing if a person of Indian origin were able to represent them here in the house as one of their own people.
I think the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka gave some very good reasons why this step should be considered and I can only say that I hope the present government will take the necessary action as quickly as possible to see that a step of this kind is taken.
Another subject I wish to mention at this time concerns the establishment of an Indian claims commission. At the last session of
Interim Supply
parliament we heard a great deal about this. Legislation was introduced, but that was as far as it got. We were all pleased to know that the government apparently intended to take action along these lines at that time though I, for one, was disturbed by the way in which the legislation was drawn up. I was pleased it was set back, hoping that improvements would be made in it. However, we have seen nothing of it since that day.


Mr. Basford:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Simpson: This is a strange situation. It has been apparent to me during the two or three days in which interim supply has been discussed that though members of the official opposition have repeatedly asked questions, and very important questions, no answers whatsoever have been given by occupants of the treasury benches. But each time we get up to speak-and we have a time limit-we are apparently besieged by questions from backbenchers on the government side. If I have time at the end of my remarks I will be pleased to answer any questions put to me.
I was speaking of the setting up of the Indian claims commission. I would hope the government would as quickly as possible make the very necessary improvements in the legislation which was brought forward last year. I know that the Indian people living on reservations under treaties signed many years ago would like to see a commission of this nature set up, and they are certainly not in favour of the legislation as it is drafted at present.
There are many problems concerning the people living on Indian reservations, and in the time allotted to me I am going to mention some of them. First I would like to say a few words on the program of construction, maintenance and operation of nursing stations on the Indian reservations. I would like to compliment the staff of most of these nursing stations for the very fine work they are doing, sometimes under very adverse conditions. The conditions under which the staffs live in the nursing stations are quite adequate; I am sure the staffs of all these stations will agree with me in this respect. However the nurses who man these stations are in many cases called upon to do a great deal of travelling, sometimes in extremely adverse weather, not only in emergency situations but in the routine work of inspecting the health of the Indian people who have formed separate settlements outside the larger reservations. Periodically the nurses have to go into these settlements.

Interim Supply
and make regular check-ups on the health of the children, give routine inoculations, and so on. As I say, they do a tremendous job.
However it seems that for some reason or another the department has a great deal of difficulty securing what they call adequate staff to man these stations. I know whereof I speak, because in the Churchill constituency large amounts of money have been spent on several occasions on the construction of these stations-these amounts have run into hundreds of thousands of dollars-and shortly after they have been opened they have been closed down through lack of sufficient staff to man them. I do not know how we can get around this problem and whether it is a question of the remuneration not being sufficient. I do not believe this is actually the reason, because in most cases the staff tell me they are fairly well satisfied with the money they receive. However there seems to be a very great shortage of people who in the opinion of the Indian affairs branch are adequately equipped to handle the job on these stations, and we have found on many occasions that only a few months after being opened, they have been closed down. Then complaints come in not only from the Indian people but from the taxpayers of Canada in the adjacent communities.
At Lynn Lake, Manitoba, the Indian affairs branch constructed a nursing station some years ago, which has been closed down for two very long periods of time due to the lack of available staff to man it. I might also say, in relation to these nursing stations, that when you make an inspection of them or visit them, you find everything quite in order. In most cases there is provision for transients who may be coming through the reservation or the community in which the station is constructed. However I have yet to find any instance where transients have been able to make use of the quarters which have been provided for them in these stations. At Lynn Lake, for instance, they have very, very large and adequate basement quarters which I was told were provided for the specific purpose of accommodating transient Indians coming out of the north and proceeding possibly on to Winnipeg for medical attention. Unless they are in the position where they have to be hospitalized, these people still have to go out and find their own quarters in the town of Lynn Lake, although one of the original purposes of the nursing station there was to provide transient quarters in the basement. I hope the minister or the commissioner will look into this situation, because it is a very

important one. The residents of Lynn Lake are continually complaining about the fact that numerous transients come through their town and have absolutely no place to stay unless some of the people of Lynn Lake take them in. In the meantime the nursing station is sitting there with possibly one patient in the hospital section.
Another question which I would like to bring to the attention of the committee is one that has been brought before the house on many, many occasions and still nothing has been done about it. It is an extremely important question and I suppose if it is not raised time after time nothing will be done about it. I refer to the possibilities of the provision of power facilities for people on Indian reservations. I might say that the Manitoba government and Manitoba hydro are at the present time looking into the possibilities of providing electric power for Indian reservations in northern Manitoba through a system whereby Manitoba hydro were able to purchase surplus equipment from some of the mid-Canada sites which were closed down in northern Manitoba. However, financial assistance is going to be needed.
On many occasions I have requested the Indian affairs branch and the minister to give the fullest possible consideration to assisting financially in the provision of these very, very necessary electric power facilities, but to no avail. I can give specific examples in connection with not only the Indian affairs branch but other federal departments as well. For instance, at the Pukatawagan reservation in northern Manitoba the Indian affairs branch laid out a very extensive program of constructing a nursing station. During the planning of this station they were asked on many occasions, when providing for the power requirements, to put in enough power to enable them or someone else to buy surplus power and service the people of that community. They said the plans had gone a little too far; had they been asked earlier, they could have given consideration to it. However on visiting that particular nursing station I found there is adequate room at the present time to put in one or two more units -yet we have received no assurance whatsoever in this connection. In fact we have had no co-operation from the Indian affairs branch to the end that this will be done. The main reason given is that they cannot be considered responsible for providing electric power services for the people on Indian reservations. They have told me time and time again that they cannot be expected to supply this serv-

ice, to instal the necessary distribution service, set rates, read meters, collect accounts, and so on. I agree partly with this, and possibly they are not fully obligated to do so.
However, through the good offices of Manitoba hydro we have been more or less assured that in any instance where surplus power is available and there is a market for it they will be only too pleased to purchase the surplus power and take over these necessary jobs, such as construction of distribution lines, setting of rates, reading meters and collecting accounts, jobs which, of course, they are not obligated to do. I know there have been discussions with Manitoba hydro on several occasions, but so far nothing has developed from them.
Might I also say that at the reservation at Brochet, Manitoba, the Department of Transport have a weather or meteorological station and some four years ago it was indicated that the department would need to increase their power requirements. At that time I approached them and asked them whether they would consider putting in sufficient power to service people in the surrounding area, most of whom are closely adjacent to the meteorological station. At first the department gave me the same answer as that given by the Indian affairs branch. However, I pointed out to them the co-operation which I am sure they would receive from Manitoba hydro, and they assured me that they would get together with them. They did do so, and on several occasions since I have reminded the Department of Transport when plans are being made to put in additional requirements for power that they also put in an extra unit to service the people in the surrounding area concerned.
Two days ago I received word from a resident at Brochet that the unofficial word there was that the Department of Transport were making plans to increase the power facilities for their own use; but he felt, as did others, that the facilities they were planning would not be sufficient to service the small number of people living adjacent to the station. These people have lived there for 75 to 100 years and will continue to live there. If the Department of Transport or the Indian affairs branch or some department of the federal government does not take the initiative and explore every avenue to see that these people get the electric power service they require, these people are liable to live there for another 75 or 100 years without such amenities. I cannot stress this too strongly. I have written the minister 20220-395
Interim Supply
in this connection and I hope some action will be taken. This applies not only to the people in northern Manitoba but also to many places in northern Canada which are closely adjacent to government installations.
I think government departments should branch out a little bit, and when they are putting in power for their own requirements they should take a look around and see whether it is not possible to add an additional or a larger unit and supply these people with service. We who are living in areas which have been serviced by electric power ever since our birth may not realize the importance of this question. We have had cases in Manitoba at The Pas reservation where this sort of thing has been carried out with the cooperation of the Manitoba hydro. People on the reservation at The Pas some three or four years ago received electric power service for the first time in their lives. It is interesting to note that although sometimes Canadians criticize the Indian people-we are told they show a lack of interest in living up to their obligations, and they are sometimes called extremely lazy-to my knowledge since this electric power has been provided at the reservation at The Pas only one household has had its power supply discontinued because of unpaid accounts. I understand it was discontinued only for a period of one or two months until the account was paid, and since that time everything has gone along fine.
We often talk of the problems of the Indian people, such as education and other matters on which we are spending a great deal of money, but some of these services could be provided without costing a great deal. The Indian people who can afford it are willing to pay for it. The only thing lacking is a little initiative on the part of government departments in doing their part to provide these services.
Another aspect of the life of Indians, particularly the Indian and Metis people in some of our northern areas, is the new program of setting up Indian and Metis friendship centres or Indian and Metis development associations. These organizations are rapidly proving their worth in many areas in western Canada, and I suppose there are one or two in eastern Canada. However I know of several in western Canada which were instituted during the last four or five years, and other communities are planning them for this year. These organizations are doing a tremendous job and the community in general is wholeheartedly in support of them.

Interim Supply
I realize that the federal government and the provincial government of Manitoba, and possibly others, have assisted financially in this regard by way of grants to these Indians and Metis associations. But I should like to emphasize the hon. members at this time that these are very worth-while projects for the federal government to assist in as strongly as possible. In the Churchill constituency there is a very active Indian-Metis centre at The Pas. There is also one at Churchill, and the most recent one is at Swan River. At Flin Flon the labour council is petitioning the people of the town and other organizations to co-operate in the setting up of an Indian and Metis friendship centre.
For any hon. members not familiar with these centres, I might say that anywhere there is one the people are very well aware of their importance and of the good work they are doing. In many cases they provide social activities not only for the people of Indian and Metis origin, but also for white people as well. The activity is integrated. In the Swan River area particularly, where the latest one has been set up, they did not even ask for a provincial or government grant, although they will have to do so shortly. They set it up hoping that they could prove to both governments that the project was a worthy one and that the Indian people were willing to play their part in sponsoring it until expansion required additional funds. They have received in all of these places the wholehearted support of the R.C.M.P., the clergy, businessmen, farmers and people in general, and as I say they are doing a tremendous job. I hope that when requests are made for financial grants to these associations and friendship centres the government will not hesitate to see that these grants are approved.
Speaking of these friendship centres I would like to add that in many cases they are maintained and operated by either Indian people or Metis people, or by a combination of white people and Indian and Metis people, whose services are provided free. But the people who are doing this work would be able to do a much better job if the Indian affairs branch or some other government agency could sit down with them and work out some scale of remuneration for them, as they cannot continue to do it forever without payment.
To date when the Indian affairs branch has been approached on this matter it has replied that these should be civil service posi-

tions. Many of these people may not be capable of passing the strict civil service requirements, but they are certainly capable of doing the work which they are doing at present. Some means should be found to provide them with remuneration so that they may continue to do it. Otherwise I can assure you that in at least one case a friendship centre will have to close down because of lack of people to man and operate it.
I should like to deal briefly with the community development program which the minister recently announced. I am sure all of us who are interested in the welfare of the Indian people were pleased to hear the federal government is going to embark on a program of community development. However this is nothing new. The province of Manitoba has a very active program of community development and has sent several community development officers to various areas in the province, right on the Indian reservations, and these officers are doing a tremendous job working closely with the people on the reservations. I hope the new program undertaken by the federal government will work in conjunction with the program already operated by Manitoba.
These community development officers are assisting in finding employment for Indian people, and are assisting them in securing better living conditions. In many cases they are working with the officials of the Indian affairs branch on better methods of trapping fur-bearing animals, of fishing, of processing the fish after they are caught, and improving marketing conditions. I hope the new program will swing into action quite quickly and, as I have said, will work in conjunction with the community development program already established in Manitoba.


Mr. Olson:: I want to follow up the discussion that was started by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, and I may say it is unfortunate that in these debates on interim supply there is no provision for continuity of debate on any one subject matter. However I have no complaint against anyone in particular with regard to that. It is one of the hazards of a debate on interim supply.
The estimates of the C.B.C. have not been adequately discussed and examined in this chamber for a long time. Last year the estimates were not introduced until either the day of prorogation or the day just before prorogation, when we were in a situation where there was general agreement that we should prorogue by December 21. As a result

there was no opportunity for members to probe deeply into the manner in which the C.B.C. has been conducting its affairs.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley pointed out one very serious discriminatory action taken by certain officers of the C.B.C. with respect to the Couchiching conference. At the outset I want to make it perfectly clear that if the Couchiching conference and the Canadian institute on public affairs were a private undertaking, under private enterprise and supported by private financing, they would be none of our business and we would have no objection to their doing whatever they felt they wanted to do, in their own way. But the Canadian institute on public affairs, which is a public institution, according to the best information that we can get, is in fact being financially supported by the C.B.C. with funds that are appropriated by this parliament, and once that happens it becomes a public affair, and an affair in which we have every right to take an interest, to express our opinions, and to expect some response from the expression of those opinions.
During this session of parliament an unusually large number of questions have been asked of the government by opposition members, respecting the activities of the C.B.C. It is obvious that there is a need for asking questions. As a matter of fact, a large portion of page 29, all of page 30 and part of page 31 of the index to Hansard lists the number of subjects about which members have asked questions concerning the C.B.C., and there has been a disheartening display, on the part of the minister who answers parliament for the C.B.C., of reluctance to answer these questions.
I shall not go into all of them, but as an example on July 10 the hon. member for Fraser Valley asked the Secretary of State how much money the C.B.C., a public institution, was giving to the Canadian institute on public affairs. In his reply the minister said:
As far as I am aware the C.B.C. has no direct responsibility for selecting guest speakers at these meetings. But in case the C.B.C. had something to do with it I will inquire, and report to the management the grievance of the hon. member.
On July 21, when the question was again raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley the Secretary of State said this:
Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day the C.B.C. has nothing to do with selection of speakers and guests; but I understand that as a result of the protests which have been made in this house those responsible for invitations have tried to repair the errors which were made in the first place.
20220-395J
Interim Supply
I want to point out to members of the committee that from the information that has since come to us, that answer is not correct. There are officers of the C.B.C. who had a great deal to do with inviting not only the speakers but the guests as well and, what is more, no answer has been given as yet telling how much financial contribution was given to this conference.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley quoted a statement made by Mr. Reeves Haggan of the C.B.C. who said, "We did not choose our participants on the basis of political parties." What does he mean by "we"? Is he part of this self appointed aristocracy of Canadian intellects? Where does this "we" come in? Mr. Reeves Haggan is quite a personality when it comes to having some influence on public affairs. For the information of other members of the committee who do not know, he happens to be chairman of the C.B.C. committee established to deal with the allocation of time on the programs "The Nation's Business" and "Les Affaires de l'fitat" on the English and French networks. He goes on to say:
It was the consensus of opinion that the people in the Social Credit party wouldn't contribute anything worth while to the conference.
Whose opinion, Mr. Chairman? The C.B.C.? The executive of the Canadian institute of public affairs, or whom? As I said, if this was a privately supported organization we would have no legitimate cause for complaint about the way it was run, but if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is supplying a major portion of the funds to keep this organization operating then it is our business.
We want to know what the situation is. We have asked the Secretary of State time and time again how much the C.B.C. contributes to these meetings. We have also asked him other questions with respect to the C.B.C. He gets up and very politely says that he will take the member's question as notice, bring it to the attention of the management of the C.B.C. and try to obtain an answer. He has been consistent in one respect. He has never come back with the answers, and this applies to questions that have been asked by all opposition groups in the house. I want hon. members and the government to know that I am fed up with this kind of attitude in parliament.
I want to examine for a few moments the attitude of the minister responsible to parliament for the C.B.C. He continually tells us, as did his predecessor, that he has no right to influence or to give directives to the Cana-

Interim Supply
dian Broadcasting Corporation, but in the same mouthful we are told that the C.B.C. is directly responsible to parliament and to parliament alone.
There have been numerous requests from the Progressive Conservatives and this party for a committee on broadcasting so that we could bring the officers of the C.B.C. before that committee and examine them. But there has been no action. If the Secretary of State, who answers to parliament for the C.B.C., refuses to answer questions and at the same time refuses to set up the committee, where then is the responsibility of the C.B.C. to parliament?
It might be interesting to point out for the benefit of people who will read Hansard that we write a blank cheque, from the point of view of what the C.B.C. does with the money, in an amount of over $70 million for the operation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In 1962-63 the amount was $73,994,000 and according to the corporation's 1963-64 report the amount is $78,376,828. In granting that amount of money members of this house have a direct obligation to see that the management of the C.B.C. is at least responsible to answer to us for what it has done with the money.
There are one or two other points I want to make. Within the time I have I cannot go into all the things I want to discuss. It would take days to do so. That is why I think we need a committee. We need to have a broadcasting committee of the House of Commons if we are going to vote the amount of money it takes to keep the corporation operating. So that there will be no misunderstanding let me say that I as the member for Medicine Hat, for and on behalf of the people I represent, am unwilling to pay what it has been costing to operate the C.B.C. having regard to what we have been getting. What is more, a large number of the people I represent do not appreciate the kind of culture that the corporation is trying to ram down the throats of the Canadian people. We want to give the corporation some direction as to how this money ought to be spent.
I am going to come back to the Couchiching conference and some of the things that came out there, but first I should like to deal with another form of rank discrimination carried on by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and which has needed an airing for a long time. Therefore I am going to speak briefly about it today.
In the allocation of free broadcasting time on the C.B.C. to the various political parties

the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has laid down a set of rules. At least, they claim they have laid down a set of rules. I have before me a mimeographed document entitled "Political and Controversial Broadcasting, A Manual of Policies and Regulations". It is issued by authority of the board of directors and is dated February 14, 1961, as revised to February 12, 1963. Under the heading "During General Election Campaigns" I find the following in section 1(b):
The corporation grants the privilege of free network time for political broadcasting to bona fide parties, which are national in extent and which reflect a substantial body of opinion throughout the country. While it is impossible to lay down an exact definition, it is suggested that such parties would meet all of the following requirements :
i.	Have policies on a wide range of national issues.
ii.	Have a recognized national leader.
iii.	Have a nation-wide organization established as the result of a national conference or convention.
iv.	Have representation in the House of Commons.
v.	Seek the election of candidates in at least three of the provinces and put into the field at least one candidate for every four constituencies.
In September of 1963 when certain members of the national Social Credit party decided to separate themselves from the caucus of the Social Credit party in parliament the C.B.C. called a meeting of which, by the way, Reeves Haggan was the chairman, to decide what they were going to do about this situation. One of the things they did was to add a sixth condition for the granting of time to political parties. That condition reads as follows:
vi.	Form a group of elected representatives in the House of Commons under a recognized leader to which the house has accorded privileges in the conduct of parliamentary business.
Perhaps they thought they were going to take care of the granting of time to another party in the House of Commons, but I should like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that while they added this sixth condition they did not change the preamble. I read it again:
While it is impossible to lay down an exact definition, it is suggested that such parties would meet all-
I emphasize the word "all".
-of the following requirements.
If these are the rules, so be it. I do not happen to agree with them but when a set of rules has been laid down I think they ought to be followed. We know for example that the Ralliement Creditistes do not

meet at least three of the conditions that have been laid down for the giving of political broadcasting time but, what is even worse, how did the corporation allocate the time? They simply took 50 per cent of the time, which was all too little to begin with, from the Social Credit party and gave it to them.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: They have more members; they should have got more than 50 per cent.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That may be, but the six conditions set down here have not been met.
I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, the provision under which the C.B.C. gives free political time to provincial political parties in a program which is called "Provincial affairs". These conditions that are laid down here are not met in the allocation of time. There was a time in the province of Alberta, for example, when there was a single member for the Progressive Conservatives in the legislature. He was given exactly the same amount of time as the Social Credit party with 61 members.
In so far as the allocation of time for national affairs is concerned, this is the way it is divided: The chairman, that is Mr. Reeves Haggan, suggested that the C.B.C. formula would be as follows-this suggestion was made on November 14, 1963-Liberals, 7i periods; P.C.'s, 6J periods; N.D.P., 3; Social Credit, li and Ralliement Creditiste, 1J. These periods, as hon. members know, are 15 minutes each. Now, Mr. Chairman, if that kind of allocation is fair in terms of one elected body, surely it should apply to other places as well, inasmuch as we are dealing with a public corporation. I believe I did say that at one particular time in Alberta one Progressive Conservative was allocated as much time as 61 Social Crediters. At another time there was free political time given on the "Provincial Affairs" program to the C.C.F. party, in spite of the fact that party did not have any member in the provincial legislature. One of the conditions, namely No. 4, is that a party must have a representative in the House of Commons to get any time at all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Twelve members or more.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It does not say so; it says, "must have a representative." There was a case in which there were no representatives.
This points up something we in this party have believed for a long time. What has happened time and time again, and what has happened with regard to the way the
Interim Supply
Couchiching conference was handled, has led us to believe there is rank discrimination on the part of the C.B.C. against this party. We are the representatives of a large number of Canadian citizens, and whether or not the officers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation like us, like our party or anything we do or say is of no importance. The fact is we do represent a portion of the Canadian people both in provincial and national affairs and this fact has to be respected.
Apparently, Mr. Chairman, this Reeves Haggan has a great deal to do with the allocation of time to political parties.


An hon. Member:: The minister says no.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The minister says no. Well, the minister should familiarize himself with what is going on in that department.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is in Europe.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The minister is not in Europe, he is at the Couchiching conference, I believe. I want the officers of the C.B.C. to know that we do not want to, deal with this man Reeves Haggan after the display of discrimination and bigotry he has shown in dealing with us and in his public pronouncements. He says it was the consensus of people that the Social Credit party would not contribute anything to the conference. Now, sir, this is the kind of attitude we cannot tolerate on the part of our public officials.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Ask for his resignation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We can ask for his resignation and we can certainly insist that he be transferred so he will not have any responsibility for this matter. How can a man like this deal with political parties and the allocation of time if he displays such a bigotted attitude?
There is more to it than that. There has apparently been an order given somewhere in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to throw down a blanket of silence on the news broadcasts of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation respecting members of this party. I turn back only to last Tuesday night. There were two rather important matters that happened in this House of Commons. One of them had to do with the recognition of that great statesman of this century, Sir Winston Churchill. The other one had to do with a statement that was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce respecting capital investment in Canada. I watched the C.B.C. television news very carefully that evening, and all the parties with the exception of the

Interim Supply
Social Credit party were mentioned when they dealt with the matter of capital investment in Canada. As a matter of fact, the only member in addition to the Prime Minister who had anything at all to say about this parliament recognizing Sir Winston Churchill was the hon. member for Red Deer, and this fact was not mentioned at all.
These are examples of what we have seen for several months. I have listened to the news broadcasts over both radio and television and it is certainly obvious that someone in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has given a directive that there shall be a complete blackout of news respecting members of this party. It just so happens that we do represent constituencies and that the people in those constituencies pay just as much of the cost of operation of public corporations as the constituents of any other members in this house. The C.B.C. therefore has no right to discriminate in this manner against any of the parties.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It certainly is true. We have noticed this time and again. I have in my file references to instances where there have been newsworthy stories filed by reporters for the C.B.C.-I do not blame them because they probably wrote the stories and somebody else partly cancelled them out-in which there have been no references to the members of this party. I am not trying to hold up the members of this party as being more newsworthy than anyone else. However, there have been times when a subject matter has been initiated by members of this party, and there has been no mention of them at all as participants in the story when the news has been broadcast.
We are seeking a committee, Mr. Chairman. We have had enough of it. We want to find out who gives these directives. In addition to that, we want the ministers to answer some of the questions that have been asked respecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. When it comes down to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's responsibility to parliament, I have talked to some of the officers of the corporation. I have tried to find out how members of parliament can communicate with the corporation, make their wishes known and give some direction to the corporation inasmuch as it is directly responsible to parliament. They say "It is very simple; if you do not like what we are doing, you can fire us."
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is that a sensible, reasonable way to operate one of the largest

crown corporations in the country? You either turn over to them $75 million or $80 million and they spend it the way they like, without any direction from this parliament, or the only recourse we have is to fire them. No, that is not a satisfactory way of operating a corporation of this magnitude. There is another sound, sensible way. However, if that is the only recourse we have, Mr. Chairman, if that is the only recourse for members of parliament, then we had better start to do some firing because it is rather obvious from what is in the index pages of Hansard for this session and last that members of parliament are not happy with the way the C.B.C. is operating. If there is no other recourse, we had better start firing them; but there must be a better way than that of setting up rules and regulations.
I suggest, and in fact I demand on behalf of this party that we set up a committee on broadcasting composed of members of this House of Commons, notwithstanding the fact that there has been some kind of advisory committee on broadcasting set up. If I have time, I should like to refer to some of the terms of reference with respect to this committee, as follows:
To study, in the light of present and possible future conditions, the purposes and provisions of the Broadcasting Act and related statutes and to recommend what amendments, if any, should be made to the legislation-
Then it goes on:
-including an appraisal of the studies being made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of its structural organization; and including an inquiry into the financing of the C.B.C.-
And so on. If the C.B.C. is to be responsible to this parliament, surely the logical committee to hold an inquiry of this nature would be a committee of members of this house, and we demand that such a committee be established.
I see that the parliamentary secretary to the minister who answers for this corporation is here in the house. To get back to this Couchiching conference, we want to know how much the C.B.C. paid to the Canadian institute on public affairs. How much is given on a continuing basis; how much is given for the Couchiching conference and what does it cost the corporation to broadcast what is coming out of that conference? There was an hour of television last Saturday night, another hour on Sunday night and, in addition, an hour on the radio network of the corporation every night this week. How much are we paying for this kind of action? I may say I have listened carefully to some of the

Interim Supply
reports and discussions which have come out of this conference and to date I have not heard one new idea as to what should be done to reform parliament. Not one suggestion has come out of there which the committee on procedure and organization is not fully aware of. I may say to these self appointed intellects that a full study has already been made of what ought to be done to improve parliamentary procedure. That is not the problem. The problem as I see it, and this has been very clear to members of the committee on procedure and organization, is to get parliamentarians to accept certain of these proposals. Whether or not recommendations are brought forward as a result of the profound and perceptive studies of these people will really make no great difference as far as practical improvements are concerned. It so happens that the members of this house are still in command, I hope, of the standing orders and whatever amendments to procedure may be made. And when the members of this house are ready to make amendments, those amendments will be made, whether or not we give several thousand dollars to these people to try to analyse our problems for us.
I see my time is about up. There are one or two things I still want to say. There are many other facets of the C.B.C. that I wish to discuss when the time comes. But I wish to make it clear, now, that we are not satisfied with the way things are going. We believe there is rank discrimination shown by some of the officials of the corporation. We are not happy with the kind of culture they are trying to force down the throats of the Canadian people and we demand a committee of this house so that we can examine this question and set up a new kind of organizational structure to make sure that the C.B.C. will truly be responsible to the parliament of this country.


Mr. Choquetle:: I just want to ask the hon. member a question in French.

Does the hon. member belong to that school of Social Crediters who, in 1935, enacted legislation to control the press and radio, which legislation was later on declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada?
I should like the hon. member to tell us whether he still advocates such thinking and whether he still belongs to that school of dictators?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I have any time left, I should like to say to the hon. member that I never did subscribe to that act, and of course the act was not as it is purported to have been by the hon. member. If my information is accurate-and this was before my time in politics-it was a measure making it obligatory on the part of a newspaper to print, and give the same space to, a correction of a story which had been proven to be false as it had given to the original report.


Mr. Ormiston:: I am glad to have this opportunity to follow the discussion which was opened by my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka on some of the aspects coming under the purview of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and to follow up some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Churchill concerning the Indian affairs branch. If such a discussion had not been initiated by them I would have been obliged to bring it up myself, because it is the subject of so many observations and comments which are made to me. In the region of Saskatchewan which I represent we are fortunate in having a resort area which is a great tourist attraction. Many of the comments made by those who visit this area concern the Indian population, and a good number of them reach my ears directly through private conversations. In particular, there is one resort project which has cost the public hundreds of thousands of dollars. It has wonderful lawns and trees and every facility for entertainment. A short distance away there is an Indian reserve. Many of the tourists use the road adjoining the reserve and they cannot help but notice the marked difference between the resort area and the reserve. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in one area, and obviously very little on an area the boundary of which is only a few yards away.
I am pleased, of course, to note that the department is taking action to correct some of the inequality which exists between the opportunities and standards of Indian citizens and those of citizens of other parts of Canada. The sum of $3J million has been referred to, this amount to be spent over three years. I would suggest it is going to take a lot more than $3J million to improve the conditions of Indians to any great extent. By the time this money has been dissipated all across Canada it will have very little effect.
Of course there are some parts of the country which are better prepared than

Interim, Supply
others to provide employment for Indians. In eastern Canada, where the economic situation is relatively stable and people are often able to work for 12 months of the year, the Indians no doubt avail themselves of the job opportunities open to them. But in Saskatchewan the situation is different. There is very little employment available to Indians during the winter, and this picture of part time employment is probably why the Indians in that province in many cases lead a hand to mouth existence. Any program to assist Indians should be discussed not only with the chiefs of the band councils but also with the welfare departments of the various provincial governments. These welfare departments are making a great contribution at the present time to improving the living standards of the Indians and it would certainly be to the advantage of federal officials to discuss with them the programs by means of which they hope to assist in further improving Indian living standards.
In past years in our province there have been meetings arranged by the Indians themselves. There is the Saskatchewan federation of Indians which meets annually. It is addressed by various prominent figures and dignitaries who always make a considerable contribution. Out of those conferences sometimes come some good ideas, and possibly it might be well to examine some of them with the idea of putting them into effect.
There was a brief presented some time ago which suggested that Indian chiefs be paid as overseers on the reserve, which would give them some insight as to what might take place at a future time and an insight into the role of municipal government. It does not matter how much money is spent on these reserves; it is hardly likely they will ever be in a position to support at any high standard of living the populations that live on them. The investment we make in the education of Indians will pay many more dividends than providing housing or other amenities.
In the past few years grants amounting to $350,000 a year have been paid by the federal government through the Indian affairs branch to improve housing on the reserves in my province. It has been suggested that it would take twice that amount, over several years, to bring the standard of living up to that which would be reasonably acceptable to anyone living in any other part of the country. Actually the unsuitable housing and accommodation provided has been an incentive to some Indians to leave the reserves. Some consideration should certainly be given to en-

deavouring to assist Indian families which have moved to urban areas and have found difficulty in meeting the high cost of rent, fuel, light, etc. out of the income they are able to secure.
The situation arises where the breadwinner of the Indian family is incapable of earning a sufficiently high income, due to inexperience and the standards required by employers. In many cases we find that the Indian's fear of losing his treaty rights has tended to influence his thinking, especially when he is giving consideration to returning to his home after a prolonged stay in an urban area. Many of us know of families which have returned to the reservation rather than face up to some of the financial difficulties they have found themselves in from time to time. It seems to me that the Indian affairs branch must take a good, hard look at their administrative policies and endeavour to come to grips with these alarming problems which the Indians face and which cause them to return to their reservations, where they find they are free of all financial worries, are maintained through no effort on their part, and are assured of all their rights provided by treaty, such as freedom from taxation, free medical care and clothing and all the other amenities which they enjoy. In other words, our reservation Indians find that living on the reserve rids them of all responsibility for their personal welfare, in comparison with having to work for these things while residing away from the reserve.
I suggest to the minister and his parliamentary secretary that the Indian affairs branch should endeavour to work out some solution of this problem by authorizing field officers to assume responsibility and assure the Indian family that they will be given every reasonable assistance to enable them to continue to reside on the reserve during the short periods each year when employment is not available or the income from employment will not permit them to meet reasonable costs of living. The agency superintendent should have full and proper authority to visit Indian families within his agency and assist them up to the amount the superintendent and the Indian affairs branch have arrived at, so that the family will have sufficient money to tide them over periods of unemployment or low income. We should take some responsibility to maintain the family in this way until such time as the breadwinner can either obtain better paying employment or find some other means of sustaining himself and his family. The cost

to the Indian affairs branch in providing such assistance would prove much less than the cost involved when the family returns bag and baggage to the reserve and again becomes totally dependant on the administration for their fuel, clothing and all the other needs.
Fortunately, as I have indicated, integration of the Indian has not been a problem, except in one instance. I refer to a specific local area in the town of Fort Qu'Appelle, where the department operates an Indian hospital. This is the only place in which we have segregation. It is odd that when we now have in Saskatchewan a provincial hospitalization plan and the provincial medical care plan, and the Indian is able to be received in the hospital of his choice, we bring patients from all over the province and treat them in the Indian hospital, especially those patients who have tuberculosis. I am glad to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare here, because she has received representations from this area on this particular topic. We are treating about 50 patients there at the present time, while three miles away there is a provincial sanitarium which is not being used to full capacity. It seems to me there is a duplication of service here, especially when there is a shortage of nurses, and that something more practical could be arranged in so far as these t.b. patients are concerned.
When we are dealing with the Indian problem we find that even among the Indians themselves there are sometimes second class citizens. I refer to those Indians of the Sioux tribe who came across the border many years ago looking for a place in which they could live in freedom and dignity after certain little indiscretions on their part at the time of the Custer massacre. They are here in Canada now, but they do not enjoy some of the privileges which are enjoyed by other Indians. They do not participate in the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Act. I doubt if they will ever receive any compensation from the Indian claims commission. They are settled on unproductive land and are not in the same position as Indians of some of the other tribes. It is in cases like this that I hope the money which is going to be used in the measure the minister calls the community development program will be applied. Surely, Mr. Chairman, an aroused public opinion will make it possible for us to erase some of these aspects of the question which I have mentioned, when we live in such an affluent society and spend so much money on entertainment, liquor, travel and tobacco. Surely 20220-396
Interim Supply
we can find ways and means to raise the standards of our poorest citizens.


Mr. Willoughby:: Mr. Chairman, in taking part in this debate I hope I will be able to add some constructive ideas for the consideration of the department of immigration, with special reference to Indian affairs. I regret very much that the minister is not here this afternoon. However, I see that his parliamentary secretary is here and I hope that any suggestions I may offer which may be of some value will be conveyed to the necessary authority in the right way.
It is certainly not my intention to prolong the subject of immigration in the debate today, but I feel that this department should definitely make a more concerted effort to encourage immigration into this country, particularly from Great Britain, northern European countries and also from central Europe. I do not in any way suggest that I am opposed to immigration from other countries not included in that group, but I do feel that immigration from those countries should be maintained in its present form. However, I feel that the other group of northern European countries is not receiving active encouragement. I have this information from very reliable sources and I feel it is something which we should correct in the interests of our country. There are many people in those countries who could improve our trades, our industrial and our professional developments, and I know these people would be welcome.
When I compare the activities of this country to those of others to encourage these people to migrate, it seems to me we are very inactive or apathetic, and almost antagonistic. I have every reason to believe that in many cases people trying to enter our country are not encouraged to do so. In fact, the red tape they are faced with discourages them to such extent that the majority of this particular group go to Australia. I also have very definite information from certain of these east African countries, where a great number of the white settlers at the present time are leaving for other areas owing to the unstable political situation, that there is no effort whatever on the part of our government to see that these people come to Canada. In fact I understand that the television and radio advertising in these countries maintains a steady stream of encouragement to those people to emigrate to Australia. I cannot see why we in this country should not be doing more to encourage this type of

Interim Supply
citizen who would help develop our country, which is what we want at the present time.
It is obvious that these people have a great deal to offer our country, and with the proper qualifications would be able to improve our industry and many of our trades and occupations. They will help to create new industries and in that way improve our unemployment situation. I do not see how we can possibly associate our present unemployment situation with the fact that new immigrants will increase unemployment. This is not the case. Opportunities for employment will increase and our employment situation will diminish. I maintain that a more active policy on the part of the department of immigration would be an excellent thing for our country at the present time.
The main burden of my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is devoted to our native citizens, our Indian population, and some of the problems associated with them. I realize other speakers have mentioned several matters in this regard, but I feel there are some features which have not been brought out and which I should like to bring forward.
It has been my privilege over the years to watch the development of a great number of these Indian peoples, and I must say that the great change which has occurred among these people is not only encouraging but in some cases almost spectacular. In view of the fact that I have over 7,000 native citizens in the constituency of Kamloops I am naturally interested in their welfare.
There is no doubt, on looking back over history, that the grandparents and the great-grandparents of the present rising generation were looked on as second class citizens. A great deal of this has been the result entirely of a lack of education. Today I am pleased to say that this situation no longer exists and that some of our brightest citizens-and I mean that-are the well educated people of Indian ancestry. We must learn to recognize this great people. We must not continue to think that they are just wards of the government and second class citizens.
It has been my privilege over the years to have sat in conference with some of these people, some of whom have been university graduates, and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that their presentations and discussions have Deen equal to, and in many cases superior to, those of the non-Indian people. In the last few weeks in this House of Commons we had the privilege and honour of having in our presence the Canadian mother of the year, a lady from a reserve adjacent to my

own city of Kamloops. Anyone who has had the privilege of meeting this lady will recognize that her dignity, her poise and her high intelligence has created a most favourable impression. She is indicative of the possible development which is latent in these citizens, and it is this point in particular that I wish to emphasize.
Education is the answer to many of the problems facing the Indian people today. I am pleased to say that at the present time 90 per cent of the Indian children of school age in British Columbia are attending school. There are approximately 11,000 attending schools in British Columbia, 5,000 of whom are attending non-Indian schools. There are about 150 of our Indian citizens attending vocational schools, where they are learning carpentry, electrical engineering, mechanics, welding and other vocations of that type. About 12 are attending university at the present time, and many citizens of the Indian groups in British Columbia are taking advantage of the university extension courses lasting about a week in agriculture and in animal husbandry. So these educated people are definitely showing tremendous improvement.
We have adjacent to the city of Kamloops what we call an Indian residential school for general education purposes. It is an excellent school, and other talents besides general education are developed. At the present time this school has developed one of the most outstanding-and I emphasize the word "outstanding"-groups of dancers which we have anywhere in Canada. This group of fine young people are in such demand that at the present time they are on a tour of Mexico.
They have also been requested to do a European tour. They are native ambassadors of our country and I hope we might be able to arrange for them to perform at the world fair. I do not know of any organization which it would be more appropriate to have on the world fair program.
In view of their fine attainments, in view of their natural talents, their interesting personalities and the good will they create everywhere, I found it most disappointing that they were refused assistance for their passage to Mexico, both by the Canada Council and the department of Indian affairs. It would seem to me that money could be spent much better on projects of this nature than on many others which we witness almost daily around us. I believe the department should give consideration to providing financial assistance for such efforts.

The present effort is being financed by private subscriptions from people in the Kamloops area, and when the dancers got to Mexico the Mexican government undertook to pay all their expenses while they are there. It is not a very complimentary thing when we find the Mexican government prepared to pay the expenses of these people from Canada when, at the same time, the Canadian government refuses to assist them in their own country. Therefore I maintain that education is the answer to our Indian problems, as it is to many other problems.
We should develop more agricultural training centres. The present industrial school in Kamloops could enlarge its services to provide short courses in agriculture for adult Indian people, and the adjacent dominion range experimental station could assist with education on range development. I also believe an economic adviser could be added to the service to help make the reserves function in a more economic manner. They are not self supporting at present but they could be made so with very little trouble. I realize a good deal of this work is being done by the local Indian agents and their staffs, but they have sufficient problems to cope with, without getting into this field of economic advice on agricultural projects on the reserves.
Agricultural development could be encouraged by making larger individual holdings. In many cases family holdings have been broken up through the generations and are now so small that they are economically impossible to operate. It seems to me that the way to handle the situation would be to pay off some of the members of a family living on an uneconomic holding, and train them for other employment. Some of the band funds could be used for the purchase of more basic herd cattle or other animals that would help make the larger holdings productive. All these are problems that could be dealt with by an economic adviser.
One of the most unfortunate problems facing the Indian population today is the difficulty in obtaining proper employment, even after education and training. This is largely due to a long time prejudice, but I am happy to see that this prejudice is gradually being broken down.
It is with considerable gratification I have noted that in the past few years a new organization has developed in the interior of B.C., known as the brotherhood of North American Indians, with the special purpose of acting as a liaison between the Indian and the employer. They are being assisted by what is known as the "Mika Nika" club. I 20220-3961
Interim Supply
understand the meaning of these words to be "me and you". This organization is composed of Indian people and white people interested in the welfare of the Indian people, interested in trying to encourage them in their education and in trying to find suitable employment for them when they are educated and trained. They are trying to overcome that racial prejudice which has existed for generations in Canada, and they are meeting with a great deal of success.
I believe such organizations should receive special consideration from the dominion government. They are doing great work in improving the status of the Indian people, making them better citizens, making them more economically independent, and any assistance which the dominion government could give to them would be to the economic advantage of Canada as a whole. My own impression is that the Indian people, with proper education and encouragement, can prove their ability to accept responsibility, but it is the duty of the government to assist this development in every way.
During the term of office of the previous government great strides were made in the right direction. School attendance was encouraged. Scholarships were greatly increased with the aim of developing many natural aptitudes. Artists, craftsmen and musicians were encouraged. Indians were given the federal franchise. New roads were opened in reserves and new irrigation projects were developed. The present government must continue that wonderful work.
We have heard much about the establishment of an Indian claims commission. This was something which was promised during the last election. Last year a bill was introduced in parliament, Bill No. C-130, but received only first reading. There were many features in that bill which will require correction before it is acceptable to the Indian people. Its intent was probably quite correct but it contained many provisions that, if not amended, would only create more confusion.
Many things were contained in the bill but I do not intend to discuss all of them. However, I should like to draw attention to one or two points in the bill as it was presented last year in the hope that when it finally comes before us for debate these corrections will be made. In the first place, it is impossible to produce evidence in writing of certain claims which arose long ago before the Indians knew how to write. We know that most of these agreements were verbal and we must not consider that such claims have to be submitted in writing. Any requirement that

Interim Supply
they must be submitted in writing would simply mean that legitimate claims could be denied. Their land, fishing and hunting rights must be protected and evidence by affidavit as well as evidence in other forms should be accepted as sufficient to establish their rights.
Another point in this regard is that they only have two years to file a claim with the claims commission. I would say that five years at least should be the minimum that should be allowed for these people to do this. The proceedings of the claims commission should also be made public and should be recorded for future reference. Proper counsel should be provided. Certainly under the present bill these people are not provided with counsel. Band funds cannot be expected to provide the money because in many instances the costs would be prohibitive. There should be a right of appeal from decisions of the commission to provincial courts and even to the Supreme Court of Canada if this is necessary in extreme cases.
I could enlarge on the features of this bill at great length, but these are just some of the suggestions I wish to offer. Personally, and I know I am expressing the opinion of many people, I am optimistic about the future of the Indians. I feel that with proper encouragement and assistance a large majority of them will be capable of taking their rightful place in our economy and society. Therefore all I ask is that the government see to it that they receive all the encouragement and assistance they deserve.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in the debate on interim supply which involves the granting of money to the government to carry on its operations and pay its bills. My remarks will be directed particularly to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I am surprised that hon. members opposite call "carried". We have heard this all week. I should like to remind members on the government side that when they were on this side and we were asking for interim supply they took seven days in 1962 to grant it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You were asking for eleven twelfths.


Alfred Dryden Hales: We have now spent five days on interim supply and yet they proceed to call "carried, carried". I also remember well that when we were over there and they were the official opposition they took eight days on the estimates of the Department of

Labour. Yet we as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, whose duty it is to scrutinize and examine carefully the spending of money by the government, have taken but five days and have only discussed four departments- labour, health and welfare, forestry and now citizenship and immigration. Nevertheless they continue to call "carried". In my opinion this is not the way a good government should operate.


Auguste Choquette: Did you read the Globe and Mail?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes, I have read the Globe and Mail.


Auguste Choquette: Read it again.


Alfred Dryden Hales: If those on the government side wish to carry on in this way, what are we as the opposition supposed to do? They have not brought the estimates before the house. We have only had two departments before us, the Department of Agriculture and the Post Office Department. Only two departments have been brought before us.


George James McIlraith: Northern affairs.


Alfred Dryden Hales: It has not been completed.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: External affairs.


Alfred Dryden Hales: If these estimates are not brought before the house, what other means have we of examining the expenditures of the government than on interim supply which we are dealing with today? I am amazed that members responsible to the people of their ridings for the carrying on of the operations of the government have not taken part in the debate on interim supply.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member consider that the house leader for his party was remiss in his duty when he offered to give us three months supply if we would forgo the flag debate?


Alfred Dryden Hales: I do not think that is a true statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not a true statement.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I am surprised at the failure of certain members to take part in the debate on interim supply. On Monday not one member from any group other than Her Majesty's loyal opposition took part in the debate. On Tuesday the hon. member for Kootenay West rose in his place to ask that members of the staff be allowed to go home because

the weather was so hot. On Wednesday the hon. member for Kootenay West took part, as did the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac. On Thursday the hon. member for Villeneuve took part and today a few Liberal members have taken part in order to discuss the operation of taxis at Malton airport. No Liberals are taking part in the debate on interim supply. No ministers are here to answer questions or to rise in their places and take part in the debate. It reminds me of what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said on April 1, 1964, as found on page 1642 of Hansard:
-I want to say to the government that I hope the impasse into which the House of Commons has manoeuvred itself will be a lesson to the government not to bring in supplementary estimates and interim supply almost at the deadline, when parliament either has to rush through them without proper consideration or has to sit beyond the time when we intended to adjourn.
He went on to say:
Members of the house have a right to expect from the government a very clear explanation why these additional sums are needed.
That is what he said on April 1, 1964. Has anybody in that group taken part in the debate on interim supply? Have members of the other parties taken part to any great extent?


Mr. Peters:: Did the hon. member for Port Arthur not speak on Monday?


Alfred Dryden Hales: I doubt it but I stand to be corrected. If he did, I will give him full credit. This situation makes me think that some sort of arrangement or deal has been made. I do not think this is the way the government or parliament should operate.
With these introductory remarks I should like to proceed to a few matters concerning the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The constituency I represent has a cross-section of new Canadians within its borders, people who have come to that riding because of the great attraction of employment in industries, on farms and as domestics. These people have fitted into the community well. They are a warmhearted group and I have the greatest admiration for them and their ability to integrate into the Canadian way of life. They have come here through the immigration department and they are excellent citizens and are very welcome.
They break down into all the various ethnic groups. Of course the largest group in my riding would be the descendants of those who come from the British isles. The next largest
Interim Supply
group is the group from Italy, some 4,200 people. This loyal group of people of Italian origin has been known to me for a long time. I have grown up with them. They were my friends long before I entered this House of Commons. I think back to their parents who came to our community to help develop it. Those were the days before we had steam shovels and mechanical devices for digging ditches to put in waterworks and sewers. These people came to my community to help instal these water and sewage systems. From that early race of pioneer people you will find descendants in every walk of life. We have them in the medical profession, dentistry, architecture, law as well as in the business world, contractors, and so on. I often wondered how we would have developed that community, let alone the many communities in Canada, if it had not been for all these people who came to Canada, particularly those of the Italian race.
I think of the building of that great subway in Toronto. How could this have been completed without the help of the many new Canadians who came to this country? I should like to refer the members of the committee to the amendments to the Immigration Act introduced in 1959 by the former minister, Mrs. Fairclough, under which people could come into Canada by virtue of their skills and not have to wait until they were sponsored. In this group we have had many people, such as carpenters, bricklayers, plasterers and others. These people have added so much to the development of our country, lhis department of immigration is a very important one.
I should like now to mention some of the things which disturb these people to a certain extent. They become frustrated when they have to wait so long to have the people they are sponsoring admitted to Canada. Then, sometimes they get letters saying these people do not qualify, do not meet all the requirements or some other such statement is made. They are at a loss to know just why these people are unable to come. I believe the minister might be moving in the right direction if he had his officials at the office in which these applications are made tell the applicants that there is no opportunity or no possibility of going to Canada. Then they would not be living in false hopes, as many of these sponsored people are now.
We are being asked to look into the spending of this department; that is what interim supply is. You are asking us to grant money to pay bills. The Minister of Citizenship and

Interim Supply
Immigration is asking the committee to pass estimates totalling $81,011,420, which represents an increase of 14 per cent over the last year. This includes the supplementary estimates. Have we not got the right, as the official opposition, to ask why there is this great increase of 14 per cent? What does the minister want this money for, and how is it to be spent? There are many interesting things that come to light when one goes through the department estimates. For example, for travel and removal expenses, the minister is asking us to approve a vote of $1,183,085. This is just for removal and travel for people within the department. Then, telephone and telegraph we find amounts to a little over a quarter of a million dollars. Have we not the right to ask why an amount such as this is needed by this department. I am convinced that this represents extravagance. I know it does. There is a staff of about 5,000 people. Should we not stop and look at this?
In studying the public accounts in the public accounts committee the other day, it was drawn to our attention by the Auditor General that this department has accounts receivable to the extent of $511,004 and of that amount $186,346 is listed as uncollectable. Why can this money not be collected? It is the taxpayers' money, your money and my money. After investigating the matter a little further, I found the list went back to the last world war, about 1939, and this made up the three main items. There are many small items, but it is made up chiefly of assistance payments to immigrants and salary overpayments. These items are the larger items making up these accounts receivable which are uncollectable. This is a matter, as I understand it, where the minister should make a submission for parliamentary approval to have these accounts written off, if there is no other way of collecting them. In view of the fact some of these accounts go back to 1939, I think it is time the bookkeeping was put in order.
There are many interesting things which come to light when you go over the estimates of this department. I believe there is a great amount of overlapping in this department. When an immigrant arrives in Canada, he is looking for employment. He wishes to be placed in a job. The immigration officer in the area is responsible for placing him in a job. The national employment service is engaged in the same activity under the Department of Labour. Here we have direct duplication, one becoming a competitor of the other. For example, if the national employment of-

fice has a machinist who is looking for a job they go to industry to see if they can find him a job. Perhaps the immigration officer has asked the same industry if they had a job for a machinist. There is therefore overlapping here. I suggest to the minister that the national employment service is recognized as the government agency responsible for finding employment for people. I believe it would be more economical, more efficient if this agency looked after the placement of newly arrived immigrants.
Then we have the recommendation of the Glassco commission to the effect that the Indian affairs department should be transferred to northern affairs or to the Department of National Health and Welfare. There has been much said here today about Indian affairs, and I do not wish to pursue the matter any further. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration should act as agent for the Department of External Affairs. It seems only natural that the issuance of passports would work more smoothly under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
There is another matter which is, I think, of interest, and it concerns the proposed immigration to Canada of a large number of farmers of European descent who were formerly farming in Algeria. These former residents of north Africa, some 900 in number, are known as Black Feet. They lived in former French-administered territory, but after the independence of Algeria had been declared in 1962 they moved to France. In France they were unable to make a satisfactory living, or adapt themselves to conditions there. A shortage of land was another factor which made them consider migration, principally to Canada and, in particular, to the province of Quebec. I know there is no breakdown in the figures available to the department to show how many, if any, of these people come from Algeria, but while in Algeria these people had a reputation which was not of the best. With their background and their record I think it questionable whether they should be encouraged to settle here, and I am wondering how they came to Canada and by whose authority. What questions were asked of them before they were allowed to enter this country? We are advised according to the Toronto Star of July 30:
Immigration Minister Rene Tremblay yesterday announced that on July 22. Canada and France exchanged notes concerning the immigration to Canada of French repatriates.
The Canadian note sets forth the assistance available to French agriculturalists, repatriated to France from former French territories in north Africa.

It was expected that 30 or 40 families will be selected this year, Tremblay said.
In what special category have these people been placed? They are all farmers who have failed to adapt themselves or find land and make a living in France, and it is estimated that a thousand of these farming families are now looking for opportunities in Canada. Farming conditions in Quebec at the present time are certainly not good and I ask the minister to give serious consideration to the question whether or not these people should be allowed to immigrate here.
There is another matter which has been brought to my attention in my riding. It concerns the admission to Canada of prospective fiancees. As members know, under the present regulations fiancees are granted temporary entry to Canada for a period of 30 days, an extra two weeks being provided for the completing of the immigration formalities. The immigration regulations provide that a resident of Canada, if he falls within a certain class, may sponsor the admission of an intending wife or husband. When an application is made to this effect it is understood that the parties to the proposed marriage have been personally known to each other for a period of time and have also corresponded during their separation. Immigration officers, it is said, take great care in establishing that a previous and sincere relationship has existed between the two persons concerned and that they have an actual intention to marry. As evidence of this, the sponsor is asked to present letters, photographs and so on received from the fiancee, as well as a statement from a priest or minister that there are no impediments of objections to the marriage. In addition, there must be a statement from a notary public that there is a clear intention of marriage. Only when these conditions have been satisfied is the application approved. Applications from persons who know each other only from correspondence are not normally accepted.
These are the regulations. But in practice the system is not working out as well as it should. I realize there are people coming here with the intention to marry who find themselves in a strange land among strangers, speaking a language not known to them, and this creates unexpected difficulties. The Catholic women's league of Canada has brought this problem to my attention. They say, in a petition, that this time limit of one month or 45 days is altogether too short for prospective fiancees to become well acquainted before marriage, and that its imposition results in
Interim Supply
the marriage of many people who are incompatible, resulting in lifelong unhappiness. So I suggest to the minister that when the act is amended this time limit be extended to at least three months.
I turn now to a problem which exists in the restaurant trade in Canada. I do not suppose there is any industry which is more hard pressed for help than is the restaurant industry today. In other years we have had a goodly number of immigrants to Canada who have been able to fit in with this restaurant operation. If we in Canada are to provide good accommodation and good eating houses for the travelling public and for those Canadians who wish to patronize these places, the government should be going out of its way to see what can be done to bring in more people to take up this particular line of work.
I would say in conclusion what I said at the beginning of my remarks. I am amazed there are not more elected members on the other side of the house anxious to scrutinize one of the most important parts of the operation of government, that is, the spending of money. I hope we shall hear also from some of the ministers of the departments which have been mentioned.


Mr. Macaluso:: May I ask the hon. member a question? In his opening remarks he made reference to an amendment to the immigration regulations in 1959 which changed "race or country of origin" to "educational skills". I know the hon. member has had a lot to do with immigration in the area from which he comes, and I ask him this: Does he not find that no improvement has really been brought about by this change? Is it not his experience that the amendment is still being interpreted in a discriminatory manner, as was the original regulation? I am sure the hon. member, who has had experience in these matters, would agree with me that there is still discrimination exercised by means of this particular amendment, just as there was formerly.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I thought the hon. member for Hamilton West was rising to make a speech. However, I would say I have not experienced any great discrimination in that regard as far as it affects the people of my own riding. I have found it has been possible to bring into my area people with skills that are badly needed-and into all Canada for that matter-where previously, whether skilled or not, they were not able to come. Now, if

Interim Supply
a man has a skill he is as welcome as the flowers in spring to come to Canada.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, I do not want the hon. member to misinterpret my question. I am not opposed to the amendment and the subjects that are regulated. I have already spoken in the house on this matter. I am saying that the regulation is still being used as a smokescreen, in many ways, to keep out a number of people, in the same way that the original regulation in the act was used in connection with race or country of origin.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I would think this is a matter my hon. friend could take up with the minister and help him put the right interpretation on the amendment of the act.


John George Diefenbaker: Just give them a few lessons over there.


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Chairman, I, too, welcome an opportunity to fulfil my responsibilities as a member of this house and take part in the debate on interim supply. For many weeks I have been sitting in this house waiting for an opportunity to bring to the fore some of the problems of my particular area; but since this government has been very tardy in bringing forth the estimates of the various department an opportunity has not been provided before now to bring these matters to the attention of parliament.
I was very interested in one particular aspect of the speech of the hon. member for Wellington South when he spoke of this new policy, apparently, on the part of the government and read from a newspaper article that I believe was entitled, "Path cleared for farmers to immigrate". As one who comes from an area where the farming is very intensive, and the tendency today is to have larger farms and smaller number of farmers engaged in this industry, naturally I am very interested in any change of policy in the matter of immigration. I wish to state at the outset that the remarks I propose to make should in no way be construed as a direct criticism of the people involved, their skill or their desirability as immigrants to this country; rather, I wish to speak on the principle involved in this question. It says in this article:
Canada and France have reached agreement on the conditions under which French farmers repatriated to France from former French territories in north Africa may enter Canada as immigrants.
I am indeed sorry that the minister is not in his seat today, because this poses a very, very serious question in my mind. I want to

know, what are these conditions, because later on in the article it says:
The department said no arrangements have been made as yet for initial arrivals-
All of the repatriates must comply with the provisions of the Immigration Act.
If this is the case, why was it necessary for Canada and France to reach agreement on the conditions? It is my understanding that it was very difficult for anyone to immigrate to this country from France, because of special conditions set up by the French government which prevented citizens leaving France and going to any other country. If this is the case, I would like to know why the government of France is ready to make an agreement with the government of Canada to allow these repatriates to enter this country. I wish to know, does this new agreement make it possible for any farmer in France, whether he be a repatriate or a native of that country, to immigrate to Canada?
Then, too, I am very interested in this article when it states that all these special services will be placed at the disposal of these immigrants to our country. I would like to ask the minister, what does this mean? Does it mean that these services are not at the disposal of all immigrants to this country and that these are special provisions made for these particular immigrants? What is the change of policy in this respect?
There is another matter I should like to inquire into. This article states:
Officials said that repatriates seeking admission to Canada as immigrants will receive suggestions on possible locations from French officials who toured Canada earlier this year.
I want to know about this. Were these French officials in Canada at the invitation of the Canadian government? Was special provision made to invite them to come to this country? Did they tour this country from coast to coast at the invitation of the Canadian government to see where these people might be repatriated in Canada; or is this a courtesy that is accorded to all nations, namely to send delegations to this country and tour it from coast to coast to see where immigrants might best be settled? These are some of the questions that are of particular interest to farmers across this country, who under the present administration are finding it very difficult to make a living because of the conditions under which they are forced to operate. How many of these people are supposed to enter this country? The article states that "30 or 40 families will be selected this year". It is the word "selected" that bothers me. Is there a special committee set up to

screen the abilities of these immigrants? How are they to be selected? What are the conditions they must meet before they can enter this country. Are they going to be treated differently from any other immigrants? Are their conditions of entry into this country any different?
These are questions to which we have a right to answers, having read this article headed, "Path cleared for farmers to immigrate". We want to know, is it cleared for farmers of all foreign countries to enter this country, or are these conditions set up for farmers of one particular country? I think we are entitled to have answers to these questions. Since we have not had an opportunity to raise these questions, I am sorry the minister is not in the chamber to deal with these serious doubts that arise in our minds.
These matters are brought to the fore in my mind because of the fact that we, as members of parliament, have serious problems in obtaining entry into this country of people who apply to us directly. There are conditions-and naturally there must be conditions-under which immigrants enter Canada; and these conditions must be met. But it seems unjust when people who have been admitted to this country and have lived here in a law abiding manner are turned down when they apply for citizenship. I know of one case where the person applied perhaps four or five times for citizenship. It is not easy, when you are in an adopted country, to go before a court and be refused citizenship. This is a matter of shame as far as some citizens are concerned. Law abiding people who try to obtain Canadian citizenship and are refused often find their neighbours and friends of their basic origin tend to look down on them as being undesirable. Surely they should be told something else, when their application for citizenship is turned down, other than the terse statement that they fail at this time to meet the requirements. This has happened time and time again in the area that I represent, and these people find it very difficult indeed, because of the shame they feel or the way in which they are treated by their friends.
Another question in this respect involves principle. I refer to a young lady who wished to come into this country as a domestic. It is true that she is coloured, but that had no bearing on her immigration to this country.
In this case I speak of a doctor who had gone to a foreign country and this young lady, a well educated young lady, worked for him and his wife while he was there. She did so
Interim Supply
in such manner that they became enamoured not only of her personality but of her devotion to duty and wished to bring her to this country. They went to the local office, and they were assured that all the conditions had been fulfilled; but when they came to this country they found the conditions were far from fulfilled. After waiting many months they were told this lady could not enter the country. They made representations to me and I, of course, brought the matter to the attention of the minister-and I must thank the minister for his courtesy in this respect. I have since received a letter to the effect that this domestic did not meet the requirements of the immigration department because of the fact that she was uneducated.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I can understand that this is a necessary requirement, but when I looked further into the matter I found that this lady was not only educated but that she had attended the church school in her own particular area and was something of a scholar. One application after another has been made but in each case a different reason advanced as to why she could not enter the country; and after many months I might point out that she has still not been allowed to enter the country.
I should like to bring to the attention of the committee that last week end I was privileged to have the opportunity to attend a Slovac picnic of an international nature held in my riding, and it was inspiring indeed to hear the many learned speakers who took part on the program. It was very inspiring indeed to spend the afternoon watching the young folk with their native dances and in their native costumes. I am sure that every member of this committee would have been proud to listen to the tenor of the speeches made at that picnic. These people were grateful to be citizens of Canada. They were grateful to have had the opportunity to come to this country and to live and work in this country. One thing which made an impression on me was that they were instilling in their young people not only a love for this country but a respect for this country. They were trying to instil into their young people the good traits and qualities and the high principles of their native land, so that they could make a contribution of a greater nature as citizens of Canada in a new country. This is a fact to be commended and we need have no doubt for the futures of the children of these people.
Another matter I should like to deal with has to do with Indian affairs. I have not had the opportunity before now to pay tribute to a

Interim Supply
particular gentleman. I must assure the committee that I have no idea where he is today. I have no idea what he is doing. But I am sure that no matter where this man is or what he is doing he is contributing as an Indian to the welfare of the Indian nation and to the welfare of this country as a whole. This is the nature of the man. I had the opportunity of meeting this man when he was an Indian agent on the Indian reservation in my riding of Kent, Ontario. It was inspiring indeed to see the manner in which this man approached the very basic problems of the Indian nation and tried by all manner of approach to do something about them. This man had the welfare of his nation at heart and did much to raise their lot while he was there as an Indian agent. This particular reservation is one of the first to be granted control of its own affairs. It was one of the first to form a band council to elect its own officers. It was one of the first reservations which did without an Indian agent, and there is no Indian agent at the present time on this particular reservation. Because of the training of these men and the competence of the Indian affairs branch in their welfare, they manage their own affairs in a very commendable way. Much of the credit must go to this man, Mr. Powless, for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect, for the principles he instilled in his people.
As far as Indian reservations are concerned, I can only speak with regard to the one in my constituency. I speak now as one who has farmed. On this particular reservation there is some of the finest land. Mr. Powless and his administration have brought this matter to the attention of the band. But like all good land in this country, if it is not drained and cultivated with the proper machinery it cannot bring forth the best possible amount of produce and be economical to farm. If it were possible to carry out on this reservation the programs laid down by this same Mr. Powless, the progressive dreams which he started to carry out under the winter works program of the former government, such as cutting down trees, digging ditches and making roads, the whole community would benefit. This program was bringing this reservation out of the wilderness and making the people feel self sufficient. If this policy could be carried on the young men on this reservation would not be so anxious to go to neighbouring cities and towns to obtain employment. They would have the opportunity to farm this land as the farms around them
[Mr. Danforth.l
are farmed. All they need is machinery and capital. They need someone who will show them what could be done and how to do it. That is where they miss this wonderful Indian agent, because he had the vision. He could see that the people could obtain their independence. They are not people of charity, they are people of courage, and if they have the tools to work with they can do the job. They are people who, when given the opportunity, will make the finest of Canadian citizens.
One thing I am very glad to see is that the Indian children on that reservation do not go to their own local school but instead are taken by bus to the community school. They are mixing with other young children in the district and becoming friends and neighbours, and a greater feeling of good will is developing between the two groups than before. That is a fine thing and I should like to see this work continued in this particular area. Surely to goodness if these people want to work-and all they need are the tools-this is one action we can take to help them make the living they deserve.
In dealing with these particular programs I feel that the people in Kent county, who are of various nationalities, show to the country as a whole and to the world what can be done by people of all nationalities working together. We in Kent county have immigrants from practically every nation in the world, all of them working together in harmony. I am very proud to say that in Kent county we have a situation which is an example to the Dominion of Canada today, because we have 11,000 French of whom we are most proud working with Anglo-Saxons, Italians, Germans, Dutch, Slovacs, Czechs, and Hungarians in absolute harmony. In Kent county, sir, there is no such thing as a second class Canadian or a hyphenated Canadian, and when Canada as a whole is like that this will be a Canada of which we can be really proud.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, before I begin the few remarks I wish to make, I should like first to bring to the attention of the house a correction I want to make in Hansard in order to put the record straight.
Yesterday, in his remarks, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) said, according to page 6206 of Hansard'.
I would like to point out that the hon. member was not present when the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources were being discussed last Friday.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if you refer to page 5938, you will see that my name is on the list of those who voted and that, a few minutes later, when the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources were called, I also was in the house.
I would, therefore, ask the hon. member for York-Scarborough to check the facts before making statements.
I must repeat that we are now considering estimates totalling $700 million, that is, almost three quarters of a billion dollars, that the government is asking us to pass. If we were to listen to the hon. members opposite, we would comply with such a request without taking the trouble to study it.
Since the beginning of this debate four days ago, we tried to obtain information from four different ministers. First of all, we were unable to get any information at all from the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen).
Realizing our inability to break the silence of the Minister of Labour, we turned to the Department of National Health and Welfare, but the same thing happened. We then turned to the Department of Forestry but, to make sure that he would not have to give any information the minister left for Europe on a holiday. Today we are studying the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; once again the minister is away. Has he gone on a holiday too? That is possible.


Auguste Choquette: Not at all.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In any case, we will keep on going; even if he is not on holiday, he is not in his seat where he should be to fulfil his responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I ask our hon. friends
opposite to shake, once and for all, that carelessness which befell them and to realize finally that it is their duty to take part in this debate. Let the ministers show a little less complacency and let them stop considering with unequalled jauntiness and impatience the questions directed to them. It is their responsibility to give here the information requested from them.
If I rise again today it is in an attempt to get other information with regard, in particular, to the farm people in my riding and in eastern Canada-


Auguste Choquette: Read the copy of the Globe and Mail I am sending you.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, if I thought you could have the least bit of influence on the most delinquent member of the house, I would ask you to call to order the hon.
Interim Supply
member for Lotbiniere who is here today. This is one of the rare occasions when he shows himself in the house but since we want to maintain some sense of propriety we will put up with his insubordination.


Auguste Choquette: No, no.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: However, Mr. Chairman, following-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege merely to say that I appreciate the hon. member's humour because I am a man who likes humour. Besides, he is the exact opposite of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), who is always raging. I hold in esteem the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), who is realistic enough and consistent in his statements. I nevertheless wish to tell him that I am an assiduous member of this house, despite the fact that he is hinting that I am always absent, whereas the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) himself, is never here. The statement made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is unfair.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the hon. member cannot stand up for himself. He has to rely on others to justify his behaviour. Obviously, what he is saying will be printed in the record. But we realize that physically he is not here often and, as I said we very seldom see him in the house, today being a rare exception.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot is repeating the same insinuation. He is making the same statement which is contrary to the facts. I am in regular attendance at the sittings of the house and it is unfair for the hon. member to say that I am often absent from the house when I am one of those who attend the sittings most regularly. At the moment the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), and the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) are all away on holidays. The hon. member is insinuating that I am the one who is absent when I am here and they are away.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is not true, you are always absent.


The Deputy Chairman:: I think the committee is getting into an argument that has

Interim Supply
nothing to do with the resolution before it. Hon. members' comments should be more in relation to the subject matter before us.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I was interrupted by the hon. member for Lotbiniere for having spoken the truth.


Auguste Choquette: No, no.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I see that the hon. member does not like the truth to be known. In that case I cannot but override his objection, and if I have hurt the hon. member by speaking the truth I have no apologies to make-


Auguste Choquette: No, you are not telling the truth.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -as the truth must be told in any event but I shall not insist-


Auguste Choquette: You are not telling the truth; I want my words to be printed in Hansard, because this is a false statement.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I mainly rose this afternoon following an item published in Le Devoir of July 29 last, with regard to an agreement, and I quote:
Franco-Canadian agreement on the settlement in Canada of French farmers from Algeria.
And, before the hon. member for Lotbiniere interrupts me to say-in order to have it printed in Hansard-that I am against French immigration, I immediately state that I favour French immigration, but that I find the immigration of farmers to be established in eastern Canada not only upsetting, but inappropriate.
If you refer to the recently published Men-zies report, you will find that farming in eastern Canada is in a precarious, deplorable state-


Auguste Choquette: "Depressed" is the word to use.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -in a depressed state. I know that my friends opposite deplore the fact that eastern farmers in Canada do not have adequate income to meet their obligations. Now, at the same time, the government that is presiding over the fortunes of the nation thinks it has found an adequate remedy to that poor situation by inviting farmers from abroad to come to this country in order to place them in the same position as those who are complaining that their income is inadequate.
According to the press release published in Le Devoir, which, I suppose, comes from [The Deputy Chairman.]
the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, that department has put at the disposal of the newcomers in Canada all the facilities of the department in order to help them to get integrated and to meet their obligations.
Now, if this government has money to settle foreigners in Canada, I submit it is our responsibility, we who are sitting here, and especially members from the province of Quebec, to see to it that those amounts be spent in the interests of our compatriots who are already settled on farms and who are facing numerous difficulties. We must discharge our obligations to those persons first. I know a great many young people who could not afford to settle on farms, and before going over to get Frenchmen, Englishmen and Dutchmen, or people of any other nationality, I say that the government should see to it that taxation money goes to our people first.
We have some responsibility toward our people. We should first of all discharge this responsibility, and our friends opposite, instead of pointing their fingers-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I see the hon. member for
Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) seated in his place, and I remember he had not the courage, last week, to come and vote in the way he had indicated he would. Outside the house he made, in blazing terms, speeches to the effect he would object to the government policy, and today as a prospective minister-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I think the hon. member is now commenting about a proceeding of this house that has already been concluded.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member for Three Rivers is not here, so that that makes three Conservative members who are against French immigration.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that the parliamentary secretary to a minister who criticizes a government policy should not have a seat here and should not continue to carry out his functions as parliamentary secretary. When a member is a parliamentary secretary he has to respect the policy of the government, or otherwise he should resign.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. In sound constitutional theory the parliamentary secretary has to be

jointly responsible with his minister in matters concerning the department, but he is free, as any other backbencher, in other matters.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, may I put another question to the hon. member? Did he express the opinion of his minister when on May 20 last, he said, in Drummondville, that we are experiencing the fall of the central government? If you refer to the newspapers you will see that what I am reporting is strictly correct.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that we have already in eastern Canada too many farmers with an inadequate income and that before inviting farmers from abroad we should make sure that our own farmers have the opportunity to earn their living and those of their dependants.
So I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) who is absent- he is probably on vacation-to make sure that, first of all, we meet our obligations to our constituents, our fellow countrymen; then and only then let us continue to give away our surpluses and do our share in order to help the people of other countries. But let us help first our own Canadian citizens. This is our first obligation.


Mr. Guay:: Would the hon. member allow me a question? Am I justified in concluding from his remarks that he stands against immigration of French as well as people of other nationalities?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If the hon. member had an I.Q. high enough to follow my speech, he probably would have understood what I said at the beginning, namely that I had no intention to object to immigration. I want immigration in accordance with our obligations, from any country. And I bring my remarks to a close on these words. I regret that it was impossible for my hon. friend to understand.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot spoke about my I.Q. I shall ask him to read his speech carefully on Monday. He might be disappointed. One must always think well before speaking.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That applies very well to you.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Go on. Stand up. Stand up. 'Text]


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Fort William has the floor.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate on the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with a great deal of
Interim, Supply
interest. I was rather surprised, however, to hear the hon. member for Wellington South and the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) expressing grave doubts about the decision of the government to admit to Canada a number of French farmers, formerly residents of north Africa. It is quite evident that the minister's announcement of a few days ago has been misunderstood by the members opposite. I will therefore try to clarify the situation very briefly. I do not intend to make a speech but I believe this occasion should not be let go by without an explanation so that everyone will understand what the government is trying to do in this regard.
A few days ago the minister made an announcement regarding an exchange of notes which had taken place between the Canadian and French governments respecting the migration to Canada of French agriculturists who have been repatriated to France from former French territories in French Africa. As the minister mentioned in the announcement, it is expected that 30 or 40 families will be selected this year, with future movements being dependant upon the successful establishment of these first families, and individual decisions to be made in the future by others.
The exchange of notes set out the various forms of assistance which will be available to these agriculturists from both the French and Canadian governments. In essence the two governments will co-operate in the establishment of an information program designed to acquaint prospective settlers with conditions of life and opportunities for settlement on Canadian farms. The French government will assist in presenting suitable interested applicants at the Canadian immigration office in Paris, France, where they will be examined in accordance with established immigration criteria for the selection of agriculturists generally.
This means that all prospective settlers will have to comply with the normal immigration requirements including health, character, passports, etc., as well as being able to demonstrate by previous agricultural experience, adaptability and availability of capital that they will be able to operate an efficient farming enterprise by Canadian standards.
The Canadian government is not participating in or contributing to the financial arrangements respecting transportation and settlement in Canada apart from acquainting the settlers with the facilities available to all Canadian residents through the Farm Credit Corporation.

Interim Supply
Those settlers who are able to qualify under the immigration criteria set out above will have placed at their disposal the full range of services offered by the immigration branch to all newcomers to Canada. This includes reception on arrival and the extension of assistance in locating suitable areas of final settlement, as well as assistance in obtaining temporary accommodation and employment where required. In advance of any settlers coming forward, the Canadian government will make available full details of typical farm properties for sale in various regions of Canada which present conditions favourable to establishment. Experienced immigration settlement officers will also be available at all times to assist these agriculturists in the assessment and other aspects involved in the purchase of Canadian farms.
I am confident that all hon. members and Canadians generally will join with the Canadian and French government in wishing this venture every success.


Mr. Cyr:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hubert Badanai: Yes.


Alexandre Cyr: A while ago the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot said the minister was on a holiday, perhaps like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Bow River. Is the parliamentary secretary able to say where the minister is?


Hubert Badanai: The minister has gone on a very important mission, which is government work. He has taken on the responsibility of several engagements over the week end. I might say, for the benefit of the member, it is not a question of enjoyment of a holiday; it is a question of work.


William Arnold Peters: I reluctantly enter this debate because of some remarks that have been made. First of all, I should like to offer a suggestion to which I feel the house should give some consideration and which I think merits the support of all hon. members. Here we are at the end of July faced with the estimates of a department, following the budget and the financial accounting by the government. However, at this time we have only passed the estimates of one department and this gives some credence to the fact that the departments that have not been brought before the committee bear some scrutiny. Six months is ample time for the government to do this. This situation raises a number of problems.

One of these problems has been solved in Great Britain by limiting one section of the parliamentary year to a consideration of financial business. When that is concluded, parliament goes on to the consideration of other matters. The operation of parliament here, of course, is very ragged. We have estimates, interim supply, supplementary estimates and the budget debate interspersed with legislative matters. I feel the time has arrived when we should set up a standing committee on estimates and refer each of the departments to that committee. This, of course, would allow members the free use of the parliamentary committee system. It would allow members to discuss individual problems they have which do not necessarily need governmental intervention, or are of a local or personal nature affecting the welfare of their constituents. It would allow also the opportunity to present a report which could contain certain recommendations to which the government would be obliged to give some consideration.
This procedure might also carry an obligation that members of parliament would not repeat in the house the problems of a local nature that they raised in the committee. I think it is time that parliament, and particularly the government, gave some consideration to adopting this procedure.
I am aware also that unless our parliamentary committees system changed, this would mean we would be running six or seven months on the estimates of the various departments. It might be necessary for members of the steering committee to give consideration to priorities for various departments. If they gave priorities, obviously this department would get top priority. Since I have been here, Mr. Chairman, I have been shocked at the things that go on under the table in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I have always felt that one of the weaknesses was the minister. Certainly, the weakness has been repeated and magnified in the appointment of the present minister who made a statement not long ago that got me into a good deal of trouble. He told the house he had complete confidence in his officials. At the time I said he was the only one in the house who did have complete confidence in them. I think that was true. The next day I received a telephone call from the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration who told me, "You had a problem and you asked me to do something about it; you can forget about it now because I have no intention of answering your requests in the future."

If this had not been a telephone call that man would have been before the bar of this house because it certainly is a breach of his rights and privileges and a breach of my rights as a member of parliament.
In view of what the minister said, I should like to point out who this little god almighty is who sits in the seat of a senior civil servant in this department. He is a man by the name of Isbister. Isbister, according to Canadian Who's Who, is a B.A., Ph.D.; Canadian public service; economist and was born at Winnipeg, Manitoba in 1914. It goes on to say various things about him. He was a teacher of mathematics at the University of Manitoba,
1934-	35; did actuarial work for the Sun Life Insurance Company of Canada, Montreal,
1935-	39; instructor of economics, Harvard, 1942-45; assistant dominion statistician, bureau of statistics, 1945-47; assistant director, economics branch, department of reconstruction and supply, 1947-49; director, international trade relations branch, Department of Trade and Commerce, 1949-57; promoted to assistant deputy minister there, 1957-58. Then it goes on to mention Zea Psi -I suppose that is a club; Unitarian, his religion, and his club, Cercle Universitaire; home, 19 Madawaska drive, Ottawa.
You know, Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely nothing in there to warrant his being appointed deputy minister of citizenship and immigration. Then I should like to quote from an article in the Ottawa Journal, January 25, 1963 which says:
A former assistant deputy minister in the finance department recently suggested that out of clear compassion tenure of such office should be limited to three year periods.
Then there should be a measure of going out to graze, in some field of government where constant pressures are less.
This may be his interpretation of being a deputy minister in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and I think it has been the opinion of several of his predecessors, but we are going to have a rotten mess in that department until we finally get somebody as deputy minister who will give some leadership and create for the department the respect which we have for every other department and its senior officials. I think he is in a class much below the average class of junior civil servants and that he has no right whatever to hold the office of deputy minister in that department.


Hubert Badanai: On a point of order, I think the hon. member is going beyond the point of good taste when he indulges in such a vicious attack on one of our senior civil
Interim Supply
servants. Whatever this gentleman's shortcomings may be, if there are any, the use of this type of language against one of our senior civil servants is not called for. I regret it very much and I would ask the hon. member in all sincerity to withdraw the remarks he has made about the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration.


William Arnold Peters: I have no intention of withdrawing them and, what is more, the next time the estimates of this department come before us I will have his complete history and do the job which should be done with this type of civil servant. Let me tell you what the case was, Mr. Chairman. This was the case he told me he was not going to have anything more to do with. It concerned one of my constituents, a woman who has been living in this country for some 60 years and who has raised a family in my part of the country. Over a number of years she has been applying for citizenship, without success, probably-this is not within my own knowledge-because she had some connection with an organization which was not felt to be in her own interest or in the interest of the country. This happened, I understand, many years ago. I suggested that if this woman kept applying for citizenship, and if her applications were accepted by the local court, but rejected later by the department, why should the department not advise her that there was no point in her going through this process year after year, only to be turned down by the department. I suggested that if there was no intention of allowing her to become a citizen, then at least the department should have the courtesy to say she did not appear to meet the requirements and there was no point in continuing her applications. This was a simple case which arose in my own constituency. I believe this senior civil servant far overstepped the bounds within which he had responsibility in the remarks he made, and I believe there should be no discrimination against me, in respect to the normal relations I have with the department, on account of the observations I am making this afternoon on the floor of the house.
If this is the kind of civil servant we have in the department, I do not want this kind of civil servant, and I think every member of the house will resent the fact that such a statement has been made by him. I think it is wise to question whether this man is qualified or capable of holding his present position and I would like the parliamentary secretary to rise and tell us one good qualification

Interim Supply
In my opinion this will also involve the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, because I believe they play a large role in this matter. If the minister gives consideration to this request at all, I would like him to arrange for light to be shed on some of the operations of the department in this connection, because obviously the R.C.M.P., through their security and intelligence branch, must share some of the responsibility with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I have found that the problems I have come across with regard to citizenship have in many instances flowed from the reports made by the R.C.M.P. security and intelligence branch, many of them being years and years old.
I make these two requests, Mr. Chairman, and if this government does not want to get into trouble, I think they will give consideration to them. I honestly see the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as the weakest in our departmental system, the weakest department in the government today and the one that poses the greatest danger to the government if it does not face up to its responsibilities and do something to correct some of the ills of that department.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, my first words must be of a complimentary nature to the hon. member for Port Arthur who has been following the course of this discussion with considerable interest.


Mr. Macdonald:: Fort William.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, the hon. member for Fort William, who has been following the course of this discussion carefully and has been sufficiently interested in this important debate to make an intervention. I know that the hon. member for Fort William is vitally interested in the subject of citizenship and immigration from a personal standpoint as well as from the standpoint of his responsibilities as parliamentary secretary to the minister. I am glad that at least one member of the government, one member of the Liberal party, is following the important discussion that is taking place. As I rose to speak, Mr. Chairman, I heard many voices from the other side saying "Carried".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Hope springs eternal.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I think this is just about the depth of the interest of the great majority of the

government supporters in this important subject. I am particularly amazed that these voices should be heard following the criticisms and accusations that were presented to this committee by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Timmins. He has made some serious charges.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Timiskaming.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Timiskaming, yes. He has made some serious charges and has put forward some helpful suggestions. He has made one helpful suggestion in particular with regard to a department of this importance. It is particularly important because it involves the basic rights of Canadians and fellow humans. He has suggested that this department be referred to a special committee on estimates so that it might be considered in depth. I hope, in view of the criticisms which have been made, that this recommendation will be put before the government and accepted.
I think it is a revealing commentary that this committee of the House of Commons should be considering interim supply on this last day of July, July 31. There was a time in the parliamentary process when estimates were given priority treatment, it being recognized that a careful scrutiny of the expenditures of government departments was one of the basic functions of the annual parliamentary session. This business of providing supply for Her Majesty based on the age old cry of freedom-no taxation without representation-has been ignored by the present government, as testified to by the fact that at this late date in the parliamentary year we have to resort to the procedure of discussing in depth the various departments on the government's motion for interim supply, which will enable the government to finance its operations on an emergency basis until such time as it can get approval of its main estimates.
I can remember the days in this house when the Liberals were in power almost in perpetuity and used to resort to the device of leaving estimates till the end of the parliamentary year.


Mr. Robichaud:: That is better than not presenting any at all, as you did.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This was the procedure of the former Liberal government, based on the premise that the July heat would create a sense of urgency for the adjournment of parliament on the part of both opposition and government, with the result that the estimates

would be given the minimum of examination. And the government proceeded on that basis.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: You did not present any for two years.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I shall deal with these interjections in a moment. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the new Liberal government, which my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm refers to as the "same old bunch", is still in fact the same old bunch and has resorted to this threadworn method of leaving the estimates to the July heat in the hope that the opposition will fold their tents and quietly steal away, and will not cause too much concern to the government.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is that why you did not present any?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: However, I would remind hon. members opposite that they are not faced with a docile opposition. They are faced with a responsible opposition which recognizes as its chief responsibility the importance of scrutinizing estimates department by department.
I am equally amazed, Mr. Chairman, by the reaction of our good friends in the press gallery. I can remember 10 years ago, when we used to rush through estimates, the headlines were something to this effect: "Opposition neglects its responsibilities and fails to give proper attention to the careful examination of the estimates".


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: We are not on estimates.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My hon. friend, who has only been in the house two years, does not yet realize where he is. He says we are not on estimates. The other term for estimates is supply, in case he is not aware of it, and I think we are on interim supply at the moment.
The cry today is that examination of the estimates is obstruction-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Boredom.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -and that is the sentiment which has been expressed by various public media across the country. The Minister of National Health and Welfare says it is boredom. If she can call the charge made by the hon. member for Timiskaming boredom, she is very derelict in her ministerial responsibility, particularly her responsibility for such a vital department as health and welfare, which overlaps citizenship and immigration in its concern for human welfare.
Interim Supply
There were one or two observations made from across the floor as I commenced my observations to the effect that it is better to present estimates late than not present them at all. I would remind hon. members opposite that that situation occurred during a period when the Conservative party was leading this house as a minority government and the avowed intention as expressed by the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, was to defeat the government by using every obstruction tactic available. That is on the record of Hansard and is indicative of the sort of irresponsible role which the opposition of that day performed.


An hon. Member:: We did that because you were not competent.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My hon. friends also intimate that they were protesting against an incompetent government of that day. My hon. friend in the back row-


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Hamilton West.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My hon. friend from Hamilton West suggests that they were protesting the inadequacies of the government.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did not say that. They are the hon. member's words.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The protest at that time, Mr. Chairman, was to the effect that the Conservative party as a government was fiscally irresponsible and economically incompetent. We now know that as a result of the economic and fiscal policies of the former Conservative government Canada moved into an era of economic expansion which is unprecedented, and I am not just drawing that statement out of the air. If my hon. friend from Hamilton West will read the reports of the various banks, the economic analyses which come across his desk and will look at the statistical charts, he will find that they all concur with that viewpoint. As a matter of fact, just this morning while listening to the C.B.C. news report there was a statement to the effect that last year Canada enjoyed the largest increase in commodity exports in its history; I think the figure was 49 per cent. This was due to devaluation of the dollar, a step which was irresponsibly criticized by the irresponsible opposition of those days; when the gimmick of criticizing the so-called "Diefenbuck" became one of the chief propaganda tactics of that irresponsible opposition.
Having indulged in those preliminary remarks I return to the point I was making.

Interim Supply
that it is a revealing commentary that we have to resort to this method to carry out one of the most important functions of the parliamentary process. I trust that our friends who communicate what goes on in parliament to the public at large will stress the point, as they used to stress the point ten years ago when the opposition failed to deal adequately with estimates, that we are only discharging our responsibility in the best way we know how under the circumstances.
Again I would support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Timiskaming that a department as important as the Department of Citizenship and Immigration should come under careful examination in a committee on estimates, so that some of the criticisms levelled at the department could be dealt with fully. It certainly seems apparent we are not going to get any reply in committee of the whole, so the government should take it upon itself to be sufficiently responsible to provide some parliamentary medium through which replies and satisfactory explanations can be made to these observations.
I have long been interested in the work of the department. Up until quite recent times, there was no doubt about it that there was a discriminatory bias operating in the functions of the department. In the immediate post-war period, when there was a surge of humani-tarianism in reaction to the barbarism of world war II, the position of the department in respect to its processing of intending immigrants became increasingly inconsistent. It was becoming increasingly difficult to keep up the camouflage that no discrimination existed in the department.
Why do I say there was discrimination? Well, I refer to the immigration policy that was laid down by a former prime minister, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, who said that nothing should be done that would disturb the ethnic and cultural balance of this nation, a statement as elusive as conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription. But it definitely had overtones of discrimination, and this was demonstrated in the attitude toward the Japanese Canadians during world war II, and similar episodes of that kind.


Mr. Francis:: Can the hon. member inform the committee when the statement attributed to the late Mr. King was made, and his source?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The source of that statement was a speech made in the house by the then minister, Hon. Walter Harris, who referred to the policy of the department at that time and based it upon the policy statement

made by right hon. Mr. King. I haven't the quotation before me. It is in Hansard and I can get it for the hon. member and put it on the record if he so desires.
It was obvious that there was this element of discrimination. If my hon. friend from Carleton doubts that point I can refer to personal experiences that were mine during the early 1950's, with respect to Chinese immigration. Being particularly interested in the subject I concerned myself with many of the difficult Chinese cases which were particularly pertinent at the time, because of the Hong. Kong situation. For example, I could tell him of an instance-and this was the policy of the day as laid down in the regulations-where, because the only immigrants from Hong Kong who could enter were the unmarried children of Canadian Chinese, or their wives, a family tragedy occurred due to the inability of the married son of a Canadian Chinese family to enter Canada. He was the only member of the family, but notwithstanding many attempts to have the regulations changed he was declared inadmissible, which resulted in the suicide of his father. This typifies the lack of humanitarianism within the department but, as I suggested, there was a change in the mood and the spirit with regard to immigration matters, not only in Canada but in many other parts of the world.
It was part of the winds of change that resulted from the tragedy of world war II. It was a broad world wide wave of humanitarianism. It resulted from the emergence of new nations out of the holocaust of war. It resulted from the fact that the world had become a veritable whispering gallery and that we realized no man was an island. But nothing was done. I could go on and refer to the work of the United Nations, its educational and information work, and to such voluntary groups in Canada as the Canadian citizens council and the Canadian council of Christians and Jews, all of which helped to create an entirely new atmosphere of public opinion. However, the major breakthrough did not come until 1962. I want to pay tribute to Hon. Ellen Fairclough, who was the first lady in Canada to occupy ministerial responsibility and added a woman's humanitarian spirit to the discharge of her responsibilities in administering the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
A fundamental change occurred in the regulations in February, 1962, which did away once and for all with this element of discrimination based on racial considerations.


Stanley Ronald Basford: If, as the hon. member says, the former government did away with discrimination, why is it that Vancouver Canadian Chinese did not vote Conservative in 1962 and 1963?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Well, I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of the Liberal propaganda machine, but I know it is very effective in working on this new technique of hidden persuasion.


Mr. Byrne:: Jealousy gets you nowhere.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am not jealous at all because I am not interested in modern techniques of hidden persuasion, which have come under the careful scrutiny of responsible social scientists and have been found to be most dangerous to our free way of life. I am merely stating a fact, that the new regulations placed the whole problem of immigration on an entirely non-discriminatory basis, at least from a racial standpoint.
For example, it is now possible to admit anyone to Canada provided they have the skills and training required. The old criterion, disturbance of the ethnic and cultural balance, was definitely discriminatory. Now the criterion is skill and training, and it is also possible to bring in unsponsored immigrants on this basis. Formerly the only unsponsored immigrants who could come to Canada were those from countries within the very narrow category of the old commonwealth and western Europe. Those are the words that were used and they meant the non-coloured commonwealth countries. There are now no restrictions, and this has been evidenced by the recent increases in immigration from sources which were formerly rigidly restricted.
It is true that the regulations were changed, but that still does not resolve the problem because the success of the new regulations is dependant on how they are going to be administered. It is still possible to have discrimination through administration. I should like to know from the minister through his parliamentary secretary how many staff are provided in such places as Athens, the West Indies and Hong Kong, which are areas vitally interested in emigration to Canada and from which there is a comparatively small flow of immigrants at the present time. What kind of office space is provided for processing immigrants from these countries? If there is insufficient staff and inadequate office facilities you can exercise discrimination, of course, by administrative procedures.
Interim Supply
I was in Hong Kong a year ago and took it upon myself to visit our immigration office there.


An hon. Member:: You did not sign a wheat deal.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Someone has said I did not sign a wheat deal. There was no necessity to sign a wheat deal because that had already been done by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, an act for which he was severely criticized by the Liberal opposition. Inasmuch as that topic has been introduced by the hon. member, may I say that I found Canadian prestige to be high in Hong Kong, because of the contacts that had been made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle who was then minister of agriculture.
I went to the immigration office there and I could readily understand why it required months to process applications. In fact, I worked for three years on an immigration case from Hong Kong.


Mr. Gray:: Under your government.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I could understand why it took months, if not years, in order to process immigration cases from that country. The regulations have now cleared the way, but the regulations will mean nothing unless the administrative procedures are such as to facilitate the implementation of the regulations. The new minister was in Hong Kong a few months ago and he indicated that improvements were going to be made in this respect. I hope it will be possible either in the house, or in the committee that I trust will be set up, for him to give an outline of the improvements that have been made.
I could spend some time on the problems of citizenship and immigration but I do not want to delay the committee in this regard, other than to re-emphasize that there is now abroad in Canada and in the world the spirit of humanitarianism that was recognized by the former Conservative administration and which led to the then minister, Hon. Ellen Fair dough, bringing in enlightened regulations. I trust that the new administration will act in the same spirit that motivated her and the former government, the spirit that allowed a number of refugees to come to Canada from Hong Kong during a critical period there, the spirit which provided refuge in Canada for tuberculosis victims from the refugee camps of Europe and other parts of the world.
I think that Mr. T. G. McCormack, a businessman and the president of Dominion
Stores, reflected the attitude of the business

Interim Supply
community in regard to these matters when at the annual meeting of his company he suggested that Canada admit a million underprivileged refugees as a centennial project. This is the spirit that is abroad in the land and in the world and I hope it will not be stifled or stymied by the new administration. Like the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who said he has read the speeches and press releases of the former minister and the new minister, I say that the speeches have been fine and have expressed exalted sentiments about the desirability of carrying on this process, but nowhere has there been any expression of a concrete policy and program.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Why was immigration so low in 1962?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I cannot hear the mumblings of the hon. member. If he wishes to ask a question I will be quite happy to listen to him.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I was wondering why immigration was so abnormally low in 1962?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Immigration has fluctuated from time to time in the history of Canada. I think the only explanation that can be given for that year which was prior to the introduction of the new regulations, is the discriminatory aspect of the former regulations which provided for immigrants from western Europe and the old commonwealth countries only, and these sources of immigrants were drying up because of the rising prosperity in Europe and the United Kingdom.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: How about Canada in those days?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think that is the only explanation for that.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, these hon. gentlemen-


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I am only asking whether he will allow a question. He just has to say yes or no.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -on the government side are full of curiosity and questions. You would think I was the minister of immigration. I wish they would question their own minister instead of sitting back like trained seals and doing nothing.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I asked the hon. member if he would allow a question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have allowed many questions.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: The hon. member was a minister in the former government and I believe he was a minister in March of 1959. Will he tell me why on March 19, 1959-I may have the date wrong-an order in council was passed by the former government in which Hon. Ellen Fairclough was minister of citizenship and immigration which refused admission to this county of sisters and brothers from any country except Great Britain and France, and then substituted the new regulations? Were these enlightened regulations which were passed in a spirit of humanitarianism? Would the hon. member tell me why this was done? It was only after a great uproar throughout the country that the order in council was rescinded by the then minister. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would tell me why that order in council was passed, when he was a minister of the government at that time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is wrong on two counts. I was not a member of the government at that time.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I was not sure.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I did not become a member of the government until November of 1960 so I cannot answer for the order in council.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, I would say that the hon. member should have been recognized earlier.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He can get that information by placing a question on the order paper or perhaps asking a question of the new minister.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: But this was passed by a minister of your government at the time. I just do not want to be misinterpreted, Mr. Chairman. I am asking the member a question about an order in council which was passed under the ministerial responsibility of a minister of the government of which the hon. member was a member.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member will have an opportunity to question-


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: On a point of order-


An hon. Member:: There is no point of order.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: The hon. member has been speaking here about the exalted spirit of humanitarianism of the former minister of citizenship and immigration under whom

these regulations were passed. I am simply stating to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, that he refuses to answer a question concerning something which is contrary to what he has been saying.


John Angus MacLean: I should like to point out that this, by the farthest stretch of the imagination, is not a point of order. The hon. member may wish to enter into the debate at this time or there may be statements made with which he does not agree. However, this is not a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am interested-


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I think that the hon. member-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order.


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


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; I think we are getting ourselves completely confused between points of order and points of privilege. However, I should advise the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that his time has expired.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I shall not prolong the debate. I had not intended to get into it, but a remark has been made by one hon. member which really requires my saying a word. I think some hon. members in the house know that both before and since I have been in this house I have attempted to be a vigorous critic of what I thought were the mistakes and deficiencies in the administration of the immigration department. I had no intention of speaking about it at this time, although on future occasions if changes are not made I may inform the ministry I will resume the attacks that I think are justifiable so far as the administration is concerned.
One hon. member in the house referred to a particular civil servant. I think it would be only proper to say, having had a great deal of experience with the department and the particular civil servant, that the deputy minister, who has only assumed responsibility for this department since January, has been both fair and capable as well as conscientious in looking into matters that were referred to him. I, personally, wish to dissociate myself from any attack made on him as an individual. I do not want to enter into any controversy with any hon. member about a particular incident. The deputy minister, as well as others, can make mistakes. Perhaps
Interim Supply
he did make a mistake. I do not want to enter into that. However, I believe it would be wrong if I, as the hon. member who perhaps had the greatest opportunity of dealing with this particular deputy, had not stood up in the house and said I have found him to be capable and conscientious.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as the former minister of citizenship and immigration, I wish to associate myself with the remarks just made by the hon. member for Greenwood. It is for me a source of pride that I should have been the minister of the department of citizenship and immigration when the particular deputy minister, about whom some remarks have just been uttered, was appointed. I must say that in the last few months in which I held office in that department, due to Mr. Isbister the department regained momentum, which is continuing and which will be to the best advantage of this department and the people of Canada. I must say this, that I know him to be competent, capable and also an objective man.


William Arnold Peters: Before the minister sits down, may I ask him a question? Inasmuch as the exchanges that take place in this house are somewhat heated and sometimes not in the nicest language, does he feel that a deputy minister has a right to inform a member of parliament he has no intention of answering the requests of that member? Does the minister feel that the deputy minister, in his role as deputy minister, should get into a partisan discussion that took place on the floor of this house?


Guy Favreau: I was not here when the exchange took place with regard to this particular deputy minister. I am not apprised of the facts. My only purpose here was to take this occasion to make the remark I did and to state my own personal satisfaction and pride in the fact that the deputy minister was appointed during the last months of my administration.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister another question? Will he ascertain whether this deputy minister intends to inform other members, because of exchanges on the floor, that he has no intention of handling constituency immigration and citizenship problems for a member? Will he make that inquiry?


Guy Favreau: Of course, it is a well known fact that a deputy is answerable only to his minister. I think this really relates to the particular circumstances concerning this dep-

Canada Elections Act uty. It is a matter for the minister to deal with. So far as my own statement is concerned, it related to my personal appraisal of the man.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being five o'clock, shall I rise and report progress?
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to a consideration of private members' business listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



Francis Andrew Brewin: the second reading of Bill No. C-38, to amend the Canadian Elections Act (limiting election expenses).
He said: I do not wish to be deterred by any false modesty from saying that in my view if this bill were passed it would be one of the most important items in legislation which this house has dealt with, and I therefore invite the close attention of members of the house to this proposed legislation.
Bill No. C-38, to amend the Canada Elections Act, is designed to achieve its purpose by adding a new section to the act. This new section is designed to provide a reasonable and enforceable limitation on campaign expenses in federal elections. By the terms of the bill, permission to spend money in an election is restricted to two groups of people, the official agents of government candidates, and the parties. The restrictions as set out in the bill would allow the official agent to expend a maximum of 20 cents per elector on his roll. If we take constituencies of average size, containing 50,000 voters, this would mean that a limit of $10,000 would be imposed as far as the expenditure of a candidate is concerned. This, in my view, is surely enough-some people may think it is too much-to enable a candidate to conduct an adequate campaign.
Even more important, this bill proposes to limit the expenditure by parties to a maximum of 10 cents per elector in each constituency in which the party runs candidates. This would mean, if a party was running candidates in all the constituencies, an expenditure in the neighbourhood of $600,000. There is no restriction, of course, as to how the party may decide to spend the money, but there is provision for accountability and
[Mr. Favreau.}

the publication of details both as to the source and as to the expenditure of campaign funds.
The amount of $600,000 per party may seem like a lot of money but it is very much less than the two older parties, at least, are reputed to have spent in a number of elections in the past, and I suggest it is quite enough to permit the conduct of a campaign of moderate proportions to let the people of Canada know what the different parties stand for.
The bill provides for sworn statements setting out in detail the sources of election funds spent for political purposes, as well as the amounts disbursed by individual candidates or by agents. It also contains a clause, to which I invite the attention of hon. members, establishing the right of any person, corporate association or trade union to contribute to election campaigns, subject to the broad general limits contained in the bill.
It is my belief that this bill, or a similar bill, would mark a most important step forward in establishing a genuine democracy. The basic idea of democracy, as I understand it, is that the government is the servant of the people, that is, of all the people-the rich as well as the poor, the strong as well as the weak, the worker and the farmer as well as the businessman. Our system of regular elections and secret balloting is the machinery whereby we seek to preserve this relationship between government and people.
But it is my view that we have in Canada today only a half democracy or what might be called the caricature of a democracy, and one of the reasons for this situation is that in our election of representatives to parliament we do not give either the candidate or the electors a fair choice or a fair chance. We allow the scales to be weighted heavily in favour of candidates and parties who can secure large campaign funds. I suggest that if we were discussing a game we would not tolerate the fixing of the handicaps in a way which would ensure the victory of one side or the other by favouring those who could lay their hands on the most money. But we do this with respect to something far more important than any game, that is, in the choosing of the people who will be our representatives in parliament.
It seems to me that democracy today is threatened by the techniques of advertising saturation made possible by huge campaign funds. Individual leaders and parties are sold with the same banality as soap. In a recent election campaign I heard one party leader boast over the radio that money was no

problem in his campaign at all, and I do not think it is any coincidence that this same party leader-so we are informed, and, I think correctly-had his personality remade during the course of the election by public relations advisers who apparently found him not entirely satisfactory. In the course of the election they managed to modify his personality and create a public image which, it seems, did not correspond very much with the normal attributes of this particular individual. I do not know whether any members of the house have gathered the name of the man to whom I am referring; I would not wish to make any derogatory remarks about someone who has, since that election, occupied an important office.
But if we are to restore democracy today, against the threats of high-powered advertising campaigns financed by big money, we must limit campaign expenditures. We have been given a lead in this matter by the government of the province of Quebec which in 1963 enacted a statute limiting campaign funds. My bill-I will admit it frankly-is modelled upon the Quebec legislation in this field, though there are differences in detail. I think the Quebec legislature was a little too generous in the amount it allowed to be spent. Britain, which also has legislation limiting campaign funds, is far more modest in the amount it finds necessary to allow to enable the parties to put their cases before the electors. In my bill I have chosen a figure which lies somewhere between the two.
There are other reasons why this bill should be passed. I do not intend to give a historical account of the influence on governments of campaign funds from interested sources. This has been a feature of Canadian history, and I think he would be a bold man who would assert that such influence does not still exist, perhaps in a modified form. But whether it exists or not to any extent at the present time, I suggest it is clearly wrong and undemocratic that there should be undisclosed contributions made to parties for campaign purposes, usually I imagine without the extraction of any specific undertaking but nevertheless designed to secure a coincidence of view between the party and the people who make the contributions. I am putting this in delicate language but I think the facts of life are known to most members of the house.
There is another aspect to which I think we should pay attention at the present time. I am not a person who wrings his hands in alarm at the amount of American invest-
Canada Elections Act
ment in this country and the large extent of United States ownership of our business resources. I think if we have enough gumption in our own country to govern and manage our own affairs and direct our own investments intelligently the problem of American investment would not perhaps be as serious as some people think. I admit there are differences of opinion on this matter. But when we find that more than 50 per cent of our manufacturing industry-I think my figures are correct; it is certainly close to that-is owned by people who are not citizens of this country, and we have large, undisclosed campaign funds, I suggest that in order to prevent the possibility of the influence of those who are not citizens of this country on our political system, through the contribution of campaign funds, we should provide for a limitation, for one thing, and publicity as to the sources of these campaign funds for another.
I think the people of this country have the right to expect that those who are proud-they should be proud-to contribute to the parties they believe in, should have the courage to let their names and the facts be published in respect of these things. I know that goes against the grain and tradition of some people, perhaps, in this house, but I suggest it would be an important step in the direction of a real democracy. The steady influence of large campaign funds in my view distorts and destroys democracy.
This particular bill that I have put before the house I do not suggest for a minute is the last word on the subject. I think that if this bill were referred to the committee on privileges and elections, its details could be studied, it could be improved so as to make sure that the enforcement was adequate, and discussion could be had by members of the house as to whether the figures are right or wrong. But I do say, and I say as clearly as I can, that it would be a tremendous step forward if we would either pass this bill- and I am not quite that optimistic-or at least refer it to the committee on privileges and elections.
I say, particularly to hon. members opposite, with all their protestations about their concern for democracy and their progressive view, that these protestations will be tested by their attitude toward this particular bill. I would be very happy if they would say, "We have a better bill that we are prepared to promote ourselves". But unless they are prepared to do something like that, I say their protestations of progressive Liberalism mean nothing. If they are prepared to stick to the bad, old system of large, unsolicited,

Canada Elections Act
uncontrolled campaign funds and do nothing about it, then I say that the mask is off as far as I am concerned.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I do not think they will do that for a minute. As I look at hon. members opposite and know their concern about this matter, I feel sure they will accept this legislation and, if not accept it in total, at least not kill it by the familiar device, the disreputable device, I think, as far as members of this house are concerned, of talking it out because they are afraid to stand up and be counted on the issue of the bill.


Mr, Francis:: Who talked out the Bell Telephone bill yesterday? It wasn't our side.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am sorry; I was not here, so the question is one that I cannot answer.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member who has expressed his opinions concerning talking out, my question to him is, was it not a member of his party who yesterday talked out a bill in this house in the private members' hour?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues inform me that they did talk out a bill yesterday, which was a very bad bill, and they will probably do the same thing again. This is a very good bill, and anybody who wants to kill it is doing no service to this country.
Parliament and democracy were not created at one time or by some simple edict; they were a growth, a development. Democracy has grown. There had to be reform bills; there had to be changes in the extension of the franchise; there had to be the elaboration of election laws; there had to be the development of secret ballots and things of this sort. Democracy, therefore, has been a matter of development and growth over many centuries. I challenge members of the house to support this bill and show that in our day and in our generation we are prepared to make democracy more real and more effective, and remove patent and obvious defects in our democracy. I appeal particularly to hon. members on the benches opposite not to drop this idea but to show the concern and sincerity of their profession of interest in democracy by supporting this bill, or at least by not killing it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the hon. member a question. I think he will realize it is not a frivolous one. In the amendment to the Canada Elections Act he uses the term "party". I wonder if he could assist the house by giving his definition

of that expression in the context of the Canada Elections Act, and his amendment.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a good enough lawyer to know that the precise definitions of these things are a matter of draftsmanship. To be quite honest, I do not recall whether the word "party" is defined in the Canada Elections Act at the present time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is not.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Then I suggest this would be an admirable exercise for the many intelligent people who are members of the privileges and elections committee. We all know what a party is. We know, however, that the definition of it may not be a very simple matter. If this bill is referred to the committee, I am sure we could remedy any deficiencies of this sort. The word "party" is used, incidentally, in the Quebec legislation. I do not know whether they have a definition of it. I would be prepared to assume that their definition would be satisfactory.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was the member who was talking last night at six o'clock. My question of privilege is that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) has incorrectly suggested to the house that that private bill was talked out last night. I think he probably realizes, as other members do, that a private bill is not talked out in the sense referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in respect of a public bill introduced by a private member, because as we know this kind of bill does not come back again for consideration in the session, which is unlike the situation with respect to private members' bills.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that when an hon. member has the floor in this house and keeps talking until the time allotted for the consideration of the business has expired, he is talking the bill out; and this is not the first time it has happened with respect to that particular piece of legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I was here yesterday when that bill was being discussed. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis), supported by a member on his side of the house, consumed almost 40 minutes of the committee's time and prevented other hon. members from speaking.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That is partly correct, Mr. Speaker, but it is simply not correct in terms of the amount of time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am just wondering whether there is really a question of privilege in the matter raised by the hon. member. I would suggest that we return to the bill now before the house.


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has not exaggerated the importance of the subject matter brought before the house in the present bill. He said we live in a half democracy. The implication in that statement, either intentionally or otherwise, is that if this bill or one similar to it were to be enacted, we would live in a genuine democracy. Frankly, I am somewhat sceptical about that claim.


Francis Andrew Brewin: More genuine.


John B. Stewart: I believe there would be an improvement, but I think we should not delude ourselves by thinking that the mere enactment of this particular bill would suddenly bring us into all the glories that are popularly attached to the term democracy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That was not the suggestion at all.


John B. Stewart: When hon. members make speeches and use terms like "half a democracy" when denouncing a particular situation, the clear implication is that if their measure were carried the whole thing they are praising would be achieved. If they do not wish that implication to be drawn, they should be more exact in their language.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It would increase the democratic system to 60 per cent.


John B. Stewart: Our system of government is one which we refer to frequently as a democratic representative government. The electorate in each constituency selects its representative, and each representative comes to the House of Commons to debate the questions of public policy confronting the country, and eventually, we hope, to decide those questions. The elected representatives are very important in our constitutional system, and consequently the election of those representatives is important. We do not have in this country plebiscitarian democracy; we have a representative system of government.
That brings me directly to the question of election expenses, for elections, as the hon. member for Greenwood has said, do cost a lot of money. Each serious candidate wants to get elected; otherwise, he would not be running. Each party wants to elect as 20220-397J
Canada Elections Act
many of its candidates as possible; otherwise, presumably, the party would not field its candidates. But what happens? Once an election begins-and it goes on a long time- rumours start to spread that such and such a candidate is spending a fabulous amount of money. Immediately his competitors feel obliged to do better. Parties try to outdo each other. And I suspect that newspapermen, radio and television station proprietors, and the like are not above implying quietly to candidates and parties that unless they are a little more forthcoming with their money their chances of convincing the electorate to support them are likely to be small. In other words, election expenses tend to escalate during elections, and parties and candidates tend to overspend their budgets.
Quite aside from the function of electing representatives to sit in the House of Commons, elections serve another purpose, as indicated by the hon. member for Greenwood. In our democracy we cannot rely on the newspapers, radio announcers and commentators, and television announcers and commentators alone to put the case to the electorate. The candidates and the parties themselves must take their case to the high court of the electorate. This means that when we talk of limiting campaign expenditures we must talk about it in a way consistent with the other function of elections. The candidates must have enough money committed to their use to put their case before the electorate through the available media. This is an essential part of our system of democratic representative government, and it costs money.
I hope all of us in this house would agree that the amount of money a man has, be he rich or poor, has no direct bearing on his ability to be a good member of this House of Commons. We realize that the older a man is, if he has been successful in his business or profession, the more money he is likely to have.
The situation is this. Competitions take place in which money is almost always a necessary requirement for electoral success; yet the amount of money a man has is largely irrelevant to his ability to contribute to the good government of the country.
We all know that most candidates receive contributions to their campaign funds. Unfortunately the notion seems to prevail that there is something extremely sordid about this. It is amusing to see how some of the academic enthusiasts of representative government turn righteous and sad when they


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Stewart) when he says the government is now giving some very serious consideration to the problem of what might be called escalating, or at least, increasing election campaign funds. In my opinion the bill presented to us this afternoon by the hon. member for Greenwood is far from perfect in what the results of its application would bring about, but at the same time I think it is time the members of this house spent a few minutes discussing the problem that is raised by the introduction of this bill.
Canada Elections Act
First of all, the hon. member sets some limits in respect to the amount that each candidate or his official agent may spend within the boundaries of his constituency. I believe he has the amount of 20 cents per elector. I can understand that this is enforceable. I am sure that, regardless of where the funds come from, it is reasonable to assume that almost all of the money that would be spent by the candidate's official agent and his party organization would be confined within his constituency. So, while 20 cents may be too high, in my opinion it is more than adequate.
He goes on to provide in this bill:
In a general election the election expenses shall be limited as follows:
(a) by a party to a sum not exceeding in the aggregate (10c.) cents per elector in each electoral district in which such party has an official candidate;
I presume this clause applies to a national political party, but there is no provision in the bill showing how you will determine how much is spent within each constituency by a national party.
In almost all parts of Canada television signals transcend the boundaries of constituencies, for example in Vancouver, Regina and Lethbridge. I happen to know about Lethbridge because it is close to home, and so I will talk about it. The signal from the station in Lethbridge is beamed into three constituencies. It covers 25 per cent of the Medicine Hat constituency, all of the Lethbridge constituency and possibly half of the Macleod constituency. Are they going to take into consideration all these percentages when they allocate the amount that is effectively being spent within the boundaries of each of these constituencies?
There is another very important matter that must be considered when we are thinking of limiting the amount of money to be spent for advertising during an election campaign. I refer to C.B.C. free time broadcasting. We know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, under some formula that they do not follow anyway, allocates free time to what they consider to be national political parties that meet the conditions of a formula they have laid down. They allocate a certain amount of free time on this basis. But the allocation of free time is just as important and, in fact, in many ways more important than the question of expense money because we know that during election campaigns, or at any time, I believe, the C.B.C. does not sell time on a network basis to any political party. Therefore if there is to be an effective

Canada Elections Act
distribution of this kind of advertising it certainly cannot be done by limiting the amount of money each party is allowed to spend.
This raises a number of problems. It raises the problem of what is a proper allocation of time. Should it be done on a national scale from Vancouver island to Newfoundland? Should the percentage of time allocated be on the basis of the popular vote that a particular party received in the immediately preceding election? Should we take into consideration the different levels of support for a political party in various regions? And so on.
These are things that must be considered when one is thinking of restricting the amount of advertising a party can do during an election campaign. I know that prior to the 1962 election the C.B.C. informed the Social Credit party they would not be allowed any free time during the campaign. We took issue with this decision. The only one of the five conditions they laid down that we could not meet had to do with having elected members in the House of Commons. It is well known that all of our members were defeated in 1958, but every other condition had been met by our party. We had nominated a sufficient number of candidates, we had candidates in three or more provinces and we had had a national convention and had elected a national leader. We met all the other conditions contained in the regulations.
It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that during election campaigns there are no members of parliament. Parliament is dissolved and so this regulation could not apply. There were no political parties during the election campaign which had any representation in the House of Commons because the house had been dissolved. Whether or not this was the argument that changed their mind I do not know, but we were allocated a small amount of free time on the national C.B.C. network.
I agree with what the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said with regard to suspecting that large amounts of money are contributed to the campaign funds of certain political parties in the hope at least, whether or not strings are attached, that some action will be taken that will repay these people for the contributions they have made to these funds. I think the ideal situation would be for all the money a member wanted to spend to be collected within his own constituency. Then there would be no strings attached so far as anybody outside that constituency was

concerned and the member would only be responsible to the people he represented in the House of Commons. I am not suggesting I have a formula for setting up conditions that would lead to this ideal situation, but certainly I believe that members of the house should accurately represent the people who have elected them, with no strings attached to them by anyone beyond the border of their constituencies.
Much more could be said but there are only a few minutes left and I know that a number of members wish to speak on this subject. I believe that something should be done. No one in the house is so naive any more as to believe that the amount of money a candidate has at his disposal does not have a very direct influence on his chances of being elected. We know that good advertising requires the repetition of simple slogans in the newspapers and on television, and if a candidate is going to have a lot of repetition of his campaign slogans he has to have a lot of money to pay for this advertising. While I do not believe that the bill suggests solutions to all of the problems that members of the house know exist with regard to election campaigns, I think it is well that we have had some discussion of this subject.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for having introduced this private member's bill. I would agree with former speakers that it certainly raises a problem which we as members of parliament must face and consider I am somewhat surprised, however, at the manner in which the bill has been drafted by the hon. member, who we all know is a very learned and highly regarded counsel.
I have had something to do with the Canada Elections Act in that I am a member of the standing committee on privileges and elections. The first thing that strikes me about the bill, as has been pointed out, is that "party" is not defined. It is all very well for the hon. member to say that the members of the committee would be able to resolve this problem quickly, but I should like to point out to him that last session I suggested in that committee putting the party affiliation on the ballot. The whole question of what is a party came up and we were not able to resolve it successfully. My motion was defeated, mainly due to the efforts of the members of the official opposition.
As the representative of the largest constituency in the country on the basis of pop-

ulation, I am certainly interested in a formula whereby election expenses would be granted on the basis of the number of constituents in a particular riding. Under the formula proposed in the bill I would be able to spend in my constituency a total of $34,000, not including what the party, as indicated in the bill, would be able to spend. That sounds very attractive, Mr. Speaker. The only question is: Where would I get the $34,000 in the first place? I do not think it would be very helpful to me.
I would hope we might extend this principle to cover the salaries paid members of parliament. If we did I think we would get a little more action and unanimity with regard to redistribution because certainly I have not detected much encouragement for redistribution on the other side. I might say, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would suggest the extension of this bill to include the salaries of members of parliament under the same sort of formula, then in spite of my objection I would have to support the bill. It would certainly speed up redistribution. I can just hear those members from small constituencies who have been conducting a rather effective filibuster on this matter suddenly changing their tunes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Bring the bill forward again.


Maurice John Moreau: The house leader for the opposition tells us to bring the bill forward. I should like to say that when the bill was before the house there were members on the front benches opposite who told me they were going to filibuster it for 40 days if necessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that his comments now are not relevant?


Maurice John Moreau: There are other difficulties in connection with this bill which come to my mind, namely the definition of expenses. I should like to point out that in my own campaign, as well as the campaigns of other candidates in the Toronto area, volunteer workers made election signs, prepared material and this sort of thing. I do not know how you define these things. The time was donated, and so on. However, some candidates have to buy this election material and they would have to list these expenses. There is a difficulty here which would apply to a number of things. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) said independent groups of citizens may buy television time or may donate election signs or printed material. This would be a difficulty that is not sufficiently covered in this bill.
Canada Elections Act
It is my opinion-


M. Brewin:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask him a question?


Maurice John Moreau: Certainly.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It is perhaps a sort of doublebarrelled question. The hon. member has raised certain difficulties relating to the details of the bill. Would he tell the house if he is in favour of the principle? If he is in favour of the principle, does he not think it would be proper to allow the committee to deal with the difficulties he raises, rather than to kill the bill by having someone talk it out?


Maurice John Moreau: The hon. member asked me if I was in favour of the principle of the bill. I thought I made it clear at the outset of my remarks that I was in favour of the principle of the bill. I should like to consider myself as one of the strongest advocates for limiting campaign expenses. I should like also to support the argument which was made concerning some of the expenses being covered by the public treasury. I feel this is one of the most effective ways of equalizing the opportunities of candidates.
I believe that one of the things we must consider very soon in connection with this whole matter of campaign expenses concerns television time. I agree with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) that this is a problem. I think it is a growing problem and if we do not turn our attention to it very soon, it is one that is going to get away from us. I should like to suggest that no one should be allowed to buy time on televison either from the C.B.C. or the private networks. I feel this time should be provided to political parties and candidates as a public service and as a condition of the granting of a television licence.
I feel this whole question of television time is becoming a much more important factor in elections than many of us would like to admit, or perhaps than many of us realize. I feel it is a matter to which we must turn our attention immediately. I strongly urge the government to amend the Broadcasting Act to cover this problem. I feel it is a big hurdle that we have to overcome before the next election. In my opinion, there is no reason why private television stations that are granted a franchise in a particular area should not make some time available to candidates and parties, just as the C.B.C. does, on a free basis.

Canada Elections Act
The hon. member lor Medicine Hat raised a question concerning the allocation of time. I suggest this is a difficulty and that it can be overcome by action by the appropriate body. The board of broadcast governors should be involved in the allocation of this time and the working out of a formula. I am not interested in just how that is going to be done. I do suggest this is an area which demands top priority. I know that during some of the election campaigns, particularly in Toronto, some of the candidates were on television practically all of the time. I must say it did not do them a lot of good in the last campaign. However, it is a factor and it will be a factor for a long time. It is one that we have to face.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I believe
it is clear from what has been stated by all hon. members, in fact by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) himself, that this is a thoroughly bad bill. Applying his own criteria, this is a bill which should not be passed by the house. The hon. member, in presenting the bill, has obviously failed to grapple with the basic problem of defining a political party. What is the type of entity that should be covered by the bill? I do not believe the hon. member is entitled to get up in this house and say, "I have not touched on the main question involved in this issue but I think the house should give this bill approval in principle". I do not believe the bill should be given approval in principle. I feel this house can, without any hesitation at all, refuse to proceed with what is essentially a very badly put together piece of legislation.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have permission to call it six o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a minute to go.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I call it six o'clock? Is the house ready for the question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of that-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the hon. member a question? What objection has he to sending this bill to the committee on privileges and elections, after it has been approved in principle?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The point made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Moreau), namely that that particular com-

mittee has been grappling for two sessions with the problem of arriving at a decision as to the particular definition that is fundamental to this thing. I think that any real answer in this particular area requires a well thought out definition. If the hon. member wants to make a contribution in this area he has to sit down and consider the basic essentials necessary to answer the question, and not come forward with a bill such as this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Liberal hypocrisy at its best.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then discontinue voting with them.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to direct some questions to the acting house leader, whoever that may happen to be. There are three questions I should like to ask in order to assist the house in the conduct of the business next week. May I ask this, as question No. 1: Will the government, in response to the many requests made from this side of the house, refer three or four departments of estimates to special or standing committees? My second question is this: Will the government give an undertaking to the house that for the remainder of this session at least two full days a week will be set aside for a discussion of the main estimates, as has been the practice in other sessions? My third question is: If neither of these plans is followed, will the government let us know when during this session the main estimates are to be considered and how much time will be made available for that purpose?


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, first of all as to the referral of departmental estimates to standing committees, I may say that I could not undertake this without consultation with the ministers involved in the particular departments. However, I will indicate to him that I will take the matter up with the ministers involved.
The second question really deals with the order of business for the remainder of this portion of the session.

We have clearly indicated on previous occasions what the order of business will be. As soon as interim supply is concluded we will continue with the second reading of Bill No. C-lll respecting fiscal relations, and
31, 1964	6283
Business of the House carry this to its conclusion. Then we will enter upon the flag debate, which will be uninterrupted until it is concluded.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
6285
[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 3. 1964